Free Press, and similar groups who want to put the 1^st Amendment on its tail and let the government police private speech so that it’s “fair and balanced,” has been screaming of late about how PACs “corrupted” the SOPA debate.  What this roughly translates into – legal resources used to promote points of view they don’t like, such as those from the content owners’ reps, MPAA and RIAA, do not deserve 1^st Amendment protections.

Spoiled sports that they are, Free Press demands that those congressional representatives who received PAC support from the content industry promptly return it.

Pay no attention to all the “costless” lobbying and grassroots support coming from some large Internet “edge providers” (er, Google, etc.) to sink the bill, of course.  You see, free speech applies to Free Press’ friends, but no further.

The following pull quotes, the first from the Wall Street Journal, “We Are All Citizens United,” and the second from Manhattan Institute’s Ted frank, entitled “SOPA shows why we need limited government,” pick up on this rich irony.

Wall Street Journal:

…Speaking of money in politics, one more irony. The hallelujah chorus praising the online mobilization that brought down SOPA are the same folks who claim free business speech corrupts the political process. It seems like only yesterday that Mr. Obama was ripping the Supreme Court for enabling “America’s most powerful interests” with Citizens United.

…Remember when liberals used to argue that corporations aren’t people and therefore aren’t protected by the First Amendment?

In this case, millions of citizens united did protest SOPA but so did “powerful” corporations. Google used its search homepage to encourage users to sign a petition against the bill. Wikipedia shut down and asked wikipedians to “imagine a world without free knowledge.” Many other sites blacked out content in support of the political cause. Much of this outpouring to inform and educate (or miseducate) the public may well have been illegal under McCain-Feingold if we were closer to November 2012. Where does Justice Anthony Kennedy apply for an apology?

Ted Frank:

…[T]he successful opposition to SOPA demonstrates the importance of corporate free speech. It has become trendy on the left to assert after Citizens United that corporations are not people, and thus have no free-speech rights; there’s even a constitutional amendment to that effect pending.

…Corporate free speech made a decisive difference in the SOPA/PIPA debate. The media, generally SOPA supporters, were unwilling to cover the issue until corporations like Google and Wikipedia forced them to pay attention. The Left should re-evaluate its attempt to limit political speech.

So, what’s the 1^st Amendment leave-behind for fair weather free speechers?   Be careful what you wish for.  You might need every bit of that amazing Right to address policy issues you want to challenge, change or defeat.

As we move past the wreckage of last week’s SOPA / PIPA battle in Congress – one which defeated, for the time being, legislation designed to stop foreign, online “pirates” – it is important to note that, though the Internet “spoke” resoundingly against the bills, a plain fact remains: Piracy, aided by, yes, the Internet, still runs rampant.

Another important thing to point out is this: Last week’s battle isn’t the end game.

The matter can’t just be swept away because thousands of websites “blacked out” in demonstration against the bills, or because 7 million e-mails found their way to Capitol Hill, urging defeat of “Internet breaking” SOPA and PIPA. Online piracy must be meaningfully addressed or it will sink many of the most productive and innovative people and companies in our economy.

Stated more plainly, the pro-piracy status quo is unacceptable.  It cannot not be fixed (sorry on the double negative).

SOPA and PIPA are part of a larger battle, of course.  Internet piracy harms more than just the makers of movies, music and games.  When we work to protect these forms of entertainment, we’re really working to protect a form of property called intellectual property (IP) – the protection of which helps all types of creators create, knowing they have a better chance to realize a return on their private risk and investment.

Today, IP is the coin of the realm.  Not surprisingly, America leads in the development of IP, with IP-related industries representing about a third of our GDP.  Consequently, IP touches virtually every aspect of the global economy.  Inarguably, protecting IP – such as the ideas and expression that go into making PCs and the Internet’s infrastructure – have made the world better, more productive, safer and freer.  It helps bring a near endless font of solutions to the marketplace, and we’re richer for it.

By not acting to stem piracy, policymakers promote a policy of eating one’s seed corn.  That’s a false economy.

It is true – I did not support SOPA and PIPA.  This is mainly because I think that technology, consumer education tools, competition / reputation management, and industry best practices / peer group self-governance stand a better chance of dealing with policy issues brought about by technological change than do government laws, rules and proscriptions.  This flexibility beats government-imposed myopia more often than not in my book.

