Libertarians versus Lobbyists

by Matt Stoller, Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:47:30 PM EDT

There's a weird phenomenon right now where the gun rights groups are starting to circle around and find common cause with privacy advocates and media reform groups on the left. Gun rights groups were part of the DearAOL coalition, for instance, and now they are part of the coalition to protect freedom on the internet. For instance, Craig Fields of Gun Owners of America, said today:

"Whenever you see people on the far left and the far right getting together [to oppose the same bill]," said Craig Fields, director of InterNet operations for conservative gun advocacy group Gun Owners of America, it's a good indication that, "what Congress is getting ready to do is un-American."

Contrast this with Mike McCurry, lobbyist and co-Chair of astroturf group Hands off the Internet, on why he's involved in the HOTI coalition:

Look, I have to make a buck sure.

Perhaps there is principle behind McCurry's involvement in this fight, but I doubt it. Let's just say he really believes in his arguments. Fine. It doesn't really matter though. The only reason McCurry is in this fight is because he's being paid by an industry cartel. Gunowners, bloggers, librarians, internet users - we all have a compelling interest in the outcome of this fight. For someone like McCurry, the telecom industry is just another client. He's not an expert. He has nothing at stake. He's not principled. He has no history in internet communications. There is no reason his name should matter here. There's no reason to take him seriously.

He is just a paid shill in this fight. Treat him as such.

Tags: Astroturf, Mike McCurry, net neutrality (all tags)

Comments

8 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Libertarians versus Lobbyists

This is kind of a corollary, but I do believe that progressives should take advantage of the lax gun laws to buy firearms and learn how to use them.

You can't trust the government to protect you anymore and, chances are, they may wind up coming after you.

And, if that sounds nutty, a more practical reason can be seen in the way Bush handled Katrina. Face it, Bush can't manage a pony ride.

Can you imagine what it will be like if there's another major natural disaster or terrorist attack, or two or three together?

There'd be anarchy.

by Bush Bites 2006-04-24 02:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Libertarians versus Lobbyists

i'm more afraid i'll shoot myself

by David in Burbank 2006-04-24 06:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Libertarians versus Lobbyists

My mistrust of this government is exactly why I don't want them regulating the internet!

by oldhats 2006-04-25 04:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

McCurry a 'fallen idol' or something?

If the guy's a lobbyist, of course we're not going to trust him as far as we can throw him.

Or a pol or journo or anyone concerned in the grubby trade of politics - your good self (in the nicest possible way) included! Verify, verify, verify is surely the only safe motto.

I read this that, at some past stage, we would all have been treating McCurry's every word as gospel, but now, because he's lobbying for telecoms, he's gone to the Dark Side.

Why, of all those shilling for those interested in nixing net neutrality, should one single out McCurry, I wonder?

by skeptic06 2006-04-24 03:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Libertarians versus Lobbyists

C'mon Matt. I gave you a very principled argument about why progressives need investments in a robust Internet and why regulated net neutrality (the first real federal regulation of the Internet) is a bad idea. I worked on these issues when I got out of the White House and I believe I have the right position now. What's your answer to my argument? You yourself said this is not a partisan issue.
--Mike McCurry

by HandsOff CoChair1 2006-04-24 07:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Libertarians versus Lobbyists

Mike,
Its not really accurate to say that this would be the first federal regulation of the Internet. The reality is that the application of telco common-carriage requirements (which are, in principle very similar to net neutrality requirements) to Internet traffic was key to enabling the Internet and the ISP business to grow from nothing to something very large, important and beneficial in the dial-up days.

If cable and telephone companies aren't willing to invest in network upgrades to deliver a truly open Internet, then they should step aside and let local communities find creative (and unfettered) ways to raise the funds to do it themselves (BTW, does your principled opposition to regulation of the Internet apply to telco-backed bills that would restrict cities' ability to deploy municipal broadband networks to deliver Internet services?)

To cater to the demands of two duopolists that are trying to salvage business models based on outdated networks and excess market power so they can modestly enhance their networks without risk, while throttling Internet bandwidth and Internet-based competition to insure favorable treatment by Wall Street is a policy that benefits only the cable and telephone companies and their shareholders, not the American people.

Let's remember that the U.S. is ranked only about 13th in broadband penetration under today's "unregulated" duopoly regime. If pipe-owners want to leverage their excess market power to put the open Internet (which IS the Internet) in the slow lane so their walled-garden of articially-high-margin services can capture a larger share of service revenue, then I don't understand the "principle" of "not regulating the Internet" you refer to...this isn't regulation of the Internet, its regulation of the pipe owners who want to stifle the Internet through "private regulation" enabled by excess market power.

by mitchipd 2006-04-24 09:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Libertarians versus Lobbyists

Worse than astroturf. The name is extremely deceptive, even by the "caveat anus tuus" standards of astroturf naming. Kind of like a group of pedophiles calling themselves the "child protection league."

Don't underestimate libertarians; they were angry at Bush LONG on principle before the liberal blogosphere got off their asses.

by Bruce Godfrey 2006-04-25 04:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Libertarians versus Lobbyists

I have to agree with oldhats. It is curious to me that proponents of net neutrality transition so easily from lamenting the undue influence of lobbyists in Washington to advocating greater Washington control of the Internet. Does anyone really think that this legislation will not open a pandoras box of untoward influences on our Internet experience?

by tpwk 2006-04-25 08:06PM | 0 recs