May 6th, 2009
By Julie
Most of us at IPDI and Politics Magazine are still recovering from the Politics Online Conference last week. The conference hosted
· 35 breakout panels (and 5 general sessions) with over 170 speakers.
· 6 elected officials, including Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Rep. Steve Israel (D, NY-2), Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R WA-5), Rep. Tim Ryan (D, OH-17), Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (Ohio), and Secretary of State Debra Bowen (California).
· Attendees from across the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Luxembourg, Austria, Bahrain, Seychelles, Brazil, Germany, and Venezuela – to name just a few countries.
(By the way, in case you missed any of the panels, we’ll upload them to our YouTube Channel and the conference wiki over the course of the next week.)
None of which would have been possible with the participation of our many sponsoring organizations:
We couldn’t have done it without their support for innovative events in the technology and political spaces, like the Politics Online Conference.
Posted in Politics Online Conference | No Comments »
May 5th, 2009
By Julie
Cross-posted at the GSPM.
Panel four at the GSPM’s Forum on Special Interests and Public Policy opened with a discussion of whether or not the Obama Administration’s stance on lobbying, disclosure, and special interests are real or just a PR stunt.
The panel included Ron Christie (Christie Strategies), Ellen Miller (Sunlight Foundation), Melanie Sloan (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), and Leo Wise (Office of Congressional Ethics) and moderated by Steve Roberts, a professor in GWU’s School of Media and Public Affairs.
Answers were mixed.
Ellen Miller argued that the Obama administration’s stance on lobbying and ethics is in fact real and can lead the way to reform:
Something the Obama administration has understood is transparency and it’s meaning. The fault of the lobbying rules to date is that they do not deter and they do not give us information that we need because we see them after the fact. . . . Information is only public when it is online, and it’s only useful and only represents transparency when it is done in real time.
Melanie Sloan, on the other hand, found it “silly”:
The Administration is failing to deal with vast campaign contributions and the influence of those campaign contributions. It doesn’t make any sense that it is all on one side. Responsibility is on all sides — the government as well as lobbyists. You can’t blame only prostitutes for the act of prostitution, for example. You also have to go after the Johns.
Miller believes that allowing comments to proposed legislation online will play a rule in changing the system.
The notion of engaging the people — whether it’s in one-way communication and finding ways for people to engage — is what is happening online now in this Administration, and it’s a first step. The first time citizens saw Google Maps with pins inserted for every piece of earmark spending and where that money was spent, they started to ask Congress, “What’s that for.” And Members of Congress had to respond. That transparency, which was done to Congress, begat more transparency. Technology is a disruptive force to Washington’s Golden Rule: he who has the gold rules.
(Miller offered another cool, geeky idea to place live web cams in offices so that people can watch their elected officials and the lobbyists at work. What are you going to do with the eyes of the American people on you at all times? The former President of the Utah State Senate used something similar last year.)
Sloan disagreed,
Putting information on the web isn’t the same as having a full conversation.
Ron Christie argued that the elected officials could be doing themselves a disservice by prohibiting all lobbyist contact. Christie believes that the role of the lobbyist is that of information provider and educator. The best lobbyists, said Christie, are the best educators.
I relished the opportunity to speak with lobbyists because they helped me synthesize information more clearly and cleanly. Not all lobbyist information is nefarious. In the end, the public is not best served by prohibiting it.
For Sloan this line of reasoning about the lobbyist as educator is devalued by corruption in the process — especially in elections.
Lobbyists and government do themselves a disservice for not recognizing the role of money in elections, and they too should be lobbying for campaign finance legislation. Lobbyists will be better information provides if they also make cleaning up elections a priority.
Christie exhorted the panelists and attendees to look at all the lobbyists in the system who are honest and hardworking.
There are valuable ways for them to influence the system. There’s a lot of money in the system, and elected officials may be inclined to help those who “help me.” But Members of Congress are the ones who can create the laws and change the system.
The Administration’s stance on ethics and lobbying is the equivalent of building the airplane while they are flying, and it is going to crash on the people.
