Bachmann on 2012: Expect a Decision By Summer

I caught up with Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann on the Hill this morning, and we chatted about her potential presidential bid as she power-walked — at unforgiving speeds — through the halls of the Cannon office building. The gist: Officially, she hasn’t made a decision, but she will be making one in the next few months, and she seems heartened by feedback from New Hampshire and other potential bellwethers.

“I’ve been in the early primary states talking to people about what their concerns are, and I have not made a decision about my plans,” she told me in between stops to greet staffers. “But I anticipate that a decision will be made some time in the early summer either way, because I believe that it’s important for a candidate to be part of the August straw poll in Iowa. And so if I choose to go that route, then I think I’ll need to have time to make plans.”

When asked how the feedback she’s gotten at fundraisers and meet ‘n’ greets has changed her outlook, Bachmann gives an unequivocally positive response: “It’s been excellent, absolutely excellent.” Though she doesn’t admit that this amounts to an increasing likelihood that she’ll run — “It’s all part of the information that I’m taking in to come to a pointed decision,” she says — it’s hard to imagine it doesn’t. She approaches the prospect of running with a cautious, deliberate respect that seems appropriate for a member of Congress so recently shot into the political stratosphere. “As you know, it’s a momentous decision. It’s not one that I take lightly. It can’t be a rash decision,” she said. “So, with my advisors and my family, we’re trying to make a prudent decision and take all the information in.”

She says there was no single moment when the Oval Office started to seem like her desired destination, but with Tea Party support strengthening since before the midterms, she’s increasingly become a name people know. In a recent Quinnipiac poll, more respondents knew who she was than a host of other 2012 potentials, including Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Rick Santorum and Haley Barbour. “I think increasingly, watching the Obama policies has been what’s galvanized my thinking,” she says of her motivation. But does she feel simply inspired to run or like she could really take the win? “Well, that’s all a part of the decision that I’m trying to make right now,” she says. “It just hasn’t been made.”

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • nflfoghorn

    …But you CAN have a presidential campaign with nutballs ;)

  • hippooath

    Please – do it.

  • 53_3

    I have an empty can of mixed nuts – glazed. Would this be of use to you?

  • 53_3

    Wow. It’s gonna be a real doozer. Look at the waves!
    .
    You’re right. The winds of change are whipping up all kinds of froth!
    .
    zoom out
    We’d better batten down the hatches! Who knows who will be left after this storm passes.
    .
    zoom out, to actual scale, showing Obama playing with his kids, blowing on a thimble full of water…

  • 53_3

    Cat Fight!

  • newfreedomblog

    With all of the emails I am getting from Michele, she is running. Count on it.

  • chupkar

    Pretty please with sugar on top!

  • 53_3

    snicker

  • deconstructiva

    Katy, thanks for posting this. The R base is now clearly split in two (notice current budget showdown which will likely lead to shutdown): TP / Bachmann, Palin, Huckabee vs. Everyone Else / T-Paw, Mittens, Eye of Newt, etc. While Bachmann says there’s no single event pushing her into a ’12 run, do YOU see it differently? Which events do you think pushed her into this particular limelight? While early for tea leaves, maybe Bachmann can poach voters away from Sarah or Huckabee and help swing the R nomination (hope so, heh heh).

  • m0mentom0ri

    What’s the birther point of view? You part of Team Bachmann, Rusty? Or are you still holding onto Herman Cain for 2012?

  • deconstructiva

    Bachmann / Palin ’12 or Palin / Bachmann ’12, please!

  • 53_3

    Next, he’ll be telling us about his emails from God…

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    She approaches the prospect of running with a cautious, deliberate respect that seems appropriate…she’s increasingly become a name people know…
    .
    There y’all go again, lending legitimacy to a dim bulb that even former staffers think is unelectable.

    The ‘legacy media’ should be laughing Bachmann out of the figurative room.

  • 53_3

    Noooh! Not good enough! Why settle for one when you can have two!
    .
    Palin / Bachmann in 2012!
    .
    Or, the other way around…

  • m0mentom0ri

    I’m guessing Bachmann Palin Overdrive will suck a lot of airtime from the actual serious GOP candidates. Our modern media loves chasing after the crazy shiny objects. Easier than real journalism, plus it’s what the people want, right?

  • 53_3

    …or The Donald…

  • fhmadvocat

    Could Minnesota have two serious candidates for president? Would this be 1968 all over again, except of the two stalwart liberals of Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey, we would have Tea Party favorite Michelle Bachman and moderately conservative Tim Pawlenty?