However, being a content creator myself – and one who relies on posting my content on the Internet for my sustenance – I have strong sympathies for those who create.  Piracy takes bread out of our mouths.  And, quite simply, calling content creators like myself dinosaurs, and then blaming us for piracy is not much different than blaming a person who has securely locked his house and valuables, but still gets burglarized.

Theft is theft, and those who steal are wrong.

What is the answer, then?

Well, I’ve been thinking about this of late, and going back to the principles noted above, I think one solution deserves a more thorough airing: Industry best practices / peer group self-governance.

A little over a year ago when I was at the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), we supported one such new – and yes, surprising – Internet peer group.  Called BITAG, it was initially developed as a non-governmental response to deal with the divisive matter of Net Neutrality.  It was surprising in that its two founding members – Verizon and Google – were on opposite sides of the coin on the Net Neutrality debate.  Membership has since grown to include all the major players in the Internet economy.

Organized by ex-FCC Chief Technologist, Dale Hatfield, the group works to: 1) educate policymakers on related technical issues; (2) addresses specific technical matters in an effort to minimize related policy disputes; and (3) serves as a sounding board for new ideas and network management practices.

Importantly, as PFF’s Adam Thierer then noted:

…BITAG essentially “de-politicizes” Internet engineering issues by offering an independent forum for parties to have technical disputes mediated and resolved—without government involvement or onerous rulemakings. Consequently, this will help avoid the red tape and incessant delays that usually accompany bureaucratic resolution mechanisms, which can stifle continuous technological innovation and investments.

The diverse array of companies and organizations playing a part in BITAG makes it clear that voluntary technical dispute resolution mechanisms are not only feasible but desired by parties on all sides…

Though ultimately BITAG failed to stop government’s involvement in regulating the Internet via Net Neutrality, the body remains a working forum which shows that seemingly deeply-divided parties can come together and solve complex matters in a timely and flexible way, without the need of “going to Dad” (Uncle Sam) to solve disputes.

The Internet was built on this type of cooperation.  Notes FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell in his Open Internet proceeding statement:

[T]he Internet is perhaps the greatest deregulatory success story of all time. It became successful not by government fiat, but by all interested parties working together toward a common goal.

Though I’m not one to say legislation is never appropriate, I tend to believe that legislating technology is often a fool’s errand.  More often than not it leads to unintended consequences that are as pernicious, or even more so, than the initial policy challenges it sought to fix.

Consistent with both Thierer’s and McDowell’s statements, shouldn’t the Internet community give BITAG, or some similar non-governmental model, an earnest try to arrest online piracy?  Isn’t cooperation of this sort in our DNA?

It certainly won’t break the Internet.

Media outlets report that the hacktavist group Anonymous brought down the websites of the DoJ, FBI, RIAA, MPAA, and others yesterday in supposed retaliation for the high-profile arrest of four accused online pirates associated with the cyberlocker company Megaupload, and, ostensibly, Congress’ efforts to pass online, anti-piracy legislation SOPA and PIPA.

The backlash to the outrageous acts of Anonymous from defenders of property will come.  It must.

It is true that I generally don’t believe that government regulation is a proper, or default manner, in which to address purported market failures or public policy challenges wrought by technological change.  In the present context, SOPA and PIPA – while seeking to correct a real problem for rights holders (as opposed to a Net Neutrality-like mirage) – are imperfect attempts to address a serious problem.

I would rather place faith in the evolution of technology, industry best practices, consumer education tools, reputation management techniques, vibrant competition and existing law to deal with the scourge of online property theft.

The "Face" of anti-SOPA and status quo, Tumblr's Andrew McLaughlin

That said, Anonymous’ actions clearly suggest to me that online piracy has become a Right on the Internet.  And this greatly unsettles me.

It is not.  It is stealing, poaching, thievery.  No one has a right to rip the bread out of content creators’ mouths.

