On Thu, 19 Aug 1993 18:56:18 EDT Roger Burns said:
>>   Are you implying that if Joe Blow walked in and asked you to set up
>> a list for him, you would do it?  I suspect that while the Congressman
>> is being given a privilege that is not for sale, he is still being given
>> it BECAUSE he is a Congressman; it is still a favor that is being done
>> him because of his role and not a right that adheres to him as a private
>> individual.
>
>The original question, as I understood it, had to do with financial
>ethics.  Yes, I would expect that a Congressman would get some preferential
>treatment, just as he might if he were to call in to a radio talk-show.
>However, in that latter case, do you imagine that an Office of Campaign
>Ethics would be acting properly by then calling up the radio station
>management and saying "You broadcast the Congresman's phone call and thereby
>gave him free campaign advertising; you must therefore file as a
>political contributor to his campaign and state the value of his
>broadcast phone call, otherwise you will be in violation of the
>campaign finance laws"?  Suppose it were a TV news program.  Should
>the TV news people be required to file as political contributors every
>time they broadcast an interview with an elected official?  As long as
>the allocators of a public good, be it a news program, a radio call-in show,
>or a Listserv, are acting in an even-handed way in the public interest
>(and with no influence of financial transactions) then these actions  are
>not classified as the equivalent of political contributions.
>
>But if the question were broader than financial ethics, such as
>"Do prominent people receive preferential treatment?", then yes, of course
>they do.
>
>
>But I don't think that granting a list (or a news interview) to a
>Congressman is necesarily done as a *favor* to him (although it would
>be very easy for him to think of it as such).  Is there enough
>bandwidth and disk space to give a list to everyone who'd like to run one?
>I'm guessing not.  Therefore, the Listserv coordinator who is genuinely
>acting in the public interest must ask himself "What would the public benefit
>more from -- having access to a list run by Joe Nobody, or having
>access to a list run by Congressman Somebody?"  The latter choice will
>probably be made, and not because the Congressman likes it that way and
>he's more important so let's please him, but because the *public* will
>have more to gain from having access to one list rather than another.
>An objective Listserv coordinator will grant the set-up of a list based
>on the interests of the public that he serves, regardless of whether
>(and *even* *if*) some individual, prominent or not, benefits from it.
>
>I could imagine a problem that would arise.  Suppose it's election time,
>and suppose that supporters of candidate Joe Newguy get on the Congressman's
>discussion list and start asking "Why is it that candidate Newguy has
>a plan for lowering taxes and you don't?", and suppose instead of answering
>the question the list-owners instead ban the Newguy supporters from the
>list, then complaints come to the Listserv coordinator that the list has
>been transformed into a political tool instead of being a forum for
>public issues.  I could see that the Listserv coordinator would have to
>seriously review what is in the public interest in that situation.
>
>Well, enough of my ramblings.
  Not at all, this is important.
>-- Roger Burns
 
  I suppose I bring an uncommon perspective to this issue, since I'm not
only the owner of five lists, but am currently a candidate, making my
second try for public office.  One of the lists I originated is the
KENTUCKY list, a forum for discussion of political and civic affairs
in the state.  It includes some discussion of candidates, especially
for the statewide offices such a governor.  I've been very reluctant
to talk about my own candidacy on that list because I don't want
there to be a perception that I'm appropriating a public resource
in an inappropriate way in order to further my own quest for
office.  On the other hand, I think the list is an excellent place
to express views and ideas regarding the candidates in a race.
This is by no means uncommon on other lists; see the CLINTON or
BUSH lists for starters.
  When I have doubts about what is appropriate, I keep returning to
the metaphor or the "information highway."  Our politicians use
our public roads in their campaigning, but nobody tries to figure
out the value of their usage and require them to report this
value as a campaign contribution.  I hope the day comes when a similar
attitude is held toward the Internet.  That will require universal
access under public auspices, just as our automobile highways
are universally accessible and operated under public auspices.
  In the meantime it is important to those of us who want public
approval of our actions in the pursuit of office to be honest and
correct, and to paraphrase Ben Franklin, "to be *known* to be honest
and correct."  One way to move in this direction is to keep in mind
that the offices being sought or held are *public* offices and not the
property of those seeking or holding them.  If I wanted to use these
electronic discussion resources to inform the public and stimulate
interest in a campaign, I'd suggest naming the forum after the
office.  For example, instead of SBAESLER (Rep Scotty Baesler), being
the name of the forum, I'd suggest something like KY6DIST (Kentucky
6th congressional district representative).  This allows a single
forum for supporters of any and all (or none of the above) canidates
to meet and argue for their views.
  When the use of the Internet is as widely spread as the use of
telephones, and there is a level playing field for all candidates
because access to and competency with the Internet is taken for
granted as a normal part of life, many of the current concerns will
disappear.  We're still in the early states of a revolution in
the way information is distributed, and much of what seems
problematic now will soon seem very old-fashioned.  The way
democracy and politics operate will not be the least among those
parts of life changed by this revolution.
  That's starting to sound like a campaign speech.  If I don't quit now,
 I'll have to take up a collection!  :-)
Bob Moore
Lexington KY USA