    Actually, the two of them together would make an interesting team. She brings in the charisma and he brings in the brain. She is a firebrand, and he is calm and collected.

    Actually she has the perfect temperment as a running mate. She can be a nasty attack dog. Pawlenty, oh, not so much. He brings in the executive experience and she has the experience of serving in the legislative branch of the federal government.

    The only problem is that Constitutionally, they can’t run together (though Bush and Chaney found a way around that problem).

  • newfreedomblog

    “The ‘legacy media’ should be laughing Bachmann out of the figurative room.”

    .
    Yea, kinda like how they laughed at Obama’s campaign in 2008, right?

  • hippooath

    “Yea, kinda like how they laughed at Obama’s campaign in 2008, right?”
    .
    They weren’t laughing AT him, only the idea that a black man from a blue state could win.
    .
    In Michele’s case it’s…the whole package of nutballery. But anyways – RUN!!!!

  • http://grapemusing.blogspot.com/ grape_crush

    …kinda like how they laughed…
    .

    .
    Gross oversimplification makes things look alike, Rusty…and in this case, Obama’s campaign was treated dismissively (in 2007, not 2008) because of the media’s assumed supremacy of Clinton’s candidacy…
    .
    Not because he was an imbecilic nutter with a law degree from an non-accredited school who has a habit of opening his mouth to demonstrate to the world how much of a nasty dope he is. That’s Bachmann’s gig.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “moderately conservative Tim Pawlenty”
    .
    In what way do you find his brand of republicanism “moderate”?

  • filmnoia

    If I was part of Obama’s campaign brain trust , or a member of the DNC, I’d see to it that I would air weekly commercials showing some of the most outrageous GOP statements. Make Bachmann, Gingrich, Palin, Huckabee, et al. the face of the modern GOP. That will not only pare away what’s left of rational old line Republicans , but the moderate middle of the road voter will just shake their heads and turn their backs on them.

  • certifiablylazy

    America’s Funniest Home Videos: Republican Coming Out Edition?
    .

  • rdw56

    You do her a big favor under-estimating her as you do all conservatives. It got you 16 years of Bush and Reagan. What Michele is doing is planting the seeds for the future by developing name recognition and a much larger fund-raising reach. Many politicians running for President the 1st time are testing the waters to gauge the practicality of a more serious run later and to build the base they’ll need to succeed. The very act of campaigning makes one a much better candidate if they are reasonably smart. We learn by doing.

    Michele has already learned a great deal and has more name recognition than a majority in Congress. The 20% of Americans self-identified as liberal despise her while the 40% self-identified as conservative like her. She only needs 10% of the remaining 40%.

    keep with the stupid charge. You held Bush to only two terms using it.

  • rdw56

    Nice summary but you vastly under-estimate her intelligence. She far brighter and more disciplined than Biden. Talk about a mismatch. Michele is still a novice and learning on the job but there is no comparison between her and Joe. It was comical to see her trashed for getting the site of the battle of Concord wrong but a good thing. The lesson for her is to make sure you have your facts lined-up before putting mouth into gear.

    Joe is no closer to learning that lesson now than when he was 5. The coolest thing with her getting the VP spot would be the competition between Time and the rest of the MSM on the one side pushing michele as the lightweight and then Fox and the rest pushing Michele as the only one among the two with a brain. Joe will probably provide more gaffes in any one week than Michele in an entire campaign.

    Does it strike you as odd the MSM did more to cover Michele’s mistake on Concord than they did on Obama’s 57 states? No me. Fox still plays the clip periodically.

    What exactly does Joe do?

  • rdw56

    I think you misread the electorate. That old line moderate GOP are now mostly what we call independent. Reagan has moved the country dramatically right. 40%-42% of Americans define themselves as conservatives. I’m not sure as many define themselves as GOP. But McCain got 47% of the vote so arguably 40/47 = 85% of the GOP poll is conservative.

    While we still do have many moderates as a percent of the base they’re small. They get us to 47%-48% and then it’s a battle for independents. If you want to know why smart people like Rove think a good candidate can beat Obama look at his numbers among independents and in states he picked up that Gore lost. He’s near 40% among independents and 40% in NC, VA, OH, IN, NH and IA. He’s well below 50% in PA, CO, NM, MN, WI and even MI.

