The message in the open letter sent to Congress on Sept. 11 was clear: Don’t put new copyright regulations on artificial intelligence systems.

The letter’s signatories were real players, a broad coalition of think tanks, professors and civil-society groups with a stake in the growing debate about AI and copyright in Washington.

Undisclosed, however, were the fingerprints of Sy Damle, a tech-friendly Washington lawyer and former government official who works for top firms in the industry — including OpenAI, one of the top developers of cutting-edge AI models. Damle is currently representing OpenAI in ongoing copyright lawsuits.

Damle did not sign the letter, and did not reply to multiple attempts to contact him with questions about his involvement. But data contained in a publicly posted PDF of the letter show the document was authored by “SDamle,” and three signatories confirmed to POLITICO that Damle was involved in its drafting and circulation. Two of them said they were first made aware of the letter by Damle, and signed it at his invitation.

The letter’s covert origin offers a window into the deep and often invisible reach of Big Tech influence in the Washington debate over AI — a fast-moving part of the policy landscape where Congress is hungry for outside advice, and which is still new enough to create strange political bedfellows. Signatories included the American Library Association, the progressive nonprofit Public Knowledge and the free-market R Street Institute.

Damle is a partner at law firm Latham & Watkins and former general counsel at the U.S. Copyright Office. He is one of several Latham & Watkins lawyers named in an August legal filing submitted on behalf of OpenAI. The company is being sued by comedian Sarah Silverman and other authors for allegedly infringing their copyrights by using their books to train ChatGPT, OpenAI’s large language model.

In addition to his work for OpenAI, Damle represented venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz in an April discussion held by the Copyright Office about generative AI’s impact on copyright protections for literary works. He also testified against AI-driven changes to copyright law at a May hearing held by a House Judiciary subpanel.

Andreessen Horowitz spokesperson Paul Cafiero said the VC firm, which has invested in OpenAI and other leading AI companies, “didn’t have any involvement in drafting or commissioning this letter.”

A spokesperson for OpenAI declined to comment.

The effort by an OpenAI lawyer to covertly sway Congress against new laws on AI and copyright comes in the midst of an escalating influence campaign — tied to OpenAI and other top AI firms — that critics fear is shifting Washington’s attention away from current AI harms and toward existential threats posed by future AI systems.

The letter was sent to all members of the House and Senate. The signatories exhorted Congress not to pass new copyright laws aimed at generative AI, arguing that existing law can handle any legitimate copyright concerns raised by the emerging technology. They warned lawmakers against passing bills that would introduce “onerous new copyright restrictions” for AI developers.

Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Damle was “involved in circulating and revising the letter after input.” R Street spokesperson William Gray said that Wayne Brough, the organization’s technology lead on copyright policy issues, “was invited by Sy Damle to sign onto the letter, and after review, decided to add our name.”

Jason Schultz, director of NYU’s Technology Law and Policy Clinic, said Damle reached out to him about the letter weeks before it was sent. “I looked at a draft and made some comments and then, when I was satisfied with the content, agreed to sign on,” Schultz said. Like some other signatories, Schultz stressed that he signed the letter because he agreed with its arguments.

Many of the points made in the September letter echo those made recently by Damle in other venues, including an argument comparing the rise of AI to the invention of photography.

Damle isn’t the only former copyright official to weigh in on generative AI — and his arguments are disputed by at least one of them. Jon Baumgarten, who also formerly served as general counsel at the Copyright Office, rejected Damle’s recent claim that the ingestion and processing of written works by generative AI is “fair use” under existing copyright law. In a letter to the House subpanel that hosted Damle in May, Baumgarten said Damle’s argument is at best “over-generalized, oversimplified and unduly conclusory.”

Gov. Maura Healey does not have to amend or repeal the state’s “right to shelter” law.

All she needs to do is enforce it.

The law as written, and passed forty years ago, was never intended to house and feed the explosion of migrants from around the world storming into Massachusetts.

It was passed and signed into law by liberal Democrat Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1983 to deal with the relatively small number of homeless families and pregnant women who were residents of Massachusetts, not residents of other states or countries.

But the law has not been interpreted or enforced the way it was written. Instead, progressives have proudly waved it as a banner of compassion and an invitation to migrants from around the world to come to Massachusetts where they will be cared for.

Liberal Massachusetts is the only state in the union with such a law.

The word eventually went out that Massachusetts was a soft touch. So the mostly illegal immigrants came, and are coming, to the point that Healey had to call a state of emergency and bring out the National Guard to help deal with the influx of all the foreigners making their way to Massachusetts.

The situation has gotten so bad, and so costly, that Healey last week announced that the state can no longer guarantee shelter or housing for any more arrivals.

She made no mention of the social impact the immigrants have had on the communities where they are being housed in motels, or what will happen to immigrants who keep on coming.

Currently there are some 7,023 immigrant families in the state’s shelter/welfare system, or some 23,000 people. Of the number, 3,300 families are living in motels and hotels and the rest are in shelters.

Healey last week announced that the state has run out of shelter space, service providers or funding to continue housing immigrants. On Nov.1 it will not add any more shelter units and limit the number of families housed in the system.

The Healey administration will soon have spent all the $325 million appropriated in January to deal with the immigrant crisis. Healey, meanwhile, has requested another $250 million from the Legislature.

“This level of growth is not sustainable,” Healey said. Then, in a mixed message, she said, “We are not ending the right to shelter law. We are being very clear, though, that we are not going to be able to guarantee placement to those who are sent here after the end of the month.”

Healey, however, doesn’t have to end the shelter law, she just needs to enforce the way it was written to cover homeless Massachusetts residents, not outsiders.

The 1983 law, in defining a resident, states that “any such person who enters the Commonwealth solely for the purposes of obtaining such benefits under this chapter shall not be considered a resident.”

The law also provides help for pending homeless families with money for rent, utility bills, home heating bills, moving expenses and furniture storage, none of which would appear to apply to illegal immigrant coming to Massachusetts from countries around the world.

It is good, but probably futile, to keep asking President Biden for financial aid to deal with the