If there’s anything I despise, it’s spam.
One thing I hate worse than spam? It’s political spam. And the 80-20 Initiative doesn’t do itself or the Democratic Party any favors.
Lo and behold, I go and check the one single e-mail address I hold currently that I have never given out. I mean, seriously. Since I created this account in 1997, it’s been used for other things under the profile. Every so often, I’ll run some content to the email, but it’s never given out as my personal email for any reason that I can think of. And go figure this out. It’s different from the one that I wrote about back in April on this annoying group.
In any case, I’ve already made up my mind on whom I’m going to vote for in the next election. But I tell you what. If Asian Americans hate the whole spam bit as much as I do? E-mails like this that come out of the blue and obviously target you by based on your last name, would definitely put anyone over the edge and vote against the party that the e-mail is supporting.
When it comes down to it, I personally truly hate marketing tactics based on:
(1) Compiling “phone book lists” looking for people’s last names.
(2) Spammy type emails that don’t have automatic removals.
What’s worse? Political messages are not enforceable by the FTC via the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Oh yeah, you as Asian Americans must deal with this “organization” (if you can even call it that) and just take their junk.
I’ll also add that it’s interesting in checking my spam folder for that account, I’m now signed up for a bunch of Asian spam in native language. Pretty nice considering I don’t really read native language sites much, and definitely don’t give them that email even if I did. Gee, doesn’t take a genius to run them both together does it, especially when I don’t get anything else there. Since 1997.
Personally, if I was Obama and Biden’s campaign? I’d probably not take any money from this PAC and make darn sure they weren’t linked. Jaehwan put it into words perfectly in this comment:
“Thinking Asian Americans disagree on different things, but it seems like all of us are united in condemning 80/20.”
Other posts you might be interested in:
Blog RSS Blog Comments RSS
anon wrote:
The markets are going crazy, the economy is taking a nosedive, the presidential race is more heated than ever………..and you’re groaning about spam e-mails?
Way to prioritize my friend, lets just hope people aren’t as narrow-minded as you are (oh wait, they are).
Posted on 10-Oct-08 at 11:45 am | Permalink
thepeopleseason wrote:
@anon: The 80-20 initiative’s spamming tactics are especially pertintent to your assertion that “the presidential race is more heated than ever,” especially if recipients are turned away from 80-20’s endorsed candidate because they received unwanted messages.
Indeed, since recent news stories indicate that Asian Americans are increasing active participation in elections, I’d prefer the organization that claims to represent us not use underhanded tactics in growing its subscriber base–especially not if the subscriber numbers were then publicized out of some disreputable attempt to inflate their influence.
Posted on 10-Oct-08 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
RayU wrote:
And this is just about their email harvesting/spamming methods. I was curious enough about the group to let the emails keep coming to see what they said & do. I finally had enough of their garbage to unsubscribe from their mailing list.
I think the content and tactics of 80/20 is even worse than their emailing methods. Their message keeps implying that if you don’t agree with their position or logic, then something is wrong with you. It’s insulting if you don’t think/agree that their agenda is the most important or only thing that matters in this campaign. Excuse me, I’m NOT a single-issue voter.
They claim to be nonpartisan, but proudly boast that once they endorse a candidate that they are very partisan. Stupid. Now they’ve alienated both the candidate that they didn’t endorse, and those who support that candidate. Instead of continuing to work for/with both parties to further their cause, they’ve now lost any hope of future cooperation or help from the non-endorsed. So, if the candidate that they endorsed is unable or unwilling to fulfill the promises made (What candidate has *ever* been able to succeed at *all* promises made during a campaign? Extremely rare if not virtually impossible.), then who can they turn to? They burned the bridge to the other party, and they will now have to beg for the attention of the future candidate of the party that they didn’t burn. Or what? Selfishly “demand” that the future candidate honor the promises not met by the prior person?
80/20 shot themselves in the foot… no, both feet, and make it harder for other Asian Americans who want to influence the government - especially those of the non-endorsed party.
Posted on 10-Oct-08 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
jaehwan wrote:
@anon:
80/20 claims to be the most powerful Asian American political organization, and they base their claim on the fact that they have a few rich people on their board and hundreds of thousands of people on their e-mail list with last names like Wong, Chang, and Kim. If you remember how quickly Edwards and Clinton signed their questionnaire, it should be quite clear that this huge spam list gives 80/20 clout in mainstream politics. That claim to power becomes somewhat fallacious when you take into account the fact that the vast majority of the people on their list don’t even want to be on it–but mainstream politicians don’t know that.