  • 53_3

    You know, rdw?
    .
    I would really like her to be the GOP candidate.
    .
    No, really, really I would!
    .
    Give me a link to on her website where I can contribute to her campaign funds. I’m that serious…

  • filmnoia

    “40%-42% of Americans define themselves as conservatives. ”

    Most people don’t think through a political prism like that. Many people who are cautious, law abiding and careful with their personal finances, would label themselves “conservative”. In that sense I’d consider myself “conservative”, but I’d disagree with you 98% of the time. The fact is, in terms of what the population wants in creating an orderly, civil and FAIR society, poll after poll has shown that the US is more like a European social democracy. It’s just that the oligarchy has more of a stranglehold here than in other developed countries.

  • deconstructiva

    53, you’d better hurry and get the info. from rdw before he drifts off topic (again!) into his comfy realm of Obama is Evil™, Net Neutrality™, and Global Warming™. Never mind Katy’s original topic.

  • 53_3

    Why isn’t he putting up a link. Hell!
    .
    I want to give money! REAL money!
    .
    It would be far better to spend it there than anywhere else.
    .
    He’s a card, he is, decon…

  • hippooath

    “You do her a big favor under-estimating her as you do all conservatives. It got you 16 years of Bush and Reagan. What Michele is doing is planting the seeds for the future by developing name recognition and a much larger fund-raising reach. Many politicians running for President the 1st time are testing the waters to gauge the practicality of a more serious run later and to build the base they’ll need to succeed. The very act of campaigning makes one a much better candidate if they are reasonably smart. We learn by doing.

    Michele has already learned a great deal and has more name recognition than a majority in Congress. The 20% of Americans self-identified as liberal despise her while the 40% self-identified as conservative like her. She only needs 10% of the remaining 40%.

    keep with the stupid charge. You held Bush to only two terms using it.”
    .
    Shorter: Run her. As far as the act of campaigning makes one smarter…that theory really holds well with Sarah. I like when Michele learned about the India trip and hear stare in the headlight look when people corrected her and she continued her learning by repeating it.
    .
    Those are the golden moments I’m looking forward to in a debate. It might actually be worth watching for the laughs.

  • fhmadvocat

    rdw56,

    Michele Bachman has made a name for herself by making the most ridiculous comments. Other than the red meat she has offered to the extreme right wing of the Republican party, what does she have to offer? Goodness, she make Sarah Palin look calm and intelligent and Sarah Palin has enough sense to know she does not have a chance in Hades to beat Obama.

    Funny thing, Obama looks very beatable until you actually line up a real Republican against him. The same could have been said about Bush in 2004.

    As as her against Joe Biden, Joe can get away with it because he is viewed like an old Grandpa. I am sure your Grandfather could say things, that if you had said them as a kid, it would have gotten your butt whipped.

    Besides, VPs never help, and can only hurt you in the general election.

    Truth is, I can think of a dozen Republican candidates who are more appealing than her, including Tim Pawlenty, and Republicans tend to nominate the candidate who has the best chance to win, not the most ideological.

  • rdw56

    If you want to donate then just do it. If you need me to provide the link you are obviously just running at the mouth. And do you really think I give a rats ass as to what you donate or to whom? Do you really think any of these candidates will be lacking in money? Obama has already held a dozen fundraisers on his way to his $1B goal. The most over-rated thing in politics is money.

    How much free publicity to you think Backmann gets from the MSM? It’s almost constant. You have this bizarre impression because the writers at Time think she’s stupid the nation agrees with them. How did that work with Bush? Reagan? Even the gaffe on which state the battle at concord was fought in was so minor it was as much of a reflection on Time as Michele. How many people do you think would correctly locate Concord and Lexington with confidence? I’d guess less than 25%. So most of the people reading that gaffe won’t see it the way the snobs at Time see it. Moreover as has been pointed out Time never reports on Democrat gaffes. While it was clearly a negative for Michele and she needs to learn from it Time only reinforced it’s bias and snobbery.

    Let me remind you, I am fine with this. Look down at the last 100 posting on this blog by Time columnists about politicians and note the overwhelming negativity toward republicans. Time might was well be a subsidiary of the DNC. The good news for my side is they suck at advocacy. check out the more recent post on Obama’s energy plan which is a shift toward drilling and away from green BS. For all of the concentrated media power of the MSM they can’t move the needle their way. They have openly advocated things like Kyoto, Cap and Trade, Global Warming and have failed on all things.

  • rdw56

    Actually people DO understand the political prism and what conservative means versus liberal. It’s a political question not one about personality preferences. Only the extreme left wants a European social Democracy which is why Obama got crushed in the 2010 elections. With huge congressional majorities this liberal President could not raise income taxes even 1% on even just millionaires. That’s a generational rebuke and total rejection of all things European.