Many of the other panelists felt that the Obama Administration was doing something right by focusing on openness and transparency. Miller used the example of the administration’s statement about using technology to improve transparency, as well as it’s Jan. 21 order to reveal more government records under the Freedom of Information Act.
What do you think? Continue the conversation with us at www.gspm.org/forum. Email me at julie@ipdi.org if you’d like to guest blog and address some of these issues.
Posted in Ethics, Events, GSPM, Lobbying | No Comments »
May 5th, 2009
By Julie
Cross-posted at the GSPM.
As Norman Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics & Government Reform, described it, today’s first panel defined special interest as the public interest with which you agree.
Eisen began his speaking role by highlighting the differences between this definition of public interest and the Obama Administration’s definition of public interest.
We subscribed a notion of the public interest as transcending special interest. To a notion of the public interest that is informed by the sense of obligation that we feel every day to the voters who called for change. There is a very wide-spread sense that Washington does not operate in their interest …
We ought to define the rules of fairness and justice of society by stepping behind the veil of ignorance described by John Rawls. We ought to embark on a contract with the American people that we will not be subject to the influence that have waylaid good policy, but will attempt to be guided by that notion on the horizon that represents the best thing for the country.
The practical challenge is getting there, figuring out the right thing, developing the best policies.
“1.Lobbyist Gift Ban. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.
“2.Revolving Door Ban — All Appointees Entering Government. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.
“3.Revolving Door Ban — Lobbyists Entering Government. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment:
(a)participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;
(b)participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls; or
(c)seek or accept employment with any executive agency that I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment.
“4.Revolving Door Ban — Appointees Leaving Government. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions for a period of 2 years following the end of my appointment.
“5.Revolving Door Ban — Appointees Leaving Government to Lobby. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 4, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to lobby any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.
“6.Employment Qualification Commitment. I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate’s qualifications, competence, and experience.
“7.Assent to Enforcement. I acknowledge that the Executive Order entitled ‘Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel,’ issued by the President on January 21, 2009, which I have read before signing this document, defines certain of the terms applicable to the foregoing obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I expressly accept the provisions of that Executive Order as a part of this agreement and as binding on me. I understand that the terms of this pledge are in addition to any statutory or other legal restrictions applicable to me by virtue of Federal Government service.”
Posted in Ethics, Events, GSPM, Lobbying | No Comments »
May 5th, 2009
By Julie
Cross-posted at the GSPM.
Today’s first panel on The Lobbyist Problem discussed issues of perception, politicking, and policy at the GSPM’s forum on Special Interests and Public Policy.
Professor Jonathan Turley (GW Law) gave what turned into something of a rebuttal. Like the first set of panelists, Turley is interested in addressing the whole problem, for which lobbying represents a part.
Turley finds the roots of corruption and the problems our country is facing within the corridors of Congress — not along the corridors walked by lobbyists but within the Members of Congress themselves.
The last eight years have been disgusting to watch because of the level of corruption … This city is floating on a sea of corruption, and it’s killing our political system …
The first step on the road to recovery is to admit you have a problem. I honestly am terrified of what has happened in the last eight years. This city is no longer functioning. There is an incredible amount of disconnect between this city and the rest of the country. People around the country feel that the system no longer serves the interests of the majority and our elected officials are destroying the country. The system has no interest but the interests of the politicians in their own future. We’ve never seen so many problems in this country. We’re digging into the marrow, and lobbying is part of the problem …
We can’t address the problem in symbolic ways. We complain about the rain, but we don’t look at the levee, which is Congress. Congress holds our Madisonian system together. It’s designed so that those things that divide us go through an implosion. We encourage factional interests to come forward, and they implode inwardly before Congress …
There is a tendency to deal with things in more insular ways, instead of addressing the problems …
Total transparency will only get you so far. The lobbying rules are ridiculous, and frankly the Obama plan is ridiculous. It’s not going to solve anything …
The problem is that Congress is captured by the industry and they owe their allegiance to something other than their constituents and they know that. . . . and lobbyists are part of that. Unless lobbyists come forward and say they’re part of the problem, the last eight years were a mistake, then I don’t know why we’re here.