Educated Asian Americans disagree on many things, but one thing they all agree on is that 80/20 does a disservice to us. People these days are angry at the McCain smear tactics leveled against Obama, but it wasn’t too long ago that 80/20 was doing the exact same thing against the exact same candidate. Now, all of a sudden, they’re on his side? That’s quite a flip-flop. I’ll bet you anything that if Obama wins, they’re going to take credit for swinging the election in his favor. They’ll take some statistics from the electorate and say, “Look how we influenced this election” and “Now you’d better listen to us.” How do I know they’ll do this? They did the same thing in the last two elections, even though their chosen candidate LOST in both cases. If Obama wins–which I hope he does–they’re going to claim the victory, as if all the 8Asians and 44s would’ve stayed home on election day without their “help.”
Ben and Peopleseason are right. If they’re going to claim to represent us, they’d better be representing us, and they’d better be supported by at least some of us. Otherwise, I think it’s our democratic duty to call those spammers out.
Posted on 10-Oct-08 at 2:54 pm | Permalink
sc wrote:
Welcome to my world in Socal, I constantly get junk mail from candidates in local elections completely in Korean or Chinese, I can’t read either or them. I happen to be Chinese but have a last name that is also a Korean last name.
When it comes down to it, I personally truly hate marketing tactics based on:
(1) Compiling “phone book lists” looking for people’s last names.
Posted on 11-Oct-08 at 9:49 am | Permalink
John wrote:
http://www.80-20initiative.net/
“80-20 is a national, nonpartisan, Political Action Committee dedicated to winning equal opportunity and justice for all Asian Americans through a SWING bloc vote, ideally directing 80% of our community’s votes and money to the presidential candidate endorsed by the 80-20, who better represents the interests of all APAs. Hence, the name “80-20″ was created.”
The Obama campaign has nothing to do with that PAC or who they endorse.
Posted on 11-Oct-08 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
Ben wrote:
I’m going to make the assumption that John didn’t do research on 80-20. First, Obama campaign has acknowledged 80-20. Take a look at the AAPI section of the campaign off the official site. Makes mention to both 80-20 and AAPI PACs.
Secondly, 80-20 has never been “nonpartisan” as it claims. Ever. Let me put it in another fashion. Did you actually even read the letter 80-20 sent out? If not, click the picture that’s in the post. That’s not a “nonpartisan” letter. In fact, that’s extremely partisan.
Third, quoting the website is like saying… when the Japanese were re-writing their history books some years back to make note that Pearl Harbor didn’t happen. There is a pretty strong link between 80-20 and Obama’s campaign in both tracing money, and via just textual references above.
So denying that there’s a connection is ridiculous. The point still remains… moving far away from this PAC would be beneficial to Obama/Biden.
Posted on 11-Oct-08 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
jaehwan wrote:
I have no idea why a PAC would even claim to be nonpartisan. It reeks of insincerity. Then again, so do lots of other things they do.
John,
Earlier this year, I had a presentation on 80/20 for the Fallout Central podcast, and in preparation for the interview, I researched 80/20 through their own website. When I looked back at the site right before the presentation, Obama had signed their questionnaire the day before, and the site was all changed. Rewritten. Expunged. S.B. Woo almost took me out of my game! Fortunately, Google cache was “nonpartisan” when recording it. If you’re interested in seeing some of 80/20’s “nonpartisan” rhetoric when they were endorsing Clinton in a “nonpartisan” way, check it out here.
By the way, notice the race baiting. In listing his 3 reasons why Obama would lose to Clinton, Woo talks about how Obama will lose the white vote because he was trying too hard to get the black vote. What does this have to do with “equal opportunity and justice for all Asian Americans?”
Posted on 11-Oct-08 at 4:14 pm | Permalink
John wrote:
Ben, jaehwan,
1. Ben - I hope you’re not a Republican…
2. Umm. I clicked on a link, and did a “find” and did not find “80-20″ anywhere…
3. 80-20 is partisan in the sense that it endorses candidates that it supports candidates that support Asian American issues…. if those candidates that it endorses are Democrats, so be it.
4. PAC’s can be non-partisan. PAC’s can lobby for an issue - like Israel or Taiwan, and support candidates on both sides of the isle.
Posted on 12-Oct-08 at 1:18 am | Permalink
thepeopleseason wrote:
@John:
The question of 80-20’s partisanship in no way changes the following facts (quoting myself from the previous post about them):
1. That 80-20 used common spammer tactics to compile their mailing list, such as culling addresses from Usenet archives and blanket sending to matching usernames on one service (say, yahoo.com) to another service (hotmail.com).
2. That 80-20 had the audacity to boast about their sudden “subscriber growth.”
3. That 80-20 is actually getting financial funding as a result of this unscrupulous practice.
4. That 80-20’s list administrator was in no way responsive when I asked to be removed multiple times.
If they are so eager to “better represents the interests of all APAs,” then they should change the way they ply their influence. Again, I have no objections to someone attempting to create a political voting bloc out of some shared commonality, but I reserve my money and support for people who do so ethically.
Posted on 12-Oct-08 at 5:36 am | Permalink
Ben wrote:
Hmm… I’m kind of insulted that being a Republican apparently has somewhat of a negative connotation. But no, John. I’m not a Republican. My personal feelings is that if you register for either party, then you’re a shill for that party and can’t make your own decisions.
Have I voted in Republicans? You betcha. Democrats? Sure thing. But every single politician in my mind is as corrupt as the next one. Plainly proven anything from local all the way to federal politics, which is why I quit screwing with naming myself one way or another and just decided which one was a bigger ass when I vote.
Again, you didn’t dig deep enough. It’s on the Obama site. I have a screenshot of it.
All in all though? It’s not really about Obama as much as they should stay far far away from 80-20. In that sense, McCain actually did do the right thing.
What I want to know is why S.B. Woo sends these things out. He’s not even the president of 80-20 anymore. Yet, he’s the only one on the Executive committee that I’ve seen to send this junk out. The stuff back in April or whatever had his name all over it too. And if you ever read the rhetoric? As much as he tries to play off that he’s an Independent, he has extreme ties to the Democratic Party. Sounds like a one sided deal to me. So much for non-partisan.
The way 80-20’s actions are taken, 8A could just as well boast after elections that we were the ones that swing the vote. Oh, yes…. 8A was the real reason that the vote swung this way, or that way, up, or down.. left or right. It seems like garbage to me.
If they really want to make generic claims like that, they should have a membership list, and voluntary admission to which way they voted.
Personally though? I’d love to see political messages removed from exemption of CAN-SPAM. Then I’ll get to report them. Now that would definitely be a pretty rainbow at the end of dark day.
Posted on 12-Oct-08 at 7:11 am | Permalink
jaehwan wrote:
John,
PACs rarely go both ways. They usually lean one way or the other. I just checked out the NRA Political Victory Fund, and they simply say that they rank a candidate “irrespective of party affiliation.” This is accurate, as most NRA people are Repubs, although the organization has crossed party lines. They’re not nonpartisan.
S.B. Woo is no longer the president of 80-20, but he’s still the de-facto leader. Back in the day after S.B.’s first term was up, the terms of the 80/20 bylaws said that someone had to run against him. Because all the members were his cronies and friends, no one bothered running. So S.B. had his wife “run” against him just so he could claim he had some opposition. I wish I were making this up, but I’m not. He’s been holding on tightly to the reins ever since.
If you look at the press releases by the current president, she’s constantly quoting S.B., mostly because S.B. is usually the one on the front line making his demands and issuing his threats against people who ignore him. You can see this by checking their website, or Google cache for the stuff they erase. Or you can just check your spam folder. S.B. has been the leader, and he’s still the leader. The titles of the leadership, much like the e-mail list, are just a way for Woo to make the organization look legitimate to the public.
Another thing about the “nonpartisan” claim: they back this up by saying they have an equal number of Dems and Repubs on their committee, along with Independents. S.B. was a lifelong Democrat, so he converted to an Independent and then said that now the committee had equal representation. If this sounds fishy and sleazy, it’s because it is.
Also, if the election goes my way, I’m going to claim that I personally swung it. After all, I did send that Sarah Palin interview to a number of my friends.
Posted on 12-Oct-08 at 8:49 am | Permalink
Jason wrote:
80-20 is a joke.
Posted on 13-Oct-08 at 7:30 am | Permalink
Akrypti wrote:
I’m not against e-mail blitzkriegs that seek to get the word out about a social, political, or other general activist concern. Even though I fundamentally disagree with 80-20’s views, approaches, and personalities, I’m glad they exist.
Posted on 14-Oct-08 at 6:51 am | Permalink
Ben wrote:
The point here though isn’t about email “blitzkriegs” in general. I have no issues with that either. But there is a fundamental ethical, and at least for corporate, legal use of how e-mail lists are created and maintained.
I don’t take to those that don’t set up an opt-in list, and instead claim they have this huge following, but it’s culled from just looking for asian names on massive email lists and then put together. I could do the same thing. I’ll call it the Smith PAC, and I’ll just go ahead and buy all the email lists I have and rip out all the Smith names. Could you imagine the power behind the Smith, and Jones PACs? Ohhh yeah. Not.
Posted on 14-Oct-08 at 7:28 am | Permalink