This has me thinking – perhaps changing my mind on legislative attempts to combat online piracy. To suggest that legislation is never warranted would be foolish. Online piracy does exist and is indisputably rampant.  It may need to be that at some point Congress comes back to SOPA / PIPA  – perhaps sooner than we think – and decides that narrow legislation must go forward to bring down the digital thieves and stop their five-finger-discounting habits, ones which undermine innovation, economic growth, jobs, and the rule of law.

CNET reporter, Molly Wood, feels Anonymous’ actions may have brought that day closer, surmising:

…[A]n attack this big on this many government sites will effectively erase those good Internet vibrations that were rattling around Capitol Hill this week and harden the perspective of legislators and law enforcement who want to believe that the Web community is made up of wild, law-breaking pirates. That, ultimately, may help strengthen the business–and the emotional–case for the pro-SOPA, pro-PIPA lobby. Did the feds just get the last lulz?

Maybe she’s right.  I don’t know about new legislation, but if Anonymous has brought attention to the skenky underworld of the piracy economy, and, in doing so, boosts the idea that content creators get to decide their bundle of rights on the Internet instead of scummy miscreants, faux public interest groups, and exploitive edge providers, then so be it.

Danny Weitzner, Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Internet Policy at the White House tweeted last night:

Advocacy (web blackouts & grassroots lobbying) vs crime (anonymous DDOS attacks): one = free speech and the other = threat to freedom #sopa

Agreed.

Will the defenders of the “piracy-is-the-fault-of-the-content-providers” status quo – i.e., the Internet’s elite edge providers and their thought leaders – possess similar strength and moral clarity and forcefully condemn the alleged actions of Anonymous?  And perhaps more importantly, when this and the SOPA / PIPA dust clears, will they work in earnest  – and not just pay lip service – to help end the scourge of Internet piracy, and truly self-police the bad apples that bring such misery to the Internet?

One hopes.  The Internet, as a safe and thriving medium, depends on it. So, too, do the good brand names of Google, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook and others that helped spawn this greedy, hate-filled, thuggish, anti-SOPA, anti-property environment – one which played no-small role in inciting Anonymous to its illegal acts of disruption.

Over the past several days, the President, trying to shake off some of his Big Government inclinations, has been beating the drum about making government more streamline and efficient.

Standing in the East Room of the White House last week, President Obama noted:

…[T]he government we have is not the government we need…We live in a 21st-century economy, but we’ve still got a government organized for the 20th century. Our economy has fundamentally changed—as has the world—but our government, our agencies, has not.

And he’s made quick work to meet this challenge (again, but this time, seriously…really).  Earlier this week, the President showed Americans an example of his great progress, stating:

…[T]he FCC, prompted by our request but also due to some excellent work by Julius Genachowski, they’ve already eliminated 190 rules – 190.

Whoopee!  I guess he’s checked that box and can move on.

Not.

Regulations and bureaucracy are like a drug to Big Government officials.  The FCC’s “190 rules” liposuction is sort of like the binge drinker saying that he avoided beer at the bar – while imbibing every other top-shelf spirit the barkeep could throw at him.

By many accounts, 2011 promises to be one of the five most regulatory years in history, likely to clock in at close to 81,000 pages of new rules and regulations in the Federal Register.  2010 was about the same, posting an 18% jump in rules and regulations from the previous year.

At the FCC, instead of being the 21^st century agency wished for by the President, we see one mired in the 19^th century instead, regulating the information and communications technology industry as if the Robber Barons ran them.

From the FCC’s pince-nez spectacled  bureaucrats we get innovation and investment-killing Net Neutrality regulations; mandatory data roaming requirements; merger orders that impose dozens of pages of unrelated yet “voluntarily agreed to” conditions; endless reports deriding core network providers for their ostensible inability to compete or grow their networks “better”; and the ever-present threats that if one doesn’t manage one’s network in a way deemed appropriate by the FCC, then the sword of Damocles will fall, and swiftly at that.   This is not to mention non-regulation regulation, like when FCC and DoJ officials tag-teamed to kill the AT&T / T-Mobile merger because of jobs – something the NLRB seemingly has jurisdiction over – and outdated, though still facile, allegiance to their market-measuring HERFs (as well as the agency’s standing coterie of sycophantic, anti-property public interest groups and crony-capitalist supporters).

I could wind up with a long ending to this piece, but I won’t waste your time.  The sad fact is that the administration and agencies like the FCC are welded to the past.

