« Firefox Growing Pains | Main | Turning Off Trackbacks »
Beating Hatch
It’s no secret to most techies that Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah is no friend to the Internet. Some have described him, tongue-in-cheek, as the Senator from Disney—not because he’s Mickey Mouse, but because he seems to represent Anaheim’s interests much more keenly than he does Utah’s. Hatch has been a supporter of the INDUCE Act, DMCA, and even suggested that he’d like to see technology developed to destroy the computers of people who download music illegally. Hatch will be up for re-election in 2006 and I’d like to see that he doesn’t get six more years to wreak havoc.
To be sure, I think Hatch is a nice, sincere guy. I’ve interacted with him several times and he’s very personable. I think he really believes that he’s doing right. That’s probably the scariest part.
The way I see it, Techies been saying that the Internet is a great equalizer and this is our chance to prove it. Wouldn’t it be ironic to use the technology that Hatch is out to destroy to challenge and beat him?
To understand what it would take to beat Hatch, you have to understand that he’s a popular 5-term Senator from a state where only one two Democrats have won a state-wide race in over twenty years and that was for Attorney General. Scott Matheson, the Democratic candidate for Governor was probably the perfect candidate given his long Utah roots and name cache. He only garnered 35% 41% of the vote in 2004.
For Hatch to lose, he’d have to be taken out by a Republican. That’s still a very difficult task—unless you beat Hatch at convention. In a general or primary election, Hatch’s war chest and popularity are big advantages. But to beat Hatch at the convention, you only need 60% of the 2500 or so delegates. Still not easy, but a task where technology can help a great deal.
Of course, you’d need the right Republican. Steve Urquhart announced today that he’s challenging Hatch and I think he’s the right Republican. I’m one of those who’s been urging him to run. He’s a party insider with a leadership post in the legislature, he’s smart, he’s conservative, and, most germane to this conversation, he gets and uses technology. His blog isn’t something he started because he was running for Senator. Steve’s been blogging since last November in an effort to communicate more widely and accurately with his constituents. This is a guy who can not only say “Technorati” but he knows what it is!
If Hatch were just bad for Utah, this might just be a Utah issue. But Hatch is bad for the Internet and this is a chance for Techies to show a little muscle and strike a blow for what they believe in. If you don’t like what Hatch is doing and are afraid of the influence he wields, then help defeat him.
How can you do that? First spread the word and link to this post to explain to people why they ought to help. Second, go to Steve’s site and donate. According to Federal Election Commission reports filed last Friday, Hatch has $1.72 million in cash in his main campaign account. Steve doesn’t need that much to beat him at convention, but still, it won’t be cheap—probably on the order of $750,000 to $1,000,000. How much should you donate? Any amount helps—just to show your support, but I’d suggest that you donate what you spend on your Internet connection in a year. Think of it as “Internet Insurance.”
Posted by windley on July 20, 2005 8:12 PM
Comment from Brian Watkins at July 20, 2005 10:31 PM
Thanks for sharing your opinions, Phil, but I think this kind of article is more credible if you care enough to get at least some of the facts right.
Comment from Brian Watkins at July 20, 2005 10:33 PM
"only one Democrat has won a state-wide race in over twenty years"
In fact, Democrat Paul Van Dam won statewide in 1988 and Democrat Jan Graham won in 1992 and 1996.
Comment from Brian Watkins at July 20, 2005 10:37 PM
"Scott Matheson, the Democratic candidate for Governor only garnered thirty-five percent"
Gary Herbert's web site at elections.utah.gov says Scott won forty-one point three percent of the vote. And forty-one point three percent is still greater than thirty-five percent.
Comment from Phil Windley at July 20, 2005 10:37 PM
OK, two. I forgot about van Dam. Sue me. :-)
Seriously, I'm not slamming on Democrats--just stating the obvious. If you want to beat Hatch you have to take him out in convention. Democrats don't have that shot--only a Republican can challenge him in convention.
Even if you think a Democrat can win--it's obviously easier to have someone take out Hatch and then challenge the challenger in the General than it is to take on Hatch head-on.
Comment from Brian Watkins at July 20, 2005 10:42 PM
I also disagree with your suggestion that Urquhart can win at convention, but that is a matter of analysis open to dispute.
The primary will be easier to win than either the general or the convention because the general election includes a lot of voters who aren't paying attention to whatever race you care about and the convention is just packed with party insiders who know how their bread is buttered (with incumbents, not insurgents).
It does mean Steve will have to raise $1 million to $1.5 million in $2100 or smaller increments. I hope for his sake that he knows what that takes.
Comment from Brian Watkins at July 20, 2005 10:43 PM
By the way, your comment filter rejected my comments at least five times for "content". Maybe they're not set up right.
