IP: Gore and Bush on Tech Benton Foundation

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Digital Beat Extra - September 19, 2000

Searching for the Difference - Gore v. Bush on High Tech Policy
By Katharina Kopp

As the campaign for the presidency heats up, there seems to be
considerable talk about how to debate and whether or not it is
acceptable campaign tactics to go 'negative,' less talk about the
important issues themselves. Benton continues to highlight
communications policy issues of the Republican and Democratic
campaigns. Earlier, we've looked at how Governor Bush addresses
educational technology issues and how Vice President Gore approaches the
digital divide. This time around we look at how the candidates compare
on high technology, Internet policy and e-commerce issues.
The "New Economy" - Who gets the credit?
Recent U.S. economic prosperity has been fueled, at least in part, by
the high tech and communications industries and e-commerce. A
reasonable voter might expect a heated debate about what policies should
be applied in the future to ensure continued economic success and fair
distribution of its fruits among a broader segment of the population.
Surprisingly, however, there is little difference in how the two leading
presidential candidates approach these issues. One might suspect the
greatest difference between the two candidates in terms of who gets the
credit for the success of the high-tech economy and e-commerce: the
government vs. the private sector. But the differences in the campaigns'
rhetoric are subtle. The Republicans credit entrepreneurship, while VP
Gore emphasizes a responsible, 'soft touch' approach of government. In
the end, the different views amount to a 'laissez-faire' approach to the
Internet economy.
In the eContract 2000, a list of e-commerce and Internet related
pledges, Congressional Republican leaders applaud the high-tech industry
as the "engine of our economic prosperity, creating new jobs and new
opportunities for all Americans" and praise "private sector creativity,
innovation, and competition rather than government direction" as the
fuel for that growth. They promise to remove barriers to e-commerce.
In his latest policy manifesto, "Prosperity for America's Families"
(http://www.algore.com/pdf/gore_prosperity.pdf), VP Gore espouses the
same values emphasizing that he "has promoted an e-commerce policy that
relies on private sector leadership and self-regulation, as opposed to
outmoded, top-down government regulation. ...Al Gore recognizes that
entrepreneurs and workers are the source of innovation and economic
growth, and that the role of government is to create the environment
that will allow firms to succeed in the global marketplace."
In the end, the two candidates display little difference in giving
credit for the extraordinary economic boom of the "New Economy." The
"New Democratic" Gore, in principle, believes in the same kind of
hands-off approach to government regulation as the "Compassionate
Conservative" Bush when dealing with the information and service sector
of the economy.
Internet Policy Issues
The key Internet policy concerns of both candidates are Internet taxes,
H1B visas (which permit foreign workers to fill American jobs when
necessary), research and development tax credits, export controls,
e-government and Internet security and privacy. VP Gore would like "to
make 'cyberspace' a permanent 'duty-free zone'", while Gov Bush would
"ensure the growth of Internet e-Commerce by passing up to a five year
extension of the Internet tax moratorium" and making the "Internet a
duty and tariff-free zone worldwide."
Similarly, Gore and Bush see eye to eye on the pressing issue of
high-skilled, foreign worker visa caps. "To meet the immediate needs of
our competitive high tech economy, Governor Bush supports a dramatic
increase in the caps on H1B visas for temporary, high-skilled workers."
Despite union and NAACP opposition, VP Gore "supports increasing the
number of H1B visas to 200,000 per year while also enacting new
provisions to protect and prepare the US work force and provide measures
of fairness and equity for certain immigrants already in the U.S."
While Gore clearly emphasizes the importance of educating and training
the "work force of tomorrow," his running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman
(CT), according to the E-commerce Times, has a strong track record of
supporting H1B visas. There are differences here, perhaps in scale and
a stronger emphasis on training U.S. workers on the Gore platform, but
overall, the differences seem less relevant.
Both candidates also see much merit in encouraging more research and
development by industry. VP Gore supports "targeted tax credits aimed
at spurring investment in research and development." He would make the
Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent and expand it to make
it partially refundable so that small businesses can take better
advantage of it. In addition, the Gore budget would invest in R&D at
the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health,
NASA, the Commerce and Defense Departments and other agencies. Gov.Bush
agrees with some of the Gore campaigns provisions: Bush would establish
an "environment that encourages research and innovation in the private
sector and the military." He would support a permanent tax credit for
research and development and, in addition, would strengthen the military
R&D budget and double the research budget of the National Institutes of
Health.
International Issues
Hot issues on the international Internet policy front include free
trade, lifting of export controls, establishing e-commerce standards
worldwide and enforcing copyright laws. Bush is "committed to reforming
the current high tech export control system that needlessly penalizes
U.S. businesses while failing to strengthen our national security."
Similarly, the Gore/Lieberman ticket wants to "open global markets in
cyberspace for U.S. companies." Both candidates want to make cyberspace
a "duty-free" zone and while the Bush platform wants to "promote the
development of internationally compatible e-commerce standards," the
Gore platform goes a step further by emphasizing U.S. values. VP Gore
promises to encourage "other countries to adopt U.S. principles on
global electronic commerce of private sector leadership and
self-regulation."
While the Gore proposal mentions only in passing that it would "crack
down on foreign piracy of U.S. intellectual property," Gov Bush would
step up the efforts at home and abroad "to combat piracy of American
ideas and intellectual property." At home, a Bush administration would
aim to curtail the "litigation explosion" that "imposes significant
costs on high technology companies and small business," and would
implement a comprehensive plan to "reduce the threat of junk and
frivolous lawsuits."

