Automated Voice:	Recording has started.

David Abel:	Well, hello, and welcome to the Politics Online Expert Interview.  I’m speaking today with Carol Darr, who’s the Director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet.  How you doing, Carol?

Carol Darr:	Hi, David, nice to be with you today.

David Abel:	Well, great, let’s start off by talking about what the IPDI does.  If you just give us a brief overview of your role that you guys serve up there.

Carol Darr:	The purpose of Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet is to try to improve campaign conduct through the Internet and improve democracy generally through the Internet by getting more people involved in politics, by getting more people to give small contributions, and to conduct — and the other thing we do is to conduct research to help people understand the nature of who’s on the Internet.  For example, we did a groundbreaking study called Political Influentials Online, that showed that people involved in politics through the Internet were very influential.  They were not a bunch of isolated geeks and nerds.  

David Abel:	You do put out some wonderful studies, and I think your last study was on small donor campaigns.  Could you talk about maybe any interesting e-politics-related research to come out of that?

Carol Darr:	Well, we’re in the middle of that study right now.  It’s a study on small donors in the 2004 Presidential Campaign, and our motivation in that study is that you have five times more small donors — that is, donors who gave under $200.00 in the 2004 election than you had in the 2000 election.  

David Abel:	Wow.

Carol Darr:	And if you want more of where that came from, you need to understand that small donor population better, because their contribution habits are different than the big donors, and certainly their motivations are bigger than — different than a lot of big donors.

David Abel:	Well, I know another thing that the Institute has been focusing on is the FEC-proposed rulings, and I’m sure most of our listeners are aware of what’s going on and possible regulation.  Would you tell us how the Institute has gotten involved with that, and just where the FEC is in the process?

Carol Darr:	We got involved because, you know, our mandate is the Internet and politics; and, since I’m a former campaign finance lawyer, I felt it was something that I needed to weigh in on.  Where the FEC is now is that they just conducted hearings in what they call their Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is a process designed to let the public weigh in with their opinions and expertise on this issue of how, if at all, the FEC ought to regulate politics.

David Abel:	And what was the Institute’s opinion on how this should be regulated?

Carol Darr:	In my written comments to the FEC, I made three points.  Number one, that the whole landscape of politics has changed because of the Internet.  There are many times more people involved than there were pre-Internet, and the FEC can’t regulate it in the same kind of detailed way as they used to.  Formerly, when most people participating in politics had direct connections to candidates and parties, they had access to expert campaign advice, legal advice, and so you could regulate federal politics, you know, essentially with a  rulebook that has 500 pages in it.  Now, when you have phenomena like the Deniacs, who will go out and set up a campaign organization in a city pretty much on their own, they don’t have access to that same kind of detailed advice.  So the FEC needs to look at it in a different way.  That was our first point.

	Our second point was to not let this rulemaking be a vehicle for new loopholes for corporate and union money on the Internet.  And the third point that I made, which caused quite a bit of controversy, was to make the point that the media exemption is so broad, because it essentially exempts the holders of that exemption, if you will, virtually from all campaign finance regulations.  And, if you give that exemption out broadly, what it will mean is the destruction of the campaign finance laws that we have known for 30 years, and the prohibition on corporation money that has lasted almost for a century.  

David Abel:	Well, these are definitely some heavy topics, for sure.  It seems like, in some of the points that you made, and also other things I’ve read, these rulings are also — will have the potential in some way to define really what a blogger is, and if they are, in fact, a journalist or a serious journalist or maybe just a campaigner who’s doing that online.  Do you think that after these rulings people will think there’s a clear definition, at least, of what the court’s think a journalist is?

Carol Darr:	You know, the FEC can’t make decisions for the courts, but the FEC may be able to add some clarity to it.  The issue is that you have a statute and a provision that says that it doesn’t count as a contribution in connection with federal elections or an expenditure.  You know, money spent on covering news stories of candidates and politics, editorials, and commentary by a newspaper, a broadcasting station, a magazine, or “any other periodical publication.”  That is a very broad statute, and a very broad regulation, and the FEC, rightly, has interpreted it broadly, because you don’t want to interfere with a free press and with what reporters say and report.  So you’ve got this really broad exemption there, and the bloggers say, understandably, “We’re entitled to that exemption, also.”  And the legislative history of that provision, and the FEC’s previous advisory opinions, I think, will make it very hard to deny it to the vast majority of them.