They cannot move forward because “change” – that is, theirs, coercively imposed on markets, innovators and consumers – remains immune from the laws of economics and, ironically, real change itself.  Unlike businesses that fail and go out of business – they do not.

This past is no way to forge ahead into the future.  Trillions of dollars of investment, growth and jobs should not be held hostage to the 19^th century.

Julius Genachowski – take off your pince-nez!  And, umm, Mr. President, you can remove your rose colored monocle, too.

The chart, “Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) SOPA List,” is by Terry Hart.  It shows how the Internet’s elite have highly organized an amazing subterranean latticework of connections to oppose the anti-piracy bills SOPA and PIPA, among other pro-private property initiatives here in DC and elsewhere across the globe.

According to Hart:

…The chart includes roughly one fifth of the entities and individuals on [CDT’s list of groups against SOPA], with connections indicating formal relationships between them. These relationships include funding — whether through investments, donations, or grants — institutional relationships, and individual relationships — such as employees, research fellows, or board members.

Additional organizations and individuals not on the CDT’s list are included for context. These are indicated by a red border.

From this chart it’s clear that the recent anti-SOPA / PIPA outpouring is anything but spontaneous.  The arachnid connections noted in the chart have been in the works for nearly 15 years.  Many of these same groups and relationships were involved in working to shackle Microsoft in its DoJ and EC anti-trust cases; trying to mandate “open source” software for exclusive purchase by governments to the detriment of “proprietary” companies like Microsoft; helping the FCC impose its ultra vires Net Neutrality regulations on network providers; and killing the AT&T / T-Mobile merger, to name but a few.

As I view the large graphic, it becomes evident that the Internet’s elite (mostly “edge providers”) are pretty darn good puppet-masters. Consequently, while one may or may not support SOPA / PIPA, one should be concerned about these connections.   They reveal the depth to which companies like Google exploit the “public interest” to hide their real intentions – which is, in my opinion, to marginalize the Internet’s content creators and property holders so they don’t interfere with the elites’ ability to make billions via the Internet’s sadly vibrant poacher culture (one which they have actively supported and promoted all these years, through all these connections).

This takes “vulture capitalism” to a new level.  Its complex latticework might even make Warren Buffett blush, embarrassed that he was not ever-so conniving in garnering his many billions.

Free Press' angry birds and their angry tweets

The twitter-sphere is choked with Free Press’ latest panicked entreaty – one urging the defeat of Congress’ latest effort to curb online piracy through the House’s so-called SOPA bill.

Says a couple of tweets:

SOPA is everywhere on the Internet and nowhere on the nightly news. End the #SOPA blackout: http://t.co/yDbDuYqN via @freepress

Mainstream media can’t be trusted as a source for pertinent info RT @freepress SOPA is all over the Internet & nowhere on the nightly news.

Note the two-fer here.  Anti-SOPA.  And anti-private media.  It’s the anti-private media meme that interests me most in the present matter (but the two issues are related, as I’ll get to below).

You know, when things were going their way, and the FCC was poised to pass its illegal Net Neutrality regulations late in 2010, many in the media were on Free Press’ side.  In fact, story coverage supporting Net Neutrality flooded the marketplace.  Consequently, Free Press sat in the catbird’s seat, with a Cheshire Cat-like grin.   They got quoted everywhere, in every possible medium.

Now, the shoe’s on the other foot.

Free Press throws a tantrum

Because private media has so much invested in protecting their own content and innovation, it’s not surprising that they’d want to tamp down Free Press’ (and others’) whining about SOPA’s supposed end-of-Internet-days consequences.

Of course, this puts Free Press’ undies in a wad.  It’s used to getting its way with the stick-it-to-the-Man writers and editors of Big Media.  Frustrated that the media’s iconoclastic leanings don’t work when the issue at hand directly affects the media’s own interests, I can almost hear Free Press shout in the background of every tweet:

Wahhhh, private media companies won’t do our bidding to ‘protect the Internet!’  They want SOPA.  You hear that, Occupier Activists?  If Big Media doesn’t agree with us – ALWAYS – then they’re evil and must be taken down!  Have at it, OWS-ers.  And bring your pitchforks, too.

