Honestly, the first I heard of this was on the TWiT podcast today. And I honestly thought they were announcing a new Apple product. It’s a pretty decent idea, but I thought that was what the EFF was for. Also, does it make a whole lot of sense to start another “political action committee” when there is so much talk about the sad state of affairs with lobbying and the need for reform?
Couple of other things that come up when I look at it. What if a representative is a good rep and supports a lot of other really good things but doesn’t support the IPac principles? Do they attack said representative? In other words, do they overlook all other works and focus only on their principles? I realize that most of these “committee”‘s do that, but I would feel a little bad if a candidate was attacked because he/she didn’t support some internet bill but had a good stance on healthcare, immigration, etc…
Anyone else have another view on this?
P.S. As a technology PAC, they do have a blog.
Technorati Tags: IPac, political action committee, TWiT
About Shane Ede
Well, looking at it I think that its probably a good idea. EFF supports technology in society through litigation primarily from what I’ve seen. They are a political group but their tactics are different. Besides most other causes have several political action groups to help protect their interests and promote them.
As far as attacking people who don’t support their initiatives I’m sure thats pretty much exactly what they will do. Thats how you put pressure on a politician by making their views very public and subject to scrutiny. We all commit to a tradeoff when we chose and vote for a representative in the government, you have to chose your most important issues and find the politician and party that supports them. I believe technological innovation and free information is a key to Americas future economic success and strength so I don’t support politicians that believe in severely limiting consumers in favor of protecting giant corps best interests.