    Americans get Europe and they get liberal institutions like the UN and EU. We despise the UN. Relations with Europe and support for NATO are near all-time lows. GWB was able to reduce permanent troops counts in Europe by more than 90% due to French and German malfeasance during the run-up to the Iraqi war. As far as the American military in Europe we have hospitals and a few airbases but our presence and economic contribution is a fraction of just 2000 levels. The irony of Obama’s worldview that we are not an exceptional nation and merely one among many is we no longer have special relationships as he stated to the British press. Well if our relationship with England and France is no more special than with Saudi Arabic and Indonesia then we’ve be definition downgraded the Atlantic alliance with Western Europe.

    I’m all for them providing their own defense shield but I suspect this isn’t what they had in mind.

  • rdw56

    would label themselves “conservative”

    ******************************************************

    Why do you think so many liberals run away from the term? My guess is 90% of professional liberals like politicians, advisors, media types who are liberal refuse to describe themselves as such. They’ll either use progressive hoping people don’t understand what that means or lie and say independent.

  • rdw56

    Net Neutrality

    ************************************

    Come on, that’s deader than global warming. FCC can pass all of the regs it wants but it won’t get a dime to enforce them.

  • rdw56

    As as her against Joe Biden, Joe can get away with it because he is viewed like an old Grandpa. I am sure your Grandfather could say things, that if you had said them as a kid, it would have gotten your butt whipped.

    ***********************************************

    That’s a rather astonishing admission. You agree he’s a dolt yet you put him a heartbeat away from the Presidency. The fact is Joe is going to have to debate someone and he will lose. Also the unique situation of 2008 is in the past. Joe is an example of Obama’s executive skills and he clearly made a bad call here. I’d bet now Joe will be hidden most of the campaign.

    I’m not advocating Michele as VP nor anyone else. The race for both positions is wide open and two people are going to have to elevate their games.

    For example that gaffe about Concord can’t become a pattern. All politicians make the occasional gaffe. Biden, Kerry, Gore as well as Newt and Huck are buffoonish. Michele is too raw to judge at this point but with only two terms under her belt has been very active and has become fairly media savvy. Given all of her media exposure the fact this gaffe became news suggests it doesn’t happen often. As you noted Biden does this stuff so often no one notices.

    What I’ve always found impressive is how much candidates improve as they campaign. Assuming Michele is able to do so she can be a valuable addition to the ticket as was Palin for McCain. Forgetting the same state limitation the point made above for her balancing Pawlenty is dead on. I am not familiar enough with MN state politics but if there is a chance she puts MN into play for the GOP she will be in the mix.

    MY own preference is Marco Rubio but it’s early. .

  • sacredh

    “Come on, that’s deader than global warming.”
    .
    It’s snowing here now. We already have 2″ of the white stuff on the ground. Global warming my ass.

  • rdw56

    As far as the act of campaigning makes one smarter…that theory really holds well with Sarah.

    **************************************

    Learn how to read. The act of campaigning makes one a better candidate assuming, as I pointed out, they
    learn as they go along especially from their mistakes. That was the entire point of the concord gaffe. It’s the sort of thing that can end up being a valuable lesson. Gore and Biden are two great examples of candidates who never learned. Gore just can’t help exaggerating and Biden just runs at the mouth. I’m not advocating Michele for VP because I don’t know how well she absorbs these lessons and refines her presentation. I’ve said before I think MSM advocacy is an advantage for the GOP for this reason. Gore and Biden were able to utter gaffe after gaffe with little or no feedback. There was never a cost. Kerry told that braindead Xman in cambodia story repeatedly over 20 years and never once did it occur to him or his media audience that Nixon wasn’t President in 68 and this the story was impossible.

    Michele Bachmann puts Concord and Lexington in the wrong state and the MSM goes gaga. I rather like that. The MSM has in effect assigned higher standards to GOP candidates. Meaning we need better candidates to meet those higher standards. This gaffe was trivial. Presumably knowing the next time she ad-libs or otherwise repeats some facts she’ll make sure she’s correct or pass on the opportunity. Al Gore never made this choice. Not until he ran against Bush and the MSM could not protect him was he fully exposed and it cost him the Presidency.

    If in fact MIchele is a gaffe machine I’ll be disappointed for her but happy for conservatism. She won’t get any higher than she is now. Gore cost you 8 years of Bush.