Turley’s suggests that we:
- Put 75% of the responsibility of the current political crisis on the members of Congress.
- Go back to core principles of what we are trying to achieve in order to fix the system. Go back to Madison’s idea of democracy. Force the factions that divide us into the open. Create systems that prevent back room dealing and special deals that are hidden from the public. Part of the solution is to reform Congress, instead of trying to reform lobbyists.
- Force Congress to get rid of the things that cause temptation. Get rid of all gifts, other than symbolic gifts donated to the office they serve. Get rid of earmarks. Require total disclosure of all family members who work for lobbyists.
- Address the fact that the system is too detached from its constituents and that incumbents have all the power. This city loves the fact that Congress doesn’t change, but it’s killing this country. This includes allowing other parties to rise in the political system, changing the electoral college, and reforming the way primaries are held.
Join us in person the rest of the day at GW’s Jack Morton Auditorium, 805 21st Street, NW. We’ll be here until noon. Or follow @JulieG and @GSPMgwu on Twitter. We’ll make sure the panelists, like Turley, hear your questions.�
Posted in Ethics, Events, GSPM, Lobbying | No Comments »
May 5th, 2009
By Julie
Cross posted at the GSPM.
How much of the debate on global warming is already tainted by money in the system?
That was the question the Is There Really a Lobbyist Problem panelists addressed during the opening panel of today’s discussion on Special Interests and Public Policy at the GSPM (you can join us throughout the morning at GW’s Jack Morton Auditorium, 805 21st Street NW, Washington, DC).
Panelists included Bob Edgar (Common Cause), Butler Derrick (Former Member of Congress, D-SC), Joel Jankowsky (Akin Group), and Dave Wenhold (American League of Lobbyists).
Addressing the “Perception Problem”
Today’s panelists agreed that the lobbying industry faces a perception problem — the perception that undue influence channels legislation in the wrong direction.
More than one panelists felt that “the whole lobbying community isn’t bad just because one or two of its members are.”
Most Americans don’t realize that they have a lobbyist looking out for their interests. Girl Scouts have lobbyists. Welders have lobbyists. Every American should participate in the system.
The government is doing something to you or for you every day, and that’s why you need a lobbyist.”
Further, the panel argued, “Any lobbyist worth his/her salt has no problem putting his/her work in front of anybody. We all need to be registered, transparent, and open.”
The entire system isn’t bad just because one or two of its members are.
Former Congressman Butler Derrick argued that during his tenure in public office, the biggest influences on him weren’t lobbyists but the family and friends closest to them.
Money and Elections
The problem doesn’t begin and end on K Street or in Washington, DC. Its roots entwine throughout our entire electoral system — beginning in the states.
Several members of the panel argued that the rhetoric of campaigns has poured over into the rhetoric of governing — and that a root of the perception problem exists in the way campaigns run.
The perception problem starts with campaigns. If a political candidate were a product, Americans would never buy it because of all the negative things that happen as part of the campaign process.
The panelists suspected that this perception problem will be exacerbated as long as Senate races cost $36 million.
Public financing is the only way you’re going to cure the problem.
Creating Policy that Increases Openness and Transparency
How do you address this issues? A few panelists felt that the problem will be partially solved through policies that create public financing of federal elections.
Most panelists felt that the Obama Administration’s Executive Order on Ethics Commitments is a good start because it promotes dialogue and discussion about lobbying and ethics.
The executive order represents the DNA of Obama. He watched the system as a legislator. He understood how money works in politics. It’s his first reaction to address the issue of access. What the lobbyist is looking for is access. People are buying access, and the people with the most money buy the most access.
The panel, however, felt that what the country needs is increased disclosure — not complete prohibition of lobbying.
Money plays a pernicious part of the system, but an executive order shouldn’t prohibit a citizen from petitioning the government the way he or she chooses. Prohibiting that means that we’re going too far.
For example, said the panel, a system in which lobbyists disclose everything is far less corrupt than a system in which the CEO of a major corporation can have a private conversations with his or her Senator to talk about his or her industry after donating $50,000 to a campaign.
In order for a lobbyist to have a seat at the table his/her views must be strong. Money shouldn’t be part of the process. Increased disclosure on stimulus bill.