Thanks again for keeping us up to date on the political tech news.
Comment from Lee Hollaar at July 21, 2005 7:21 AM
I'm surprised that your criticism of Senator Hatch involves the Induce Act and the DMCA. The Supreme Court, in its Grokster decision a couple of weeks ago, said that there is liability for inducing the copyright infringement of another. That's been the case since the 1971 Gershwin decision in the Second Circuit, and Sony's lack of inducement was noted by the Court in footnote 19 of the Betamax decision.
A side-by-side reading of that decision and the Induce Act shows that they are essentially the same, perhaps with the Induce Act less broad in its sweep. While the Induce Act certainly brought the idea of inducement liability to the public's attention, it was simply codifying the existing court decisions.
The criminal copyright provisions already included inducement through the general aiding-and-abetting statute, at it would be strange indeed if somebody could be liable criminally for inducement but have no civil liablity.
As for the DMCA, at the time of its passage in 1998 lots of people were predicting a parade of horribles that would come from it. But it has now been seven years, and we see that scare-mongers' predictions haven't come to pass. Sure, a hacker's magazine and web site that was publishing the way to crack the encryption of a DVD was told to stop it (in a couple detailed and well-reasoned court decisions), but the Princeton professor who received a nasty letter from the RIAA was the one who took it to court even after they said that they wouldn't do anything to him (and he fought hard to keep the case alive, but eventually lost because there wasn't a legitimate controversy there) and the Russian company charged criminally was found not guilty by the jury because the DMCA required willfulness to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
As for destroying computers, I think a lot of people would like to see a way to zap the computers of the jerks who send spam or think it's fun to see how many computers their clone-virus can infect or steal peoples' identities.
Comment from vontrapp at July 21, 2005 10:33 AM
Sure, it would be fun to blow up jerks computers.
It would also be fun to blow up tires of the jerk who cuts you off, or who speeds past you at 90MPH.
That doesn't make it right or lawful.
Comment from Brian Carnell at July 21, 2005 11:07 AM
"As for the DMCA, at the time of its passage in 1998 lots of people were predicting a parade of horribles that would come from it. But it has now been seven years, and we see that scare-mongers' predictions haven't come to pass."
Right, because we haven't see industry try to strongarm researchers by threatening DMCA lawsuits. We haven't seen Walmart refuse to print amateur photographs that looked too professional. We haven't seen it made illegal to sell tools to make perfectly legal backup copies of DVDs.
Comment from Lee Hollaar at July 21, 2005 3:07 PM
"We haven't seen it made illegal to sell tools to make perfectly legal backup copies of DVDs."
Assuming that you are trying to be cute in pointing out that some companies that made software that allowed the copying of DVD movies have been shut down (321, in particular), why do you believe that making a backup copy of a movie DVD is "perfectly legal"?
The copyright owner has the exclusive right to make or permit the making of reproductions. There is a special rule allowing the making of archival copies of "computer programs" but it doesn't include movies. Maybe you are arguing that it is a "fair use" to make such a backup, but that certainly isn't clear.
There seems to be the feeling that just because it is easy and cheap to make a backup of a digital work, it must be legal because something might happen to the original. But you don't get to make a "backup copy" of the Harry Potter book you just received because you might lose it or it might get damaged if your house burns down.
Comment from Utah at July 21, 2005 3:41 PM
I would like to direct you to the page of local ISP owner and Dem candidate Pete Ashdown:
www.pashdown.org
Comment from RLPartridge at July 21, 2005 10:37 PM
Not too many years ago, I was a delegate to a RPU convention where both Leavitt and Hatch were heavily attacked, and I understand the same occured at the following convention. A great many non-Democrat Utahns do not respect Borin' Orrin. I'm convinced he is a RINO, vulnerable to a REAL Republican.
Comment from Lee Hollaar at July 22, 2005 7:04 PM
The contrast that amazed me between the 2000 Republican and Democrat state conventions is that some Republicans went out of their way to criticize successful officeholders like Leavitt and Hatch because they didn't fit their ideas of a perfect Republican, while the Democrats spent their time praising Clinton and ignoring his lying under oath and other slimy things.
Comment from Paul Robichaux at July 25, 2005 10:06 AM
It's hard to say whether Pete Ashdown can beat Hatch, given that he's still defining his platform. However, to my mind, the fact that two serious candidates for Hatch's seat have emerged is important; now we just have to decide which one to back.
Comment from Phil Windley at July 31, 2005 9:17 PM
Acutally, you don't have to decide, at least not yet. Even if you ultimately support Pete, the best way to support Pete now is by defeating Hatch at convention. Hatch, with the level of name recognition and amount of money that he has, is a very dangerious opponent in any election.