  • rdw56

    I like when Michele learned about the India trip and hear stare in the headlight look when people corrected her and she continued her learning by repeating it.

    **********************************************

    I have no idea what you are talking about here but based on this you have no business calling anyone else stupid.

  • rwbbinla

    Net Neutrality is not about FCC regulation, it is about not allowing industry to regulate content delivered on the internet. Are you daft or just uninformed. I conclude the former since this can affect anybody who uses the service (internet), Including You!

  • hippooath

    “I have no idea what you are talking about here”
    .
    That’s the story of your commenting her enow isn’t it?
    .
    You have no idea about stuff but you still support it because someone told you to. You don’t know about the Michele and the insane stuff she says but to you she’s top notch.
    .
    You completely ignore that Sarahs campaign didn’t make her better – that observed fact showed that all she did and still do is throw around a bunch of red meat; talking points and that when anyone bother analysing what she says it’s mush. It’s like a bunch of stuff thrown together with flags and stuff but it’s absolute fluff. If anyone asks her a real question she’s clueless.
    .
    But you don’t care, or know, because to you what you don’t know doesn’t matter – it’s what you believe that does.
    .
    People who know sh!t don’t go out of their ways to be, act and prove they’re ignorant and then be proud of it.

  • hippooath

    What little rdw knows about anything including net neutrality easily fits Sarah’s palm.

  • np042

    rdw has shown time and again (and outright admitted) that he has absolutely no idea what NN actually entails. That wouldn’t be so bad if he didn’t enthusiastically embrace this willful ignorance while simultaneously looking down his nose at everyone else.

  • rdw56

    Net neutrality has nothing to do with the internet? hmmm. OK, I give up. What does “net” actually stand for then?

    No matter, ain’t gonna happen.

  • rdw56

    I know plenty. But I didn’t understand what YOU were trying to say. And still don’t. You didn’t explain. This is why liberals lose all the time.

  • rdw56

    You completely ignore that Sarahs campaign didn’t make her better -

    ****************

    Sarah’s campaign made her a national political figure and
    very, very wealthy woman. Don’t you just laugh when MSM columnists have to take oaths not to write about her because they can’t help themselves otherwise. She is a major political force.

  • np042

    No one said NN has nothing to do with the internet.
    .
    I asked this once before, and I expect I’ll get largely the same answer (ie, nothing substantial): what do you think NN actually is? All you’ve ever stated before is a “regulation = bad” approach without ever saying how NN is regulation or what it is that it’s proponents want to regulate.
    .
    If you can actually give a coherent answer to that I’ll be surprised.

  • rdw56

    Why do I need to know how they want to regulate? The FCC is a regulatory agency. I’ve watched then for 50 years. Not only don’t I want them regulating the internet I don’t want them regulating anything. I’d move the FCC budget to zero tomorrow. Here’s more:

    ***************************************************

    The Net Neutrality Coup
    The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who’s who of left-liberal foundations.

    By JOHN FUND

    The Federal Communications Commission’s new “net neutrality” rules, passed on a partisan 3-2 vote yesterday, represent a huge win for a slick lobbying campaign run by liberal activist groups and foundations. The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.

    There’s little evidence the public is demanding these rules, which purport to stop the non-problem of phone and cable companies blocking access to websites and interfering with Internet traffic. Over 300 House and Senate members have signed a letter opposing FCC Internet regulation, and there will undoubtedly be even less support in the next Congress.

    Yet President Obama, long an ardent backer of net neutrality, is ignoring both Congress and adverse court rulings, especially by a federal appeals court in April that the agency doesn’t have the power to enforce net neutrality. He is seeking to impose his will on the Internet through the executive branch. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former law school friend of Mr. Obama, has worked closely with the White House on the issue. Official visitor logs show he’s had at least 11 personal meetings with the president.

    The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney’s agenda? “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

    A year earlier, Mr. McChesney wrote in the Marxist journal Monthly Review that “any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.” Mr. McChesney told me in an interview that some of his comments have been “taken out of context.” He acknowledged that he is a socialist and said he was “hesitant to say I’m not a Marxist.”

    For a man with such radical views, Mr. McChesney and his Free Press group have had astonishing influence. Mr. Genachowski’s press secretary at the FCC, Jen Howard, used to handle media relations at Free Press. The FCC’s chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, co-authored a Free Press report calling for regulation of political talk radio.