As a first step, the panel recommended full disclosure of the stimulus bill, including completely open meetings.
The discussion will continue throughout the morning. For details, visit http://www.gspm.org/events/.
Push back? Questions, ping me at @JulieG on Twitter, and I’ll make sure we put your questions in front of the speakers.
Posted in Ethics, Events, GSPM, Lobbying | No Comments »
April 28th, 2009
By Julie
One of the things my new friend Jon Pincus and I talked about a lot leading up to the 2009 Politics Online Conference was diversity (see the first of his two-part blog discussion on it at Liminal States ). We mostly talked about two things that didn’t come up in any of the panels — not even ours. In quick, scratchy, rough note form, those two ideas were (and this is me paraphrasing from memories of phone calls and in-person conversations of the recent past):
A. Too often we design solutions, tools, and applications for people who look like us and think like us. If we’re a bunch of white, male well-educated software engineers, then you probably create REALLY COOL THINGS for people who are white, male, software engineers. The trick is to figure out solutions for all people — especially people who think, act, and behave differently. (Stop rolling your eyes because I happen to use the example of white, well educated men here. It could be any grouping of us.) And we can apply this concept to anything — not just software. To policy. To life issues. To environmental catastrophes.
B. While, as Pincus put it in his slide presentation, technology often reinforces interlocking dimensions of oppression, the very same social media tools that we use every day can result in collaborations that help us overcome those diversity and create solutions to software, policy, and life problems that reach a multitude of different people.
Both of these points are precisely why organizations like Social Media Women of Color and events like Women Who Tech (which will be held via international teleconference on May 12th) are so important.
I first found about about Social Media Women of Color while following one of my favorite people on Twitter, @digitalsista, and a few others. She started tagging entries with the hashtag #woc, and I was curious. The site highlights women of color involved in social media in order to gain more attention for some really amazing women working in the online space.
I heard about Women Who Tech, which is in it’s second year, similarly — from one women to the next online. Women Who Tech brings together talented and renowned women breaking new ground in technology and social media who use their tech savvy skills to transform the world and inspire change. It provides a supportive network for the vibrant and thriving community of women in technology professions by giving women an open platform to share their talents, experiences, and insights.
This year, Women Who Tech will beheld on May 12th. And you can attend anywhere in the world at http://www.womenwhotech.com.
Both organizations highlight cutting edge innovation. Both introduce us to the creators behind really cool tools, applications, and solutions. And to be honest, both make technology and politics a lot more intellectually stimulating. More, please!
Posted in Events | No Comments »
April 28th, 2009
By Julie
Our mother program at GWU, the Graduate School of Political Management, is hosting a very interesting event next week on ethics and lobbying as part of its Forum on Ethics and Leadership in Public Life. Some of the topics they plan to address include:
· Is there really a lobbyist problem?
· How can legislators and executive branch officials craft government policies toward lobbyists?
· What limitations are appropriate?
I’ll live-tweet (#GSPM) and live-blog (www.ipdi.org/blog) the event, but if you’re in the DC area and interested, I hope that I’ll see you there. Here are the details.
Special Interests and Public Policy: The Right to Petition and Restrictions on Lobbying
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Time: 8:30am – 12:30pm
Location: The George Washington University, Jack Morton Auditorium, 805 21st Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20052. Foggy Bottom-GWU Metro Station (Orange and Blue lines)
RSVP: theethicsforum@gmail.com
Agenda
8:30 – 9:00 AM
Registration and Coffee
9:00 – 9:10 AM
Seminar Greeting
Howard Paster, Co-chair, GSPM Council on American Politics
9:10 – 10:15 AM
Panel 1: Is there Really a Lobbyist Problem?