Privacy

Even with regard to privacy policies, it is not entirely clear how the
twocandidates differ. The Democratic platform clearly is in favor of
more government regulation, albeit limited. The GOP platform, on the
other hand, mentions privacy and that "government has a responsibility
to protect personal privacy, which is the single greatest concern
Americans now have about the Information Revolution," but it does not
identify a concrete role for government intervention.  Despite plenty of
evidence to the contrary, including past Federal Trade Commission
reports calling for government legislation, the GOP platform applauds "
the leadership already demonstrated in this regard by many outstanding
businesses which are ensuring individual's privacy in various ways and
promoting public education about the consumer's right to privacy."
There are no concrete proposals as to how to protect citizens' privacy
more effectively in the future.  Similarly, Gov Bush's campaign Web site
is mostly silent on the issue. The site's privacy statement says,
"Governor Bush supports the protection of consumer privacy on the
Internet and the principles of disclosure and fair information
practices."  (It should be mentioned that earlier in the campaign the
Bush site did not even have a privacy statement and only adopted one
after the Center for Democracy and Technology 'flunked' the site on its
privacy policy when it graded all established campaign sites.)  The lack
of any concrete proposals amounts to continuation with the status quo,
self-regulation by the industry.

VP Gore, on the other hand, would get the government involved, but
selectively.  Gore supports legislation to protect medical records,
financial records and genetic discrimination "because in the information
age, as in all ages, privacy is a basic American value."  This value,
however, appears to require less protection in the online world.  With
regard to the Internet, Gore does not mention legislation; he instead
"supports effective industry self-regulation on the Internet, but is
demanding that the Internet industry offer better and more comprehensive
privacy self-regulatory efforts."  In addition, Gore would "back new
technologies that can put privacy protection in the hands of Internet
users, by, for example, allowing them to browse the Internet
anonymously."  While VP Gore has called for an "Electronic Bill of
Rights for Privacy," its provisions, as outlined in his policy
manifesto, remain vague, and, given what is described, would not hold
up to what are commonly referred to as Fair Information Practices (see
http://www.benton.org/DigitalBeat/db081500.html).  In the end, Gore
might have a better grasp of the policy issues surrounding privacy; he
has not come out, however, criticizing existing industry efforts and has
not advocated for government regulation and enforcement.

