MIT Rejects Free Speech

 Michael Powell at NYT:

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology invited the geophysicist Dorian Abbot to give a prestigious public lecture this autumn. He seemed a natural choice, a scientific star who studies climate change and whether planets in distant solar systems might harbor atmospheres conducive to life.

 Then a swell of angry resistance arose. Some faculty members and graduate students argued that Dr. Abbot, a professor at the University of Chicago, had created harm by speaking out against aspects of affirmative action and diversity programs. In videos and opinion pieces, Dr. Abbot, who is white, has asserted that such programs treat “people as members of a group rather than as individuals, repeating the mistake that made possible the atrocities of the 20th century.” He said that he favored a diverse pool of applicants selected on merit.

 He said that his planned lecture at M.I.T. would have made no mention of his views on affirmative action. But his opponents in the sciences argued he represented an “infuriating,” “inappropriate” and oppressive choice.

 On Sept. 30, M.I.T. reversed course. The head of its earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences department called off Dr. Abbot’s lecture, to be delivered to professors, graduate students and the public, including some top Black and Latino high school students.

This quote lays out what is at stake here: “This idea of intellectual debate and rigor as the pinnacle of intellectualism comes from a world in which white men dominated.” We are confronting a fundamental attack on the idea of a university.https://t.co/xUv5vuCLI7

— Dorian Schuyler Abbot (@DorianAbbot) October 20, 2021

PAC Workaround

Kate Ackley at Roll Call:

Lobbyists for business interests say they’re implementing workarounds to get to know the 32 incoming freshman Democratic House members who have sworn off corporate political action committee dollars.

Those newbies, in town this week for member orientation, comprise the majority of what will be a total of 45 representatives and senators in the 116th Congress who have pledged to reject donations from business PACs.

Instead of PAC dollars, corporate interests plan to rely on individual personal donations from their executives, lobbyists and other consultants, instead of the collective contributions from corporate PACs. In addition, lobbyists will be sure to attend meet-and-greets happening over the coming days and weeks with the new members.

Some lobbyists said they also would rely on policy partnerships with think tanks, grassroots activist organizations and charities — as well as shopping op-eds focused on specific lawmakers — for entree to the newly-elected members of Congress.

...

CR Wooters, a lobbyist at Mehlman Castagnetti Rosen & Thomas and a former Democratic congressional aide, says corporate clients and the incoming lawmakers will have much to discuss on policy issues, including proposals on paid leave or increasing the federal minimum wage — and PACs aren’t a necessary conduit to those talks.

“Those could be very productive conversations,” Wooters said, as lobbyists educate new members about issues they may never have encountered before. “Businesses can also spend a lot of time educating new members on trade and tariffs, or maybe you have no idea what cybersecurity is. Now you’re having to deal with giant issues like health care and education.”

“The old way of saying, ‘We’ll write them a check’ just feels lazy and dated to me,” Wooters said.

Facebook as an Interest Group

Facebook is not just a social medium.  It is also a company subject to federal regulation, especially on privacy issues. Accordingly, Michelle Quinn writes at Politico, it has put politics "into its very source code."  COO Sheryl Sandberg has Washington experience as chief of staff at the Treasury Department

Washington Post Co. Chairman Don Graham and former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles sit on the company’s board of directors. The company’s policy team members were recruited from both parties and have high-level experience in the administrative and legislative branches.
...
“We’re committed to explaining how our service works, the important actions we take to protect the more than 900 million people who use our service and the value of innovation to our economy,” said Joel Kaplan, the head of Facebook’s Washington office. “We’ve made it one of our priorities to ensure that resources are in place to demonstrate our leadership on these issues.”
...
In what is thought to be a first for a pre-IPO tech company, Facebook created a political action committee. Its executives and board members have given to Obama and GOP presidential contenders Mitt Romney and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

Facebook friends its allies by doing favors:

“Facebook made it clear from the beginning they wanted to help lawmakers make the most of the platform,” said Don Seymour, digital communications director for Speaker John Boehner, who met with Sandberg on a recent trip the Facebook COO made to Washington.

 “Their D.C. staff has not only been proactive in working with offices, they’ve been quick to respond and assist anyone who wants to better engage with their constituents,” he said.

Facebook has even spent its political capital behind issues some argue are not core to its mission, such as its support for AT&T’s bid for T-Mobile and for the recent Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. Instead, these moves are seen as part of its overall strategic effort to forge deep alliances on the Hill and be at the table should Facebook’s issues come up.

Facebook PAC

Facebook is more than a dominant force in social media. It is also a corporate interest group. Evan Mackinder writes at the Open Secrets blog:

Facebook continued to show off its growing political muscle Tuesday night, as its nascent political action committee disclosed an impressive six-figure haul during its inaugural fundraising quarter.

Facebook PAC raised a total of $170,000 during the final three months of 2011. And while it has yet to donate to a single politician on Capitol Hill, it revealed at least one important fact with its first fundraising report: the company is capable of tapping a friendly and powerful network of donors to come up with a serious amount of campaign cash.


Namely, its own employees.

Employees at the world's most popular social network donated $113,750 to their new PAC, or about 67 percent of all itemized donations made to Facebook PAC during the fourth quarter, according to a Center for Responsive Politics review of its recent filing with the Federal Election Commission.
...The new fundraising push comes at a time when Facebook has been investing more and more in its Washington, D.C., footprint.

In recent years, the company has steadily increased its lobbying presence, beginning with a modest near $208,000 year in 2009.

Facebook upped those expenditures in 2010, but it was nothing compared to what it spent last year, when the company's output exploded with a whopping $1.35 million spending spree.

The NFL and Campaign Money

As we have previously noted, the NFL is an object of veneration to many Americans, but it is also an interest group. The Center for Responsive Politics discusses NFL-related political contributors:

A new year means a fresh start for teams like the Houston Texans. Not only is the NFL's newest team the favorite to win its division for the first time, the team ranks as the most politically active since January 2009, according to a new analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Texans can thank their owner and founder, energy executive Robert McNair, for that.

McNair has donated $215,200 of his estimated $1.4 billion net worth to political causes since January 2009, almost strictly to Republicans. That pushes the Texans to a team total of $293,100 in political contributions from its players, executives and coaches.

...

Overall, the teams that favored Republicans most with their campaign cash included the Houston Texans, Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, Denver Broncos, Carolina Panthers, Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, Detroit Lions, New York Jets, San Diego Chargers and the Baltimore Ravens, all of which donated at least 70 percent of their contributions to the GOP.

Meanwhile, the teams that favored Democrats most with their political donations included the Seattle Seahawks, St. Louis Rams, San Francisco 49ers, Oakland Raiders, Philadelphia Eagles, New York Giants, New England Patriots and New Orleans Saints, all of which donated at least 70 percent of their political contributions to Democrats.

...

As is often the case in business versus labor battles, the NFL, the business side, has had the deeper pockets. During the first six months of 2011, the league has spent $820,000 on lobbying versus the players union's $120,000.
...
To further advance its interest, last year the NFL spread the money around like a prolific offense using its political action committee, Gridiron PAC.

The PAC, which was formed in 2008, donated more than $505,000 to federal candidates during the 2010 election cycle after not spending a dime in 2008. Of that sum, 59 percent benefited Democrats and 41 percent aided Republicans. Overall, 98 House candidates and 31 Senate candidates received money from the NFL's PAC during the 2010 election cycle.