Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign said Nov. 15 her long silence on network neutrality should not be interpreted as waning support for the idea of mandating that broadband providers treat all network use in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Two weeks before announcing her presidential campaign in January, Clinton, along with Sen. Barack Obama, signed on as original co-sponsors of legislation that would make network neutrality the law of the land.
Since the campaign began, though, Clinton hasn't mentioned network neutrality, despite having issued a nine-point technology plan. In October, she announced an Internet strategy, also without a reference to network neutrality.
"Hillary Clinton has been and continues to be a strong supporter of net neutrality," Jin Chon, a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, told eWEEK. Chon also said Clinton told the YearlyKos convention in August that she will "make sure that the architecture of the Internet stays open....
Obama supporter, Stanford law professor and Internet icon Lawrence Lessig suggested that Clinton's silence might be tied to her "acknowledged funding from telecoms."
"If Sen. Obama is so concerned about the influence of contributions from the telecommunications industry, perhaps he should return the more than $84,000 he has received during this campaign," Chon said.
Lessig was actually misquoted, as he was responding to a question (well a statement, really) that I posed on a conference call on Thursday about the issue. I recorded the call, and here's what Lessig actually said.
[Clinton] can't stand up and endorse network neutrality because so much of her vision of how she's going to game her support comes from her acknowledged endorsement of her existing system of lobbying funding that will come from telecoms and cable companies that want to make sure there isn't heavy regulation in the context of the internet even if its objective is to maintain neutrality.
Lessig is arguing that Clinton has endorsed the system of lobbying funding, not that she's being bribed by telecom and cable interests. And that is undeniably true, as she has made clear both in her acceptable of lobbying money, in her acceptable of the industry written Connect Kentucky model as her blueprint for broadband adoption, her very noticeable omission of net neutrality and open networks in her plan so far, her non-statement on retroactive immunity for these cable and telecom interests, and her remarkable absence from the debate on the 700 mhz auction giveaway of the public airwaves.
Though she has endorsed network neutrality legislation, it's not clear at all that she has endorsed network neutrality as something she'll actually do anything about as President. Passing a communications reform bill takes years and involves huge stakeholders, so it is unlikely we'll get one through that is progressive in the next few years. The route to a free and open internet is administrative, and it is only in that context that an endorsement of network neutrality is meaningful. She could clear this up with a simple statement about her administrative priorities at the FCC, and I hope she does.
Clinton is in fact using a textbook political tactic, which is to attack the messenger rather than debate the substance. It is an effective model of political engagement, one I can't fault her for using since it is the only responsible way to engage with a supine press corps.
Yet, despite the arguments from the Clinton campaign, she has not made a statement that her FCC will protect the internet. She has said she personally supports net neutrality, and does so on a legislative level as a Senator, but when asked about the 1996 telecom act at Yearlykos, Clinton demurred and said you'd have to ask Al Gore about the act since it was really his legislation. The net neutrality debate really is a question about what she will do with her new appointment to the FCC. And she hasn't answered that question, though she's clearly feeling pressure to do so. This idea competition is a very good thing, and it's good that her campaign felt the need to reiterate a statement she made as a Senator in January.
Anyway, here's the full back and forth between me and Lessig on the conference call.
Matt Stoller: This is Matt Stoller, and I'd like to read a quote from professor Lessig's endorsement yesterday. "About some issues I even get it but what put me over the line was Senator Clinton's refusal to join in a bipartisan call that Presidential debates be free, not because this is a big issue, but because even on this relatively small issue she couldn't muster the strength to do the right thing."
One of the things that's really interesting about watching this political campaign go forward is that we're in this trap where politicians come out with plan but they don't actually have to state their priorities, they just have plans. So when I'm looking at this plan I'm really excited about it, and it looks like a great engine. But even in Professor Lessig's endorsement of Senator Obama there was a vehicle there in which he was able to illustrate and take the abstract principles of a free and open democracy. The actual vehicle to illustrate that was the call that the Presidential debates be free. There was a fight there. And it was the choice of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton that he used to show what they thought about these abstract principles, but about their priorities, their choices at the moment. So what I'm looking at right now is an incredible engine, an incredible abstract set of principles that Senator Obama has put out, but what I'm wondering is where's the vehicle that is going to give these proposals life, what's the fight Senator Obama's going to pick, how are you going to illustrate, not just by a great set of abstract proposals, but how are you going to illustrate that Senator Obama is going to fight for these with a vehicle, something that's going on right now or in the next couple of months because the internet is all around us and it does dominate our cultural and political choices. You don't have to have one now, but I would just encourage you to think what is the vehicle that's going to drive this engine.
Lawrence Lessig: This is Lawrence Lessig. I don't speak for the campaign, but I would hope the campaign would pick particular examples. I think your point is a good one. This illustrates two things at once. It illustrates great tech policy, and it illustrates what it is about Senator Clinton that will stop her from being able to implement great tech policy. Network neutrality is a great example. She can't stand up and endorse network neutrality because so much of her vision of how she's going to game her support comes from her acknowledged endorsement of her existing system of lobbying funding that will come from telecoms and cable companies that want to make sure there isn't heavy regulation in the context of the internet even if its objective is to maintain neutrality. So I think picking this example is a way to do two things. One, emphasize good network policy, and two emphasize the general problem that Danny described quite passionately of why Washington doesn't work. And I think people have to see those two things together, and there's lots of context and technology that can bring that out. |