Such frustration and brattishness was bound to occur.  You see, Free Press’ anti-SOPA and anti-private media activities are really two sides of the same coin.  Both policy issues deride the importance of private risk, private property and the rights attendant to ownership.

Ultimately, Free Press’ goal is to achieve a post-capitalist, anti-property utopia, where digital media remains unhindered by private ownership rights; and the outlets that create, distribute and grant access to that “freed” media are merely government appendages, dedicated toward meeting “higher” social justice and “fairness” ends.

As Free Press’ founder and self-avowed Marxist, Robert McChesney, notes, a key part of that utopian destination – one which “enriches” citizens with all the “proper” information for self-governance – is public / non-profit media.

St. Pete Times - It's the elephant's fault

States McChesney:

We need to revamp daily newspapers into independent post-corporate entities, vastly expand funding to public media and find ways to subsidize nonprofit journalism online.

The St. Pete Times, run by the non-profit Poynter Institute, is a model groups like Free Press want to replicate.

But here’s what you get with that Utopia.  On a recent weekend in Tampa, I opened up the St. Pete Times’ year-end edition and found that of the 29 stories printed in its A Section, nearly 1/3^rdof its 15 pages (including one full-page) posted critical or mocking stories of the GOP.  In case one didn’t get the idea that Republicans were evil, the opinion page even included two openly hostile, anti-GOP cartoons to boot.

How’s that for enriching the populace?  In the universe of stories that could have run in the A Section, not a single anti-Administration / anti-Democratic Party / anti-Left story seemed worth printing by the publication.

I guess in the St. Pete Times’ view (and likely Free Press’, too), the world sucks, and it’s all the GOP’s fault.  So, having more unquestioned Left in our world is always better, right?

Not.

___________________

The push to stop SOPA is really about promoting a property-less society.  Who cares if it means poaching (stealing) private property from creators.  In Free Press’ estimation, creators have no moral right to lock up ideas or information anyway.  In fact, creators are the real villains, stealing and exploiting for profit – because all ideas and information should be free (like butterflies and bunnies).

Baloney!

Quite frankly, the media is doing what it should have been doing when Net Neutrality regulations were in play – that is, protecting its property, and urging the same for others in the value chain.  Big media – like most anyone who creates digital or other content for a living – knows that enormous private risk and investment goes into delivering their products to the public.  Good content doesn’t just grow on trees.   It must be invested in and ultimately paid for.  Creators have a right to protect their interests and the fruit of their efforts.

Of course, social justice and other isms that strip away economic freedoms and liberties in the name of “fairness” have no place for “selfish” property holders (of any stripe).

Notes McChesney:

Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism. It is impossible to conceive of a better world with a media system that remains under the thumb of Wall Street and Madison Avenue, under the thumb of the owning class.

While I am not a cheerleader of the mainstream media for a variety of reasons, it seems clear to me that a world filled only with myopically Left-leaning publications like the St. Pete Times – one based on a property-less society – would, er, suck really badly.

Yes, the “owning class” is imperfect.  But groups like Free Press should embrace it.  Without it, there’d be nothing good for guys like Robert McChesney to poach.

You may know that Kodak announced this week that it was likely to file for bankruptcy, ending a spectacular, world-changing 131-year run.  Once a leading brand in American life, it now sits depleted – a victim of some bad business choices that neutered its ability to deal with technological disruption.

For me, this takes on all the more importance in light of the recent FCC-DoJ tag-team of AT&T, which ultimately derailed the company’s proposed $39 billion merger with T-Mobile.

We should be wary of these police actions, based on speculation, framed by last-century notions of markets and the supposed harms that can be imposed on consumers by large, successful companies. No doubt, laws protecting against real, not speculative, consumer harm are important – that is, to the extent they are not employed to shape markets to some Ivy League-defined, centrally planned utopia. As to the latter, such actions not only harm consumers by short-circuiting market dynamics, they are ripe for political abuse and crony-capitalism, which favor the well-connected competitor over the average consumer and citizen.

Thankfully, companies go out of business when they fail to serve consumers.  Kodak is Example A.  There is no static caste system for corporations – only 1/3^rd of the companies on the Dow Industrial Average in 1982 are on it today; of the original Fortune 500 companies published in 1955, only 67 remain.