Moderator: Al Hunt, Bloomberg News
Bob Edgar, Common Cause
Butler Derrick, Former Member of Congress (D-SC)
Joel Jankowsky
10:15 – 10:45 AM
Appropriate Limits and Constitutional Protections
Jonathan Turley, Professor, GW Law
10:45 – 11:15 AM
Bringing Real Change to Washington Policy Making
Representative(s) from the White House invitations extended
11:15 – 12:30 PM
Panel 2: Crafting Appropriate Government Policies for Lobbying
Moderator: Steven Roberts, GW – SMPA
Leo Wise, Office of Congressional Ethics
Ellen Miller, Sunlight Foundation
Melanie Sloan, CREW
Ron Christie, Christie Strategies
About the Forum
Both presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain focused a significant amount of attention on the role of lobbyists and their potentially corrupting influence on the policy making process. Since taking office, President Obama has severely restricted the ability of lobbyists to be appointed to positions in the administration and limited employment possibilities in the lobbying arena for former administration officials.
In addition to the Obama administration, the press has also been a source of much criticism of lobbying. A string of egregious corruption scandals surrounding the lobbying community has led the media to question how lobbying is conducted, and their coverage and commentary has only intensified during the new administration. The forum will explore why more attention is now being focused on lobbying and whether it has been objective or biased.
Through a series of discussion colloquia, The Forum on Ethics and Leadership in Public Life at The George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management will explore ethical issues affecting those who work in political and public service. Bringing together prominent individuals from public life with faculty, advisors and students of The Graduate School of Political Management, The Forum will bring to the forefront issues of ethics and professional responsibility in politics to stimulate greater understanding of and thought about the serious dilemmas facing American democracy. It also will explore both systemic and institutional problems and the behavior of individuals who work professionally in all aspects of public life. The Forum on Ethics and Leadership in Public Life is funded in part by the Paul O’Dwyer Fund for Ethics in Politics, a gift of Brian J. O’Dwyer.
Register for this event by email at theethicsforum@gmail.com.
About the Graduate School of Political Management
GW’s Graduate School of Political Management offers graduate programs in political management, legislative affairs, public relations and PAC management, as well as international programs in Latin America and Europe. The school seeks to improve politics by educating students and professionals about the tools, principles and values of participatory democracy; preparing them for careers as ethical and effective advocates and leaders at the international, national and local levels.
For more information, visit http://www.gspm.org.
Posted in Events, GSPM | No Comments »
April 16th, 2009
By Julie
This is it. The votes have been tabulate and we can now announce the recipients of the 2009 Golden Dot Awards. Congratulations to all the winners! We will fete them at the 2009 Politics Online Conference on April 20 & 21.
- Technology Impact Moment of the Year - Republican - Yes on Prop. 8
- Technology Impact Moment of the Year - Democrat - The Obama Campaign’s announcement of Senator Joe Biden for Vice President
- Online Politician-of-the-year - Democrat - Barack Obama
- Online Politician-of-the-year - Republican - Ron Paul
- Most Networked Campaign - Democrat - Barack Obama
- Most Networked Campaign - Republican - Ron Paul
- Outstanding Online Campaign - National - Barack Obama
- Outstanding Online Campaign - State or Local - Yes on Prop. 8
- Best Website - Federal Candidate - Barack Obama
- Best Website - Issue Advocacy - The Pickens Plan Campaign
- Best Blog - State or Local Politics - Blue Oregon
- Best Blog - National Politics - Tech Republican
- Best Blog - Candidate for Local, State or Federal office - McCainBlogette
- Best Blog -Issues Advocacy - Wal-Mart Watch
- Best Mobile/Text Message Campaign - Barack Obama
- Best Vlog - James Kotecki
- Best Web Video - Supporter Created - Barack Obama, “Yes we Can”
- Best Web Video - Campaign - John McCain, “The One”
- Best Animation or Mash-up -Vote Report/Inauguration Report
- Best Online Game - Dress Like a Palin
- Best Online Campaign - Barack Obama
- Best Online Get-Out-the-Vote Campaign - Obama for America- Neighbor to Neighbor
- Best Online Advertizing Campaign - Yes on Prop. 8
Posted in Golden Dot Awards, Politics Online Conference | No Comments »
April 15th, 2009
By Julie
We have packed a lot of action in the 2009 Politics Online Conference. We don’t want you to miss out on anything. Here is our “Top Ten” list of things to do and see at the conference.