David Abel:	Well, this issue is definitely not going away, and I think even after the ruling, I think people on one side or the other are gonna still be fighting.  I think Markos Malista from the Daily Kos said that, if he didn’t get the answer he wanted there, there’s always the higher court, so I think this is gonna continue, possibly, into 2008.

Carol Darr:	Well, let me add another point on there.  You know, I think that the bloggers will press this, and they will get their way, and the point I was trying to make on this is not to say, you know, “FEC, don’t give this exemption to the bloggers.”  The point that I was making was to say realize that this seemingly simple request comes at a huge cost, and the cost of giving this exemption out broadly is the destruction of campaign finance laws and the destruction of the prohibition of corporate money that has held, again, almost for a century.  It’s a real easy thing for them to ask, but it’s a real expensive thing for the FEC to give them.  

	So I think in the end, you’ve got two principles that everybody holds dearly.  Number one, not interfering with the press.  And, number two, avoiding, as the Tillman Act said, trying to prevent the corrosive influence of large aggregations of wealth.  And, right now, you have those two provisions colliding into each other, and I think you’re gonna have to just start from scratch to figure out how you’re going to regulate political money, if at all.

David Abel:	Well, it seems like when bloggers almost came out of nowhere in this election season and, suddenly, they’re at the forefront of this issue fighting on both sides.  But there’s also, I guess, been some other interesting innovations online, and one of those is podcasting.  It seems like, if you podcast, and you’re suddenly some type of cool elected official, and it definitely is a trendy thing, but my question for you is:  Is the Institute looking at podcasting in any upcoming research?  And do you have any comments on if this is a legitimate campaign tactic, or do you see this going away like the eight-track?

Carol Darr:	It’s a question of how much podcasting’s going to catch on.  We are planning an event for September 13th called “Politics to Go:  How Mobile Technologies Empower Just in Time Politics.”  And in that we will showcase a number of different mobile technologies and other technologies that are at the forefront of politics and technology.  And that would be podcasting, RSS feeds, using personal digital assistants to download information the way the Bush campaign did.  Trying to think of what some of the others are.  You know, there’s a number of ‘em.  We are co-sponsoring this event with Wired Magazine.  They will set up a library of these technologies, and we’ve gotten just a huge and enthusiastic response from this — about this already.

David Abel:	Well, I know Politics Online wants to get involved, and we plan on contributing an article.  But if people want to come to the event or possibly participate some way, how can they get involved?

Carol Darr:	The best way to participate is to email Kathie Legg, and her email address is klegg@gwu.edu.  She’s putting the event together.  We will also publish at that event, we will roll out a handbook that describes the various mobile technologies and how they’re being used in politics.  We’re soliciting contributions from various experts; and, if anybody would like to contribute to that manual, they can contact Julie Barko Germany, the Deputy Director of the Institute.  And her email address is Julie, J U L I E, at IPDI dot org.  

David Abel:	Well, Carol, this has been great.  You just said IPI, I’m sorry, IPDI dot org, and I just wanna tell everyone that that’s the website for the Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet.  That’s www.ipdi.org.  And, Carol, again, we appreciate the time you’ve given us today, and we hope to do it again sometime soon.

Carol Darr:	Thank you, we are delighted to be working with Politics Online.  Y’all have been one of the leaders in the use of technology in politics, not only nationally, but internationally, and we very much appreciate what you’ve done and what Phil Noble does with us.  Phil, as you know, is a member of our Board.  So I want to thank you both.

David Abel:	Well, thank you.

[End of Audio]

PoliticsOnline	Carol Darr	Page 5 of 5
David Abel, Carol Darr 


www.escriptionist.com		Page 5 of 5