Sadly, however, we have a bureaucrat caste that has only become more entrenched and engorged, being isolated from the laws of competition, risk and markets.  We should worry about this instead of the vapor-ware harms these bureaucrats frighten us with on a daily basis.  Such speculation – policed through mandate or regulation – is more apt to harm the public interest than protect it.

Investors Business Daily has a good opinion piece on the Kodak failure, entitled  “A Perfect Kodak Moment Of Creative Destruction.”  It notes:

Kodak is hardly the first to suffer the consequences of Schumpeter’s “perennial gale of creative destruction.”

Edison’s light bulb and the electric industry it spawned, for example, quickly and completely wiped out what had been a vast and lucrative gas lamp industry.

IBM, once feared for its tremendous market power, is now a shadow of its former self.

Just a few years ago, industry analysts convinced themselves that Microsoft had to be broken up if competition in the software industry was ever to have a chance. Today, that company struggles to compete as the market heads increasingly away from a PC-centric world.

And RIM dominated the smartphone market until Apple and Google reshaped it.”

This “destruction” or churn is a hallmark of healthy economies – one that ultimately benefits consumers with better products and services.  But, as the piece states, not all (in Washington) harbor this view.  Many on the Left instead see markets as…

…dark, powerful, impenetrable forces arrayed against hapless consumers who, in turn, require the protection of benevolent government bureaucrats.”

The piece argues against this, concluding:

…the only thing that gets in the way of this creative destruction is big government, whose meddling more often than not works to distort markets, limit competition, protect corporate giants and sacrifice everyone’s well-being.”

Contrasted with those grainy, black-and-white images one might pull out of old shoe boxes from a parent’s closet, Kodak shows that markets are far more vibrant, dynamic and colorful than any old snapshot can convey.

Yes, a picture is worth a thousand words.  But markets are far better at saying and framing them than bureaucrats.

Witness the congressional / crony-capitalist sausage-making

Clocking in at a swift 176-pages, Peter Schweizer’s “Throw Them All Out” is a must read if you want to know how Washington really works (or, doesn’t, that is).  Congressional insider trading.  Legal legislative graft.  Crony capitalist hijinks.  It’s all here, and then some.

Good (scary) stuff.  It’s not for the faint of heart if you’re a believer in the unquestioned beneficence of big government.

Pull Quote:

“Honest graft is so insidious because it piggybacks on legitimate service, and cloaks both in the name of public good. Give someone the chance to feel that they are serving the public and getting rich at the same time and you have created a nightmare.”

Just reading this passage in the introduction got me hooked. It’s the public interest groups’ SOP.  The self-proclaimed saviors of the public interest – whatever that is; however they define it – say they’re busy doing the Lord’s work.  But don’t look behind the curtain, ‘cuz if you do, you’ll see those same public interest groups with their buns up and the elbows shuffling, working hard in the trenches for the good ole profit motive, creating all manner of self-serving nightmares like Net Neutrality regulations, or killing job-creating mergers, in service of their corporate masters instead of (and in spite for) average American consumers.

If you don’t have this book, buy it.  Consider it an investment in America.  You’ll be sure to vote for real change come November.

Quick read: CEA President, Gary Shapiro, has some interesting thoughts on the failed AT&T merger, expressed today in a Daily Caller opinion piece.

States Shapiro:

…Our country’s antitrust laws are ambiguous and subject to regulatory interpretation. More, antitrust officials are subject to prevailing political winds, and opposition to the deal by left-wing consumer groups was fierce. Going into an election year, a Democratic administration doesn’t want to alienate those in the base who are on the anti-business warpath…

…it’s the sad fact that we live in a country where our antitrust laws are so open to interpretation that a company as sophisticated as AT&T has no way of knowing if a transaction is legal.

This “sadness” (and it is truly sad), combined with poor spectrum policy, has hamstrung network innovation and growth, leaving government officials – not markets – in the driver’s seat.

With this in mind, Shapiro advises:

…It’s time we focused on an innovation strategy that rebuilds America’s competitive advantage, which includes pursuing policies to expand our wireless broadband. If we don’t, then there won’t be any antitrust work for the busybodies at the DOJ and the FCC to do: All the companies will have fled elsewhere.