1. eDemocracyCamp2 on Sunday, April 19, 2009 from 8am to 5pm. eDemocracyCamp2 is a barcamp (a participant-driven unconference) on e-democracy. This year, a special focus will be put on participation and how the internet can improve citizens’ experience of democracy. The event aims to connect a diverse mix of attendees (government officials, researchers, developers, practitioners as well as regular citizens) for a day of intense collaboration and knowledge sharing. RSVP at http://edemocracy.eventbrite.com/
2. Governance 2.0: How Secretaries of State are streamlining services in a Web 2.0 world with Secretary of State Debra Bowen (California) and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (Ohio) on Monday, April 20 at 8:30 a.m. in the Atrium Ballroom.
3. Cognitive Evolution and Revolution: How the way we use technology changes us (and what that means for politics) - with Judith Donath (MIT’s Media Lab), Jon Pincus, Clive Thompson (NY Times Magazine) and Luke Peterson on Monday, April 20 at 10:00 a.m. in the Atrium Ballroom.
4. A screening of Us Now, a documentary about the power of mass collaboration, government, and the Internet on Monday, April 20 at 12:45 p.m. in the Atrium Ballroom.
5. The Visual Frontiers with the artist Sam Yates, creator of The Color of Palo Alto, Josh Klein — hacker, author, and the mind behind a vending machine to train crows — and Elizabeth Windram from Google Maps on Monday, April 20 at 5:00 p.m. in the Atrium Ballroom.
6. The “official” Politics Online Conference Cocktail Party, sponsored by NCTA on Monday, April 20 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Pavilion Room at the Ronald Reagan Building. Join us for drinks, music, and Super Mario Brothers. We’ll also hand out the 2009 Golden Dot Awards, but we won’t interrupt the revelries to make you listen to us hand them out.
7. Absinthe - La Fée Verte After Party sponsored by NGP Software and SpeakEasy Spirits, LLC and featuring Leopold Brother’s Absinthe on Monday, April 20, 8:30 p.m. (after the “official” Politics Online Conference Cocktail Party) at NGP Software, 1225 Eye Street, NW, Suite 1225, Washington, DC. Register on Facebook
8. Elected and Connected with Senator Claire McCaskill, Rep. John Culberson, Rep. Steve Israel, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rogers, and Rep. Tim Ryan on Tuesday, April 21 at 8:30 a.m. in the Atrium Ballroom.
9. How We Did It: A head-to-head conversation with the directors of the Obama and McCain web teams with Joe Rospars (Director of New Media for Obama), Michael Palmer (eCampaign Director for McCain), and Ana Marie Cox (Air America).
10. The Geek Lab - A hands-on look at some of the tools, applications, and sites you are and should be using. Including Design for Content (Monday, April 20 at 11:00 a.m.), Google (Monday, April 20 at 12:30 p.m.), Politics.com (Monday, April 20 at 3:00 p.m.),Huffington Post (Tuesday, April 21 at 11:00 a.m.), Political Media (Tuesday, April 21 at 3:00 p.m.) and Metro Star Systems (Tuesday, April 21 at 3:30 p.m.) in the Atrium Geek Lab.
Posted in Politics Online Conference | No Comments »
April 15th, 2009
By Julie
You don’t want to miss this. I’m going, even if I have to get up at 5 a.m. on a Sunday to be there.
What
eDemocracyCamp is a barcamp (a participant-driven unconference) on e-democracy. This year, a special focus will be put on participation and how the internet can improve citizens’ experience of democracy. The event aims to connect a diverse mix of attendees (government officials, researchers, developers, practitioners as well as regular citizens) for a day of intense collaboration and knowledge sharing.
When and Where
eDemocracyCamp 2
April 19, 2009
8am to 5pm
The Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet (IPDI)
805 21st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052 (USA)
Cost
Thanks to the generous support of our sponsors, eDemocracyCamp is free to attend!
How to Participate
eDemocracyCamp is open for anyone to attend. Attendees are invited to suggest or lead sessions on the topics they are most interested in. Simply RSVP on Eventbrite to let the organizing team know you’re coming.
More Info and RSVP
Sponsors
Posted in Politics Online Conference | No Comments »
|
