Wanna be an influence-peddler and make big bucks lobbying Congress against the public interest while the press snoozes? Or do you just want to learn more about how Washington screws the rest of humanity? With perhaps the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act as a prime example?
You could do worse than to study a Powerpoint presentation by Daniel Diermeier, IBM Professor of Regulation and Competitive Practices–and former director of the Ford Center for Global Citizenship at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Sorry for that mouthful. But it’s rather germane since Diermeier is hardly a Naderite and consults for Fortune 500 companies–and yet still describes copyright extension as the beneficiary of pubic ignorance. Major publicity, he said, would have focused “on the extent to which Disney” was “buying legislation that is harmful to public interests.”
Matter of factly, his analysis for MGMT-450 tells how Disney and friends prevailed in 1998 over the schools and libraries and consumers in the Bono debate. Yes, business should enjoy influence in public discourse–I myself am an unabashed capitalist. But have we overdone it? Diermeier’s presentation unwittingly suggests that we have, especially in copyright matters.
Here are some of the tidbits there for his students reliving the Bono debate for his course known as “Strategic Management in Non-Market Environments”:
–The “pro groups” on his “Distributive Politics Spreadsheet” included not just Disney but also “other media” companies. Beyond the Clinton impeachment hearings and the complexities of the debate, could this be one reason why the press let Bono slide through without major coverage? That’s not his question. Just mine. No, I’m not into conspiracy theories. But do you really think that journalists rise to the top of their profession without being aware of the self-interests of the owners? Although in a far more subtle form, the problems chronicled in Upton Sinclair’s The Brass Check are still alive and well.
–Consumers enjoyed just “small” influence in the case of HR2589.
–Lobbying targets were House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott. “Message: Maintaining equity with Europe; do not focus on profits.”
–Campaign contributions indeed mattered. One of the potential pitfalls was, “Will Clinton sign the legislation?” Diermeier’s conclusion for his students in this exercise was, “President may not sign if legislation is portrayed as serving special interests; however, Disney and other entertainment companies are major democratic constituencies and sources of money.” There! You don’t have to be Nader or a blogger to say Washington is bought, bought, bought. Of course, I would quarrel with Diermeier’s lack of capitalization of the “D” in “Democrat.” I’m a lifelong member of the species but must confess that the small-d concept is more or less obsolete among my brethren.
–The Bono legislation thrived on lack of media exposure–to the extent that pro-Hollywood discussion of the legislation could have backfired. “What about grassroots mobilization/media campaign? NO! Avoid bringing the media into this. Media scrutiny will simply focus on the extent to which Disney is buying legislation that is harmful to public interests.” Yes, that’s a direct quote! Credit Diermeier with candor. While presumably not involved in the Disney efforts, he understands how the black hats hate scrutiny.
–“What about Orrin Hatch? Powerful committee chair. Received $50,000 from seven major studios, the Motion Picture Association of America and ASCAP. Second career as songwriter.”
–“After concessions were made to restaurants and libraries, the Bill passed quickly through committee (adding amendment split the opposition; consumers were not organized).” Interesting, no? Consumer and library interests were perceived here as not quite the same. One wonders what would have happened if libraries had worried less about immediate institutional concerns and more about society as a whole. While exempting small bars and restaurants and small stores from certain copyright-related obligations, the legislation also said that during the extra two decades, libraries could reproduce and distribute items that otherwise would not be available through the usual commercial channels. See 17 U.S.C. 108(b). Did libraries sell out consumers? And in ways that we don’t know about, did libraries reap rewards or avoid budget-related punishments for not fighting Bono as aggressively as they might have otherwise? Those are my questions, not Diermeier’s.
“On Oct. 27, 1998,” Diermeier says, “President Clinton quietly signed the Bill into law (Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act).” Note the operative word here: “quietly.” What if libraries had waged a better media campaign to overcome the built-in conflict of interest of the press?
Obligingly Diermeier noted the obscene amount of money working for Bono and other pro-Hollywood measures. “In the 1997-1998 election cycle, media companies and their political action committees contributed more than $6.5 million to members of Congress.” Those statistics come from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Just to clarify one point, I’m not saying, “Diermeier is pro-bribery.” He is merely laying out how to work within a corrupt system, and his candor should also be useful to white hats.
Of course, it isn’t as if Diermeier is conducting his course for future Naderites. The Powerpoint or at least “Section 9” bears the title “Political Analysis for Business.” Furthermore, the professor’s course description for “Strategic Management in Nonmarket Environments” says among other things: “The concepts, skills, and analytical tools that students will learn in the course rest upon a foundation of economic principles, political analysis, and, to a lesser extent, social psychology and law. They identify patterns of behavior and outcomes, ways of thinking about those patterns and outcomes, methods of analysis that facilitate understanding and prediction, and, ultimately, the shaping of strategies to improve business performance.”
Presumably Bono improved Disney’s performance at least a smidgen despite Michael Eisner’s generally mediocre record in recent years. He personally took time to lobby the pols. Mightn’t he have better invested his efforts in, say, improving his relationships with the creative community? Or perhaps in making Disney more clueful in its Net-related activities? I’m all in favor of corporate profitability. But mightn’t there be more effective ways of achieving it than bribing DC with massive campaign donations?
Along the way, another question arises about Disney’s copyright jihad against the public. Is it just history? Not necessarily in the case of this company and others. John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee received $5 million from one show-biz fund-raiser. And John Edwards got more than $900,000 in PAC donations early in the presidential campaign from producer Steve Bing–and sits on a copyright-related committee. No legal violations alleged. But I am curious if Bing felt compelled to make his contributions for career purposes. Just as importantly, will the Kerry-Edwards donations buy more legislation in the vein of Bono? Ditto for Hollywood’s money for the Bush campaign and Republicans on the Hill.
Meanwhile the media are not asking Edwards and Bing to explain the latter’s generosity, and so far they’ve both stonewalled me. I’d welcome more curiosity from the media about the two men. Remember, Hollywood’s bad guys thrive on secrecy. And, just as in the Bono debate, the press has been obliging so far regard to copyright and the 2004 presidential campaign.
I can hardly wait for Diermeier’s future analysis of copyright-related lobbying, especially his comments on the sleepy and easily distracted press.
Revealing: The Ford Center’s home page says the center “subsumed the Center for the Study of Ethics in Business and the Environmental Research Center.” Hmm. It isn’t as if the Diermeier presentation abounded with ethics-related material. If the Powerpoint is typical, I don’t buy the argument that the Center “It is dedicated to an interdisciplinary approach that combines ethical with strategic and organizational concerns.” While the Diermeier presentation is useful to all sides in the Bono debate, it isn’t as if his presentation dwelt on the ethical concerns other than to acknowledge that Bono Act was against the public interest. Although Diermeier teaches Values and Crisis Decision-Making, the big emphasis seems to be more on topics like “Crisis Management” than on the encouragement of moral actions. Students learn, for example, how to “Develop strategies for managing stakeholders, public opinion, media relations, and public officials.” Hmmm. Do the press and public really need to be “managed” this way?
Still on the way–perhaps later this week: An essay on the harm that longer copyright terms can do to writers. But first I couldn’t resist sharing with you the material above.