Content Regulation

Traditionally, one would expect one of the biggest differences between
Republicans and Democrats to be in regard to content regulation.  The
Bush platform stays away from addressing content regulation and the
Republican platform supports Congress requiring schools to limit access
to pornographic material on school computers.  The Democrat platform
does not endorse legislation, instead it focuses on technological
solutions (like the v-chip) and industry "self-restraint" as a solution
to address inappropriate content for children.  VP Gore, on the other
hand, more prominently features his goal to protect children from
"inappropriate material."  While there is no talk of legislation, the
Gore/Lieberman ticket wants to provide parents and teachers with the
"tools they need -- such as blocking and filtering software -- so they
can make the choice about how best to prevent children from getting
access to inappropriate material."  They want to increase law
enforcement and encourage more parents to get involved in their
children's online experience.

Sen Lieberman is perhaps best known in communications industry circles
for his attacks on what he has regarded as indecent content,
particularly on television.  The choice of Lieberman as vice
presidential may signal a more activist government on content issues
under a Democratic administration. Lieberman has been involved in
Internet content issues as well, supporting mandatory rating and
filtering of violent and sexually explicit content. While he voted
against the ill-fated Communications Decency Act, both Lieberman and
Gore participated in the launch of the industry's self-regulatory
GetNetWise program, and Lieberman warned the industry during
an appearance before the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA)
Commission in June, not to "do nothing."

Still Looking for a Difference

The similarities in the two candidates reflect the bipartisan consensus
that has favored a laissez faire approach to the Internet, at least
since 1997, when Ira Magaziner wrote the hands-off Internet policy,
Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, for the White House.  In
addition, there is no doubt that Silicon Valley and other high tech
industry lobbies are increasingly important campaign contributors.
According to Slate Magazine, after "years of giving most of its money to
Democrats, Silicon Valley is now roughly split between the parties, so
it's either side's game to lose."  Sen Lieberman's nomination as Gore's
running mate can also be seen as a nod in the direction of high tech
executives many of whom, despite his strong content stance, consider him
a friend of their industry, according to E-commerce Times.

Overall then, it appears that while the Gore/Lieberman ticket is more
detailed on some topics and clearly more explicit on content regulation
issues, the differences to the Bush/Cheney ticket are merely nuanced.

The candidates have had rather different opportunities to get involved
in high-tech policies in the past and have exhibited quite a different
interest in these issues.  Forrester Research pointed to these
differences when it assessed all the presidential candidates' net policy
stances in its March report, Net Policy and The Candidates. "As
governor, Bush did not have the opportunity to be involved with
technology policy making at the national level.  His position as
governor did expose him to e-government, taxation, and other issues,
however, although Texas' decentralized state government meant that his
personal role was limited."

Based on a broad range of criteria, Forrester assigned Bush a D+ overall
on his Internet economy strengths.  Although reports that Gore invented
the Internet seem a bit overstated, the vice president, according to
Forrester, was involved in Internet policy "way before it was cool." As
a senator, Gore was intimately involved with much of the legislation
that shaped the Net as we know it today, and he has taken the lead on
technology policy for the Clinton administration."  Forrester gave Gore
a B- for his Internet economy positions.

- Sources
www.georgewbush.com
www.gopconvention.com/2000/privacy
www.gop.org
www.algore2000.com
www.dems2000.com/
www.forrester.com
Slate Magazine, Jeremy Derfner, Bipartisan E-greement, 5/17/2000
E-commerce Times, Keith Regan, Is E-Commerce a Campaign Issue?, 8/14/00
---------------------------------------
(c)Benton Foundation 2000. Redistribution of this email publication --
both internally and externally -- is encouraged if it includes this
message. This service is available online at
www.digitaldividenetwork.org). Benton's Communications Policy Program
seeks to promote equity, access and a diversity of voices. CPP
researches and reports on communications technologies and practices,
legislative and regulatory debates and industry trends. It urges the
nonprofit, government and corporate sectors to acknowledge their shared
public responsibility and to apply their unique strengths in creating a
communications environment that meets educational, civic and social
needs. CPP works primarily in four issue areas: the Digital Divide,
E-commerce, Education Technology and Public Media.
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*