Agreed on that one, Gary.  FCC & DoJ – What say you?

Oh, you’re driving and can’t (won’t) get to the cellphone?

We’ll keep dialing until next November.

In the middle of November, anti-property group, Free Press, finally complied with Representative Marsha Blackburn’s request to see the group’s major funders.  You may remember that Free Press’ commitment began last March in testimony before Congress (audio clip here).   Now, after Rep. Blackburn asked again on November 15^th, they’ve suddenly decided to get around to it (response just below).

Free Press Rep. Blackburn Response Letter 11-16-11

How to account for the 8-month delay?

One can only surmise.  But an intriguing part of their response reads like this:

…In order to be responsive to your specific request, this list includes the names of some donors who, as is their right and privilege, require specific approval prior to Free Press’ publication of their names. One donor chose to exercise its right to privacy…  (Emphasis added)

Hmmm.  I do not remember Free Press’ Derek Turner making this equivocation during his testimony (I guess they feel they’re powerful enough to renege on most any promise, even if it was made in public, in open testimony, to a Member of Congress…but I digress.)

Anyway, who could Mr. Privacy be?

If you jump over to Free Press’ website, you’ll notice that the 2010 Board Report and the Blackburn response show different lists.  Most notably, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation is missing from the Blackburn letter.

Could this be a reason for the delay?  Soros’ OSF wanted some, er, anonymity?

Who knows? Maybe Soros is feeling the heat for his connection to LightSquared, and he wants some separation from his telecom lobbyists.  Some – namely, Senator Chuck Grassley – feel that the company is a political hot potato because of what appears to be FCC bias. It seems the agency gave LightSquared a controversial waiver to develop wireless services in spectrum slotted for satellite communications.  Interestingly, LightSquared’s main guy is Phil Falcone, a big contributor to the Democratic Party.

And Soros has significant investments in Falcone’s Harbinger fund, which is underwriting LightSquared.

That seems like some smoke to me.  Maybe even some fire, too.

Another alternative could be that the story actually runs in the other direction – that it’s Free Press, not Soros, who wants some insulation from the LightSquared heat.  And by eliminating / reducing Soros’ connection to the radical group, maybe it can avoid further scrutiny.

But this is a harder one to pull off.  The connection is well documented.  As I have written about previously:

From 1999-2009, George Soros’ organizations have given $11.5 million to media policy activist groups, including $2.7 million to Free Press, $1.9 million to the New America Foundation, $1.2 million to Consumers Union, $855,500 to Public Knowledge, $823,400 to the Consumer Federation of America, and $150,000 to the Media Access Project.  These groups, in turn, have with increasing intensity lobbied the FCC for more regulations on large wireless carriers, and against mergers that would make those carriers more competitive.

In fact as recently as this August, Free Press – and a whole host of others who have supped at the Soros foundation trough – has actively lobbied for allowing LightSquared’s wireless proposal to go forward at the FCC.

Maybe Rep. Blackburn knew of this general connection?  Maybe she didn’t?  Perhaps it doesn’t matter? It seems to me what does matter, however, is that Rep. Blackburn was trying to get to the bottom of a pretty basic question (which few in the MSM care to ask):

 …It’s less clear to me whom you represent with Free Press.  And, I think [this] might be instructive to us as we read your testimony, and as we try to figure out, you know, the bias you bring to the argument… (Emphasis added)

Well, here’s the answer.

Soros pays.  And Free Press lobbies like any lobby shop would, for profit-motivated interests.  That’s the bias. Moreover, I think this is the progressive foundation, “working in the public interest” rule, not the exception (as I recently wrote about on this “public interest” shill group).

In other words – the good ole, greedy 1%-er profit motive at work, and nothing more.

_______

Post Script: Finally, I think FP’s languid response is highly disrespectful, too.  Here’s a group that urges Congress to do its bidding (i.e., on Carrier IQ, on the AT&T merger, Net Neutrality, SOPA, etc.), but it can’t even comply with a simple request.  And when it does, it does so on its own timetable, and then on its own terms.   Good representatives of brand-Soros, huh?