RE: Comparing funding disclosures of Public Knowledge, New America, PFF, ITIF

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Hoewing, C. L." <c.l.hoewing () verizon com>
Date: October 20, 2009 2:14:30 PM EDT
To: <dave () farber net>, "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Comparing funding disclosures of Public Knowledge,  
New America, PFF, ITIF

Dave:

An intriguing area.  I tire of the sometimes simplistic assertions  
that can be made regarding the motivations and character of others  
based on funding support.  Funding alone does not always say much  
about where someone comes from. I’ve been involved with Washington  
policy for a long time and while funding transparency is important –  
and no one should mislead about where their funding comes from – the  
reality is to operate in a complex policy arena like Washington you do  
need funding.  I think the reason people can get a bit cautious about  
funding transparency is that the media in particular – and many  
advocates on both sides – often use the simple equation that funding  
equals your position and therefore I don’t have to listen to what you  
say because you got funding from X.  In other words, funding support  
is often use to smear or discount what someone has to say, no matter  
how well considered or thought out the views may be.

I am not naïve about how things work and so there are certainly folks  
who do write for dollars.  But most of the groups I know have a point  
of view, principles that they are organized around.  That means that  
in order to remain credible, they can’t simply flip flop back and  
forth and take positions on issues in exchange for funding.

At the same time, all participants in the policy process have points  
of view. In that sense, they are all “slanted” in the sense that they  
see the world through their own policy prism.  Whether it is a public  
interest group or a company, no one can claim to be objective or even  
represent the “public” because there is no “public” per se – there are  
many publics.  That is in no way to criticize any group or  
organization. It is just a statement of fact.

So, I do think transparency in funding sources is important.  I do  
think that groups who represent the free market view point will tend  
to side with those with similar views, and that includes when it comes  
to funding.  The same is true with groups representing opposing view  
points.   To me, the most important thing is to read the views of  
these many groups, parse out what is interesting and contributes to  
your understanding of the issues, and pay attention to thoughtful view  
points that are well considered.  There are many of those – both from  
the folks you disagree with and those with whom you agree.

LINK

Link Hoewing
Vice President
Internet and Technology Policy
Verizon
1300 I Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
202-515-2420


From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:04 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Comparing funding disclosures of Public Knowledge, New  
America, PFF, ITIF





Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Ronald J Riley (RJR)" <rjr () rjriley com>
> Date: October 20, 2009 15:49:08 EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: RE: [IP] Comparing funding disclosures of Public Knowledge,  
> New America, PFF, ITIF
>
> Dave, for IP if you wish.
> I find the claim of being supported by foundations interesting  
> because it is a fact that quite a number of nasty patent pirating  
> corporations have their own foundations which just happen to support  
> so called public interest entities which also just happen to support  
> the parent corporations’ agendas in a multitude of ways.
> Maybe I am too cynical, but in over a decade of fighting attempts by  
> large transnational corporations who are unable to produce  
> significant inventions for themselves to undermine inventor property  
> rights I have noticed that the one area where they are creative is  
> in sleazy public relations, or should I say propaganda campaigns.  I  
> have also noticed that they commonly pick misleading names such as  
> Public Patent Foundation, Coalition for Patent Fairness, Public  
> Knowledge, and the list goes on.  They always have an agenda which  
> is anything but public spirited.
> One last point, another common tactic is to hand out awards to  
> people who may actually be public spirited as cover for their more  
> nefarious activities.
> Ronald J. Riley,
> I am speaking only on my own behalf.
> Affiliations:
> President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
> Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
> Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
> President - Alliance for American Innovation
> Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased  
> founder Paul Heckel
> Washington, DC
> Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 9:26 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Comparing funding disclosures of Public Knowledge, New  
> America, PFF, ITIF
> It is a lot more complicated in that one really needs to tunnel down  
> into who funds the funders.
> ALSO I DO NOT PERSONALLY CHALLENGE POSTED ARTICLES UNLESS THEY ARE  
> OBVIOUS LIES OR OVERLY HOSTILE. I HAVE OFTEN SAID THIS BUT PEOPLE  
> DON'T READ  DJF
> DAVE
> Begin forwarded message:
> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: October 20, 2009 12:01:27 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Comparing funding disclosures of Public Knowledge, New  
> America, PFF, ITIF
> Since IP has chosen to post a statement that implies that certain DC  
> firms are not disclosing when they are supported by corporate  
> interestes, I thought I'd do a little online research.  Perhaps this  
> would be a bit more "fair and balanced" than the unchallenged  
> statement you posted, Dave.
>
> It's  worth pointing out that Public Knowledge is a "public interest  
> group".  New America Foundation is a "nonprofit, nonpartisan public  
> policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas".  That  
> makes it a "think tank" doing research, not a public interest  
> group.  This is quite different.  One attempts to represent a  
> particular segment of public interest.  The other does research and  
> reports to provide analysis and understanding.
>
> Not mentioned by the accuser, but included for my comparison, are  
> two other prominent policy actors with regard to the Internet, PFF  
> and ITIF.  They are, like New America, think-tanks, and not "public  
> interest groups".
>
> PFF is a "market-oriented think tank that studies the impact of the  
> digital revolution and its implications for public policy"
>
> ITIF is a "non-partisan research and educational institute - a think- 
> tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote public polices to  
> advance technological innovation and productivity internationally,  
> in Washington, and in the states".
>
> Now let's look at disclosure of funding!  This was interesting.
>
> I checked what Public Knowledge discloses, since it was attacked by  
> another poster as "actually taking money from corporations".  Here's  
> their disclosure, quite publicly available on their website.   
> [Please note that I am not affiliated with Public Knowledge, though  
> I did receive an award from them a few years ago, perhaps because  
> they find that I serve the public interest.]
>
> http://www.publicknowledge.org/about/who/funders
>
> The bulk of their money seems to come from foundations, unless the  
> claim is that the pie chart lies.  They disclose every corporate  
> donor and foundation.
>
> I also found that New America prominently discloses its funding: http://www.newamerica.net/about/funding
> and the bulk seems to be foundations as well. [Please note that I am  
> not affiliated with New America either, though I have helped them by  
> providing information to their staff on some reports in the past].
>
> PFF is a somewhat more vague, but pretty clearly corporate funded:
>     http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
> Note that it says "supporters ... include" but it does not indicate  
> either level of funding or discount that there might be substantial  
> funders not on the list on that page.   I would also note that  
> Google is a supporter of PFF - I doubt that means that Google  
> directs their work.  [I am not affiliated with PFF, though I have  
> participated in events hosted by Adam Thierer when he was at Cato  
> before PFF].
>
> Now let's look at ITIF.   I have searched its site comprehensively.   
> I cannot find any disclosure of its sources of funding whatever,  
> neither "type of funding" nor "names of prominent funders".  [I am  
> not affiliated with ITIF]
>
> What is most interesting to me is that the organizations who  
> disagree with PK and New America Foundation are the ones whose  
> funding disclosures are the least complete, and in one case,  
> apparently entirely dominated by corporations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Archives
Archives






-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com