WHAT'S NEW IN PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Online editing has at least one downside. The New York Times reports that employees at some companies have been editing the popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, to put their companies in a better light. In one instance, an ExxonMobil employee edited Wikipedia's description of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska to downplay its environmental impact. Meanwhile, companies that do business with Iran may soon face a financial downside. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the U.S. House of Representatives and many state governments have either passed, or are considering, "ethical investing laws" that would make it harder to invest in, or easier to divest from, companies having business relationships with countries that sponsor terrorism. In addition to Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Syria and Sudan are on the terror list. These stories and more in this "Happy Labor Day" edition of the Public Affairs News Monitor.

HEADLINES AT A GLANCE

"Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits"
"Laws Target 'Terror Stocks'"
"FEC Begins Writing Rules for Issue Ads"
"Top-Giving Industries Get Behind Dem Candidates"
"U.S. Action on Free Trade Is Left Hanging"
"Business Incentives Lose Luster for States"
"Priority Changes on Green Policies"

UPCOMING CONFERNCES

Membership Orientation
Sept. 11, 2007 - Public Affairs Council - Washington, DC
Learn how to get the most out of your Council membership during this free lunchtime session. We'll review all the Council's major services, including information assistance, conferences, communications, benchmarking, networking and online services.

Political Involvement Legal Overview
September 17, 2007 - Las Vegas, NV
This meeting is essential for anyone involved in your organization's government relations or public affairs programs. The program was designed for professionals at the state and federal levels who are seeking guidance on campaign finance, lobbying laws, gift restrictions and other legal considerations. Our speaker, Ken Gross, the country's leading authority on campaign finance legal issues and Public Affairs Council legal adviser, will answer your political legal inquiries and review hot-button issues and common mistakes made by political programs.

Corporate PAC Roundtable
September 18, 2007 - Las Vegas, NV
This hands-on idea-sharing forum offers you a unique opportunity to exchange successful solicitation strategies with fellow PAC professionals, discuss effective communications, identify potential pitfalls, benchmark your PAC's performance and address strategies for success.

COUNCIL SERVICES

Did you know that the Council's staff experts are available for customized presentations to your senior leadership, employees or association? Learn more at www.pac.org/speakers

"Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits"
New York Times (08/19/07); Hafner, Katie; Cohen, Noam

There is plenty of evidence that corporate networks are editing Wikipedia entries for their own benefit. One example is the deletion of a mention of criticism leveled at SeaWorld theme parks, which was traced to a computer at Anheuser-Busch, the parks' owner. An Anheuser-Busch employee later admitted to the revision after being challenged several times by another Wikipedia user. In another instance, someone on PepsiCo's network removed paragraphs on the Pepsi entry that commented on the soft drink's negative health impact. Such insider manipulation was uncovered by the WikiScanner Web site. WikiScanner's creator, a visiting researcher at New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, was inspired to make the software when he heard that members of Congress were editing their own Wikipedia entries. Generally these edits can only be traced to specific network owners, and not individuals. Three years ago, someone using an ExxonMobil computer significantly revised Wikipedia's description of the infamous Alaskan oil spill of 1989, downplaying the incident's environmental effects, among other things - ExxonMobil representative Gantt Walton said his company does not authorize its employees to update Wikipedia with company computers without ExxonMobil's consent, adding that the company would prefer to discuss the entries on Wikipedia's "talk" pages. The majority of people who edit Wikipedia using company networks tend to play around with subjects that appear to have little relevance to their work.(www.nytimes.com)

"Laws Target 'Terror Stocks'"
Christian Science Monitor (08/27/07) P. 13; MacDonald, G. Jeffrey

The threat of terrorism is galvanizing state and federal legislators to institute ethical investing laws. So far this year, 10 states have passed ordinances limiting the investment of public funds in companies that have business relationships with one or more countries charged with sponsoring terrorism, according to a study from the National Conference of State Legislatures. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill restricting the legal impact public pension funds may experience from financial losses stemming from divesting from companies with links to Iran, while Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco approved a law requiring public pension funds to invest in compliance with a terror-free index. Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission is polishing a tool that helps investors ascertain if firms have ties to terror-linked nations. Advocates believe capital markets are creating momentum for the war on terror by staunching the flow of money to countries on the State Department's list of five terror-supporting governments--Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Sudan. At the Green Mountain Summit on Investor Responsibility, Conflict Securities Advisory Group CEO Roger Robinson said new investment products will "empower average Americans who have not found a way to join the war on terror and have not been able to find any 'voice' in terms of nonmilitary options." Others are concerned that the government is nudging the private sector to enter risky and undesirable territory. "You're trying to influence a company, not to change its behavior, but to use the company as a lever to change the behavior of a government," states DePaul University Institute for Business and Professional Ethics research fellow Curtis Verschoor. "It's not realistic." Numerous companies implicated on the SEC watch list were foreign firms that trade on American exchanges, and Verschoor warns that fragile relations among other countries could be shaken by demands made by the $1 trillion pension fund industry. Attempts by lawmakers to establish investing rules are always met with derision by pension funds, but Gary Brouse of New York City's Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility sees a positive side. He argues that the debate of ethical investing proposals at U.S. statehouses boosts the public's awareness of connections between investing and social issues. But pensioners' proponents are worried that lawmakers' mandate of investment deadlines on the terror issue could give them license to take the same action on many other issues.(www.csmonitor.com)

"FEC Begins Writing Rules for Issue Ads"
Roll Call (08/24/07); Murray, Matthew

August 23 marked the formal commencement by the Federal Election Commission of its setting of ground rules for issue ads by business groups and labor unions. The Supreme Court ruled earlier this summer that television and radio spots once prohibited by the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act were actually protected speech. The legislation banned issue-based groups from using unregulated funds to finance broadcast ads within a month before a primary or two months before a general election. In June, the Supreme Court declared that the anti-abortion-rights group Wisconsin Right to Life should have been permitted to run broadcast ads during blackout interims just prior to the 2004 election, and the group's original 2004 lawsuit was an attempt to coerce the FEC into temporarily suspending the ban so that it could run ads targeting the record of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.). Agency officials expect to vote on a final version of the issue ad guidelines before the beginning of December, right before the 30-day window commences in early primary states. The ultimate rule adopted by the FEC could allow unions and corporations to spend largely unrestricted amounts of money on television ads in the closing days of an election. The ads still would not be able to explicitly call for the election or defeat of a candidate, but they could detail a political candidate's stand on topical issues. As a result of the uncertainty left by the court ruling, the FEC is also seeking comment on what types of ads would be eligible for corporate or union money.(www.rollcall.com)

"Top-Giving Industries Get Behind Dem Candidates"
USA Today (08/27/07) P. 2A; Schouten, Fredreka

Democratic presidential candidates are receiving substantially more financial support from affluent industries than their GOP counterparts, according to campaign finance analysis. The employees and political action committees of the 20 employment sectors that gave the most money during the first half of the year contributed almost $81 million to the major Democratic contenders, versus $47 million collected by Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In general, Democrats' fundraising has outpaced that of Republicans in 15 of the 20 leading sectors, and thus far this year Democrats have outraised Republicans by close to $60 million. The securities and investment industry gave $10 million to Democratic candidates in this election season, $2 million more than GOP candidates collected. "Money follows winners," noted George Mason University political scientist Michael McDonald. "People in the stock market are betting that Democrats are going to win the election." Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has raised $3.4 million from the investment sector, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton closely follows with $3 million. Wall Street contributed $2.2 million to Sen. Chris Dodd's campaign. GOP strategist Terry Holt said giving those senators money is "a safe bet" for contributors because even if they lose the election, "they still will be in a position to influence legislation as a member of the United States Senate." The analysis showed that lawyers and law firm employees made the most contributions with almost $28 million, about eight-tenths of which went to Democrats. In addition, Democrats collected 57 percent of the $1.4 million supplied by federal and local lobbyists, with Clinton receiving the most. Obama and fellow Democratic candidate John Edwards have refused to accept money from lobbyists.(www.usatoday.com)

"U.S. Action on Free Trade Is Left Hanging"
Los Angeles Times (08/20/07) P. A13; Gosselin, Peter G.

One day following Senate Republicans' defeat of U.S. immigration overhaul legislation, House Democrats shot down a major trade deal and warned of rescinding the White House's authority to make more deals. Both incidents show an increasing movement toward protectionism in Congress. The White House negotiated a quartet of bilateral trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, Peru, and South Korea, and was eager to renew "fast track" authority to craft a world trade agreement in which Congress can only pass or deny the deal in its entirety. Globalization critics, through their promotion of protectionist measures, are tapping into voters' fears about job insecurity and flat incomes. "For a military and economic superpower, we're not behaving very confidently about our place in the world at the moment, and it shows in the way we're thinking about our borders both in terms of immigration and trade," said I.M. Destler of the University of Maryland. But analysts caution that a protectionist stance will encourage other countries to emulate America. According to Financial Services Forum director Don Evans, "The government needs to look at policies that will provide more support, more aid, more training for people who are going through the transition from one job to another, or one industry to another, as a result of globalization." His organization concluded in a recent study that income growth over the past seven years has been poor for most U.S. workers, who have not seen a greater share of economic expansion. The Forum would like the federal payroll tax to be made much more progressive to assist low- and moderate-income workers, and to establish a new program to let communities insure against sudden tax losses due to plant closings and layoffs. Opposition to the South Korean trade agreement is endorsed by Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.). (www.latimes.com)

"Business Incentives Lose Luster for States"
USA Today (08/22/07) P. 1A; Cauchon, Dennis

By one estimate, local and state governments spend as much as $50 billion annually on tax breaks and other incentives to attract corporations to their area or to convince existing firms that are considering a relocation to stay put. Examples this year include North Carolina, which agreed to provide $212 million in local and state assistance over 30 years to woo a $600 million Google server operation to Lenoir. However, some local and state officials around the country are beginning to speak out against these hefty tax breaks and other economic incentives their governments dangle before big business. The rewards are costing taxpayers billions of dollars, they argue, without delivering a commensurate level of benefits. While advocates of business incentives insist that property tax relief props up economies, particularly in downtrodden communities, at least one critic--Kansas City, Mo., Mayor Mark Funkhouser--counters that these rewards to companies siphon funds away from services, such as schools and law enforcement, that help local economies thrive. Moreover, academic sources concede that tax breaks may seem to pump up industrial employment temporarily, but they find little proof to support the claim that incentives have a positive impact on a local economy over the long term. The controversy has prompted a handful of states to take a second look at the practice of business incentives. Among them is Arizona, which last month passed a measure that limits sales tax breaks that local governments can award to retailers.(www.usatoday.com)

"Priority Changes on Green Policies"
Los Angeles Times (08/21/07) P. A1; Simon, Richard

With their collective eye trained on climate change, U.S. House and Senate Democrats have backed off contentious legislation and redirected their attention to the congressional budget to advance the party's environmental agenda. Democrats have earmarked large sums of money for green projects in the congressional budget, including as much as $2 billion in new spending on environmental initiatives to lower greenhouse gas emissions and the country's dependence on foreign oil. Capitol Hill watchers say the change in strategy is likely to put Congress on a collision course with the White House, which is less inclined to spend as much on climate-change initiatives. Republican lawmakers say Democrats are trying to take advantage of the public's heightened awareness of global warming. "Green is becoming very fashionable," says Rep. David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), who managed to secure $500,000 for a geothermal demonstration project. "I think members are going to be challenged in their district" about their response or lack thereof to climate change and the dependency on oil, Hobson says. (http://www.latimes.com/)