Shannon wrote:

Interest groups that support this bill gave 8.1 times as much as interest groups that oppose this bill

Interesting list of supporting organizations.

Hijexx:

Boycott these organizations for supporting SOPA. Hit them where it hurts: the almighty dollar.

You give them more credit than they deserve. These companies aren't in any position to discern why revenues are down. No one will attribute a dip in F-150 sales to Ford's support for SOPA; instead, they will lobby Congress to restore the tax credit in hopes of spurring sales of new vehicles. If The Ides of March fails to draw you to the box office, Sony Pictures Entertainment will conclude that you don't care enough about politics to be interested in a "supremely well-acted ", if cynical, depiction of the American political process. No one will figure out that you were boycotting the US distributor. They would sooner conclude that you had pirated the film over the Internet, thereby making SOPA's prompt passage all the more urgent.

Can the signatories to the letter be said to "support the bill" that is presently under consideration?

Here is what they wrote on December 14:

The undersigned businesses, trade associations, and professional and labor organizations, representing a broad cross-section of the American economy, write in support of rogue sites legislation. We commend both the House and the Senate for their attention to this important issue.

... The operators of rogue sites break laws, do not pay taxes, and skirt accountability. In light of these concerns, we urge you to enact carefully balanced rogue sites legislation this year. We commend the House and the Senate for their attention to this important issue and look forward to working with you in support of that goal.

The above language differs from an earlier letter of May 25 to the Senate, in which a somewhat different group of organizations more explicitly endorsed a specific bill:

The undersigned businesses, trade associations, and professional and labor organizations, representing a broad cross-section of the American economy, endorse S. 968, the "PROTECT IP Act of 2011" to protect American jobs and consumers. ... We urge you to approve the PROTECT IP Act and work with your colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact carefully balanced legislation this year. We look forward to working with you in support of that goal.

Both letters call for "carefully balanced legislation" and do not directly endorse specific remedies. This ambiguity gives Congress the latitude to devise the implementation details, about which the commercial advocates can later express their (possibly even sincere) disappointment even as they take full advantage of the new enforcement regime. (To decline to use it is to accept a competitive disadvantage compared to those do.)

It's a nice thought to communicate your disagreement to the signatories, but do you think they'll get the message because you bought your paper towels from Target instead of Walmart, or because you bought a cheap Chinese flat-screen TV at BJ's instead of a Sony at Sam's Club? There are way too many factors in play for those "signals" to be extracted from the river of economic activity.

noteworthy wrote:
Can the signatories to the letter be said to "support the bill" that is presently under consideration?

The above language differs from an earlier letter of May 25 to the Senate, in which a somewhat different group of organizations more explicitly endorsed a specific bill.

Thanks for posting the links to the letters. I think its important for people to understand the breadth of groups that support creating a centralized internet censorship infrastructure in the United States.

Perhaps a personal Boycott wouldn't work, but there are more visible actions that can be taken.

Decius:

Perhaps a personal Boycott wouldn't work, but there are more visible actions that can be taken.

Lessig's Thoreau reference is apt here:

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

I'd argue that Google's membership in the Chamber is a thin branch at best.

Have you looked at that website? My first page-load yielded this statement:

The US Chamber of Commerce successfully convinced the Supreme Court, in the Citizens United case, to rule in favor of unlimited corporate donations to politicians.

That page links here which points to the amicus brief in Citizens United but neglects to mention that the Michigan Chamber of Commerce was a defendant in the primary case under consideration by the Court. It's unsurprising that the US Chamber filed a brief in defense of the state-level Chamber's interests in the case.

Potential petitioners might be interested to know that the ACLU also filed a brief in line with that of the Chamber:

In scheduling this case for reargument, the Court specifically requested briefs on whether section 203 should now be struck down as facially unconstitutional. The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again.

Are all of these petitioners now going to march on the ACLU, too? Furthermore, are they going to cast a pox on all those who have ever donated to the ACLU?

From the archive, Decius, in 2004:

There is a lot of bad speech in our democracy.

But in my experience the answer to bad speech has always been more speech.

It strikes me as at least slightly ironic that the revised subject/title of thread is "Put your money where your mouth is", which is precisely the idea for which the Chamber is being castigated.

noteworthy wrote:
I'd argue that Google's membership in the Chamber is a thin branch at best.

I don't agree.

Opposition to "Citizens United" is hardly the silliest liberal cause referenced by "Google Quit the Chamber," but I think thats irrelevant. Yahoo did not quit the chamber because of a list of silly liberal causes. They quit the chamber because of SOPA.

I think these pro business lobbying groups are pretty close to the root. If their unbalanced approach to technology issues put them in a position where they are loosing membership, that directly undercuts their message and their funding.

Decius:

Yahoo did not quit the chamber because of a list of silly liberal causes. They quit the chamber because of SOPA.

I think these pro business lobbying groups are pretty close to the root. If their unbalanced approach to technology issues put them in a position where they are losing membership, that directly undercuts their message and their funding.

1) Schmidt was pretty ambivalent about the Chamber. His best example of how they've helped Google was when they silenced some squabbling over whether he ought to meet a Chinese political leader. On issues they deem important, Google advocates directly, as was seen in the recent SOPA hearings. As the only witness speaking out against the proposed legislation, Google has already made its position abundantly clear, both to Congress and to the Chamber.

2) Schmidt openly says he disagrees with the Chamber's position on "plenty of things." Isn't some of this concern more appropriately directed at the organizations comprising the Chamber's Board of Directors, including AT&T, IBM, and Verizon? They could do more than Schmidt to influence the Chamber's official position on SOPA.

3) If Google and Yahoo weren't funding this advocacy in any meaningful way, their departure is unlikely to shift the Chamber's position. Even if all of the top 25 tech firms distanced themselves from the Chamber over this issue, it's not clear their position would change -- rather, it would make the SOPA advocates more representative of the Chamber's membership, thereby reinforcing their position.

4) Members give the Chamber money to advocate on their behalf. Barring some conspiracy theory, their support is in direct response to large contributions from (possibly a small number of) its members, not the absence of contributions from the likes of Google and Facebook. It would be more interesting if major tech firms were to flood the Chamber with donations asking it to advocate against SOPA. If AT&T, IBM, and Verizon each donated $10M accompanied by a "kill the bill" cover letter, that might have an impact.