    Free Press has been funded by a network of liberal foundations that helped the lobby invent the purported problem that net neutrality is supposed to solve. They then fashioned a political strategy similar to the one employed by activists behind the political speech restrictions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill. The methods of that earlier campaign were discussed in 2004 by Sean Treglia, a former program officer for the Pew Charitable Trusts, during a talk at the University of Southern California. Far from being the efforts of genuine grass-roots activists, Mr. Treglia noted, the campaign-finance reform lobby was controlled and funded by foundations like Pew.

    “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot,” he told his audience. He noted that “If Congress thought this was a Pew effort, it’d be worthless.” A study by the Political Money Line, a nonpartisan website dealing with issues of campaign funding, found that of the $140 million spent to directly promote campaign-finance reform in the last decade, $123 million came from eight liberal foundations.

    After McCain-Feingold passed, several of the foundations involved in the effort began shifting their attention to “media reform”—a movement to impose government controls on Internet companies somewhat related to the long-defunct “Fairness Doctrine” that used to regulate TV and radio companies. In a 2005 interview with the progressive website Buzzflash, Mr. McChesney said that campaign-finance reform advocate Josh Silver approached him and “said let’s get to work on getting popular involvement in media policy making.” Together the two founded Free Press.

    Free Press and allied groups such as MoveOn.org quickly got funding. Of the eight major foundations that provided the vast bulk of money for campaign-finance reform, six became major funders of the media-reform movement. (They are the Pew Charitable Trusts, Bill Moyers’s Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Joyce Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.) Free Press today has 40 staffers and an annual budget of $4 million.

    These wealthy funders pay for more than publicity and conferences. In 2009, Free Press commissioned a poll, released by the Harmony Institute, on net neutrality. Harmony reported that “more than 50% of the public argued that, as a private resource, the Internet should not be regulated by the federal government.” The poll went on to say that since “currently the public likes the way the Internet works . . . messaging should target supporters by asking them to act vigilantly” to prevent a “centrally controlled Internet.”

    To that end, Free Press and other groups helped manufacture “research” on net neutrality. In 2009, for example, the FCC commissioned Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society to conduct an “independent review of existing information” for the agency in order to “lay the foundation for enlightened, data-driven decision making.”

    Considering how openly activist the Berkman Center has been on these issues, it was an odd decision for the FCC to delegate its broadband research to this outfit. Unless, of course, the FCC already knew the answer it wanted to get.

    The Berkman Center’s FCC- commissioned report, “Next Generation Connectivity,” wound up being funded in large part by the Ford and MacArthur foundations. So some of the same foundations that have spent years funding net neutrality advocacy research ended up funding the FCC-commissioned study that evaluated net neutrality research.

    The FCC’s “National Broadband Plan,” released last spring, included only five citations of respected think tanks such as the International Technology and Innovation Foundation or the Brookings Institution. But the report cited research from liberal groups such as Free Press, Public Knowledge, Pew and the New America Foundation more than 50 times.

    So the “media reform” movement paid for research that backed its views, paid activists to promote the research, saw its allies installed in the FCC and other key agencies, and paid for the FCC research that evaluated the research they had already paid for. Now they have their policy. That’s quite a coup.

    Mr. Fund is a columnist for WSJ.com

  • np042

    1) Maybe I missed it, but that article never actually states what NN is. All it does it attack various groups that have supported it. It doesn’t say what it is, what it does, or what potential effects NN might have, except that it’s obviously bad because of that big bad “R” word.
    .
    2) Case in point:

    The losers are likely to be consumers who will see innovation and investment chilled by regulations that treat the Internet like a public utility.

    Why? The article treats this line as fact without any supporting evidence. How would treating the internet as a utility be a bad thing?
    .
    What the author is really saying is that if the internet was treated as a utilty, then the ISPs wouldn’t be able to rake in money and might actually have to invest in their infrastructure. They couldn’t get away with pointless data caps and ridiculous overages if they were actually forced to charge a reasonable ammount per GB. (A GB costs, at most, pennies to transmit.)
    .
    3) Again, case point:

    The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet

    What is this regulation? What is it regulating? The article (and you) never addresses any of this.
    .
    4) That’s the heart of this whole debate: you throw up vague statements like this without ever actually detailing any specifics. Then you do a victory dance saying “liberals” have lost. As always, you remain willfully ignorant of the subject. Get back to me when you have an actual opinion on the matter and aren’t parroting someone else’s talking points.
    .
    5) Link to an example where NN is needed; ISP throttling a completely legal internet traffic

blog comments powered by Disqus