Pete Ashdown

Here is another round of interviews for you to read. Chris Stowe, a Democrat at BYU has part one of a two-part interview. David Troels Garby, a Dane with an interest in American politics asks about the campaign and my Danish heritage. Last, Jonathan Singer of MyDD.com conducts a very issue oriented Q&A.

I spent most of this morning combing microfiche at the Salt Lake City library, more on that later. Aside from my realization that there is real business opportunity in converting newspaper archives to digital combined with even a rough OCR index, I found my activities of pillaging old newspapers a marked contradiction from today’s news.

Thirty years ago, a politician could say something outlandish and off the cuff to a private audience in a rural Utah town and expect it to not be national news the next day. However, the democratization of reporting through the Internet turns that assumption on its head. Soon one person picks up on the story, then it starts to spread. Suddenly its everywhere and you’re winning awards. Finally, you have to back pedal. It would have worked if it hadn’t been for those meddling kids and their Interwebs!

My worthy opposition should not feel bad about being burned by the Internet (again). He is in good company underestimating the power of the Internet. Fellow members of congress have attempted to edit biographies on Wikipedia. Having used the Internet since 1987, I realize there is more about me out there than I wish. I haven’t been grooming myself for a career in politics since an early age. Yet I fully realize that attempting to censor and retract my history looks worse than just being honest about it. What must scare traditional politicians to death is that now their words do not disappear. Campaign promises are not buried inside microfiche. Any constituent with a good grip on Google can do their own research and find the contradictions, the votes, the rhetoric and ascertain the character of the candidate outside the marketed image.

This shift is good for America, but bad for the status quo of Washington. It is encouraging to me is that this change is unstoppable. No matter how much money is spent on traditional marketing and media, the power of communication and technology will always overwhelm those who attempt to control it.

Wouldn’t it be nice to know what your elected officials are up to? Where are they going and who are they meeting with? It really isn’t a monumental task to publish this information. “Security concerns” is the blanket disclaimer for not sharing schedules. Yet this point is negated if a calendar is published retroactively.

Recently, elected officials have moved to alter GRAMA in Utah. Some have said this is for efficiency reasons and others have argued that it is for legislator privacy. I don’t think the public really wants to know your family birthdays or where you exercise. However, there is little excuse for not disclosing what is being done with public policy. How is it being formed? Who is lobbying and what is their point of view? Does a representative give full consideration to everyone equally? Will we ever know?

The national Democrats have been doing a whole lot of noisemaking regarding ethics in government since the Abramoff scandal. They demand legislative reform on lobbyists and sign “Ethics Declarations” for the cameras. Yet personal disclosure isn’t something that requires a law to happen. This is yet another chance to lead by example that is squandered by incompetence and fear.

To that end, I’m publishing my campaign calendar. Note that this calendar does not have personal events, nor anything related to my business activities. With modern software, it is a simple matter to create multiple calendars to keep private issues private. As a good-will gesture to all of our elected officials, I’d be happy to facilitate publishing their own legislative calendars. I see little excuse for not doing so.

A couple of new interviews came out this week. The first is by my friend Lori, who along with her husband Dan, invited me to New York City in January. Lori’s interview style is unconventional, but that is what this is all about, right?

Second is a followup by Bryan Catherman who first interviewed me last year.

Many thanks to Lori and Bryan.

It has been a busy January. An impromptu trip to New York with unexpected political benefit, a nearly complete overhaul of the website, half-a-dozen speeches before groups and Rotaries, along with my recruitment by the Rotary HOC to do the website and business center for the 2007 Salt Lake Rotary International Convention. It has left little time for ruminations on my blog, but something happened today that warranted some notice.

Since my announcement, my father has been my biggest fan. He has confessed that he stays awake at night trying to come up with campaigning methods. He has served as driver in parades and mechanic in getting the ancient family motorhome functional for touring. Out of anyone involved, he has been the most consistent volunteer. I am lucky to be his son.

When my parents were starting out the family business, they exploited advertising wherever they could find it. The picture on this page is of their VW Bus with a handpainted sign across the top for the “Tutti Fruiti” juicer that was their product. It wasn’t long into the campaign that Dad got out the plywood and made an “Ashdown for Senate” sign that he proudly hung on his Ford pickup he drives around Bountiful, Utah. One of the most conservative cities in the state. The city I was born and raised in. The city I love.

Tonight I received an email from him.

Hi Peter,
I have run into either the opposition or just vandalism. I had the sign I made for your campaign on the top of my truck. I went to the grocery store and while doing the shopping someone broke the sign off. It was gone when I came out.

My father had his plywood sign vandalized and stolen. My 80-year-old father, who was born in Bountiful when it had less than 2,500 residents. My father, who lived in a chicken coop when Grandma accidentally burned down their house. My father, who survived the Great Depression. My father, who volunteered for dangerous submarine duty in WWII and was placed by fate on a supply ship instead. My father deserves more respect than this.

When I started this race, someone called for a boycott of my business XMission and it didn’t bother me. A few months later, someone threw a brick through a $1,300 15 foot window at the campaign office and I wrote it off as kids. This, however, this bothers me. I must be underestimating my incredible political threat for people to be so low in response.

I’ve heard all sorts of tales of political hatchet jobs from the local to the national. Some people have told me that I need to repeat these tales as fact connected to my opponent, but I refuse to. However, the beauty of what happens to me directly is that I have an avenue to turn around and report it. So keep it up chaps, I’ve got this shiny new technology that levels the playing field and presents you for what you are. Neither red nor blue, patriot or partisan, but a yellow coward who vandalizes the work of an 80-year-old American veteran.

My father closed his email with the following.

Maybe it should be made of steel.
Love, Dad

I couldn’t agree more.

Over the years of running XMission, I witnessed several instances of what became known as “Slashdotting”. A popular tech news site, Slashdot has such a large audience that they can bring powerful computer servers to their knees with an onrush of visitors. Thus the verb, “Slashdotting“.

At the beginning of the campaign it was not only a priority with me to get an article on Slashdot, but it was repeatedly suggested and attempted by interested people. These attempts were made to publish stories about local press coverage here, but they were all rejected by Slashdot editors. Yesterday, in response to a Linux Insider article published on Tuesday, Slashdot greenlit an article.

What is a Slashdot article worth politically? By the raw numbers, 3074 visitors came to the campaign website via the article. In comparison, a notable mention on Daily Kos garnered 2232 visitors in December. Now someone with a marketing background might be thinking, 3000+ visitors at $10 each, that’s $30,000! If only it were that easy. The raw contributed dollar effect of Slashdot has been $290 broken up over four donations.

The residual effect of Slashdot was remarkable. At first a flood of vandals hit the wiki and left their messes about. Almost instantly, a larger group of new volunteers came in and cleaned it up. Within 24 hours, these same volunteers went about reorganizing and contributing to wiki in ways that were utterly amazing to watch. The wiki is now stronger and better than ever.

A few bloggers picked up on the Slashdot reference, including someone in Japan. I enjoyed the Babelfish poetry that I was presented after translation.

This experience emphasizes what was clearly stated by Liza Sabater on Monday, “The #1 mistake advertisers, marketers, political strategists and fundraisers make when hitting the blogosphere is to think of bloggers and readers as just consumers.” So many candidates have and continue to look to Howard Dean raising a million in a day off the Internet as potential for their own campaign. Yet Dean donors weren’t driven by the Internet, they were driven to the Internet by other sources. The fact he was a presidential candidate was one, the other was the traditional media attention he received. The Internet is not a cash machine that can be turned on by simply activating a website. It can be a cash saver because of its open nature. The feedback I have received via the wiki and my first photo poll would have cost tens of thousands of dollars in “focus groups,” and I believe it is of a significantly higher quality.

Make no mistake, this campaign still relies on traditional techniques for reaching the electorate. As a result, it still has traditional needs best met by cash contributions. However, I am invigorated by seeing the ideas of open campaigning and the basis of “Democracy 2.0” flourish.

As my friend in Japan states, “Yesterday slashdot it was done, but it is being crowded calmly and that appearance, without either the circumstances which receive vandalism for the present, ã‚‹ pattern.”

While working at XMission, I received a call from someone who purported to be a marketer. He asked me if I would sell him my customer information. I told him no and that it was against our policy to give out any customer information without a court order. He pressed me further saying, “Come on, there has to be a price.” I refused again, stating that customer privacy was a very important part of XMission. He asked me a third time, “You’re sure?” I told him positively. He then lifted the ruse and said, “Good job, you’ve earned a new customer.”

Part of my business philosophy is to run the company as if I were a customer. I am frequently annoyed to find my personal information sold down the river by companies I do business with, so I decided never to do that to my own customers. In speaking before a Utah state committee on ISPs sharing customer information, I related this policy and asked why they were considering this in relation to only ISPs. Why aren’t other companies, by law, required to notify customers that their personal information is being rented out to the highest bidder?

If only our federal government treated privacy of the individual with the same concern. Instead of following clear constitutional rules, the attitude for some is, “Whatever we can get away with.” How would the officials responsible for these violations feel if their own private conversations were monitored? Why is transparency of the people more important to some officials than transparency in government?

Certainly national security is a concern that should not be diminished. However, our constitution does not deny warranted investigation. What it sets down are the rules for how that is to take place. When wiretaps, emails, or other communications are spied upon without proper court order, then we as Americans are losing a significant portion of our freedom. The constitution puts restraint on government for good reason, it rarely restrains itself.

I continue to advocate for the preservation and expansion of Fourth Amendment privacy rights. Conversely, if elected, my office will be as transparent as possible without violating others’ individual privacy.

Privacy is a fundamental right and value of America.

In Sunday’s Dallas-Fort Worth Star Telegram, Mark Cuban weighs in on copyright law, while Makan Delrahim takes the counterpoint. Unfortunately, Mr. Delrahim’s response was lacking in research. What follows is my response to the editors of the Star Telegram.

Makan Delrahim’s op-ed of December 11th was short on truth. First, my Democratic campaign for U.S. Senate has not received one red cent from Mark Cuban.

Second, Mr. Cuban has not contributed any policy assistance to this campaign. Third, and most importantly, I have never personally met Mr. Cuban and my total correspondence has been limited to three emails which consisted of a total of 42 words from him.

Portraying me as a political foe of Hatch running with Cuban’s money is not only false, but insulting. Mr. Delrahim should at least pick up an FEC report before spewing such accusations.

Senator Hatch’s stands on copyright have been repeatedly one-sided; protect the recording and motion picture industries. In doing so, he has caused immeasurable harm to technology. My own Internet Service Provider business, XMission, has had to deal with being the media companies’ unpaid copyright police since Digital Millennium Copyright Act became law. Every week, we handle hundreds of spurious complaints with no compensation from these entities for doing so. We’ve also seen the DMCA levied by third parties attempting to thwart the business of their competitors.

Crediting Senator Hatch with the creation of iTunes is laughable when you consider his comments introducing the INDUCE legislation. What the Supreme Court upheld was existing copyright law, not preventing any technology able to infringe on copyright. Peer-to-peer networks and the iPod have legitimate legal uses, but to the recording and film industry lobbyists pushing Senator Hatch, they have none.

In addition, the DMCA criminalizes such sensible “Fair Use” actions as parents making copies of childrens’ DVDs so originals are not damaged. This favoritism towards the industry is not because Senator Hatch has an agenda against the Internet and technology, its because he listens to one side of the argument. As a constituent who attempted to write Senator Hatch to represent the technology side, I found that the only way to make my voice heard was to run against him.

Mr. Delrahim should realize there are people in the technology industry who feel the problematic effects of Senator Hatch’s legislation every day.

One of my childhood memories is the legend behind the creation of chess. The creator presented his finished game to the king and the king was so pleased that he told the creator to name any price for his work. In response, the creator stated that he wanted one grain of rice on the first square of the chessboard, then have it subsequently doubled for each square thereafter. The king laughed and said, “Is that all?”

The king didn’t realize the power of exponents. Considering the first square had one grain of rice, the remaining squares had 2 to the 63rd power of rice. My calculator tells me this is 9.22e18, which is a 9 followed by 18 digits, or over 9 quintillion (a billion billion) grains of rice. Most likely the king could not pay off.

Marketers believe “word of mouth” is the most powerful form of advertising. Indeed, more customers have come to my business XMission based on recommendations of friends and family than any other method. Political campaigns want to use this but it is not anything you can purchase, so they mainly rely on traditional methods of advertising through broadcast and print media.

Traditional media is still part of this campaign’s strategy, but it hinges on significant funds being raised. When I encounter a willing volunteer, instead of shaking them down, I tell them to sign up for the mailing list and spread the word. The numbers are pretty simple in this race. In 2004, just over 940,000 voters participated. This was a presidential and a gubernatorial year in Utah where turnout is high. In the “mid-term”, 2002, about 570,000 voters cast their vote. So lets say 700,000 show up in 2006. This means a winner would need a maximum of 350,001 votes. A stark figure until you think of the chess board.

Tell two people a day about this campaign, and have them do the same. In 19 days, 524,288 people will have heard about it. Of course we realize that people are busy, so expecting this to happen is not realistic. However, make up the gaps by increasing the number of people you tell, and the potential is vast.

Some prominent technology websites have refused to greenlight articles about this campaign. National technologists have not responded to my emails. Cracking national media from the top is futile. The word needs to rise from the bottom. Politicians talk about the “grass roots” ad nauseam, but this is what the Internet does best. In order for this campaign to succeed, we not only need votes from inside Utah, we need funds from across the country. Send an email to your friends. Put a button on your web page. Spread the word.

The KCPW interview with Blair Feulner went well this morning. You can listen to the recording here. Kos of DailyKos did a nice summary here. Finally, the campaign hit Metafilter this morning. A nice way to kick off December!