Why the last thing we should expect from GeekPAC is poltics as usual.
What happens when you form an organization in the opposite of secrecy? You get busted to for not being all big and focused and organized at the get-go, like a heavyweight industry .org.
That's what Hal Plotkin did today to GeekPAC in Shooting Blanks" Growing digital rights movement needs to put some political heads on stakes — fast, in SFGate (the Web site of the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner). He says this:
More than living up to its name, this call to action by GeekPAC also suggests that the group "can have a significant influence by providing a funding channel tool of small but frequent donations through a congressional-review database linked to an [e]-commerce engine." Put into English, that means members of Congress will get a small check for their campaigns whenever they vote right. The problem with that approach, however, is that sending out small checks to hundreds of politicians is like peeing in the ocean. It may feel good, but no one notices. Instead, to stem the tide, GeekPAC, or some other similar organization, needs to make an example out of someone in Congress, and do it quick. When the National Rifle Association, or the Christian Coalition or Emily's List, for that matter, want action on an issue, the strategists behind those well-run groups usually pick a smart fight with one or more of their key opponents. They target their resources to just those specific races, sometimes to just one race. Rather than give 200 politicians $1,000 each, the savviest PACs instead will spend $200,000 or more kicking the bejesus out of just one single office holder.
What the hell. If it feels like heat, maybe we're in the kitchen. So here are a couple thoughts to throw in the soup. What goes unmentioned in both GeekPAC literature (so far — it's been what, a couple weeks?) and stories about GeekPAC is political action that doesn't cost money. For example, opt-in emailings, customized by congressional district, that keep voters abreast of actions in Congress that abuse or support the Internet's commons. Here's the ultimate rub: the Net's new Commons is a perfect platform not just for real markets — where supply and demand are one click apart and have balanced power — but for real democracy as well. We're talking here about the kind you get not just from the consent of the governed, but from an extremely well informed citizenry. Maybe Hal doesn't notice political contributions. And maybe most citizens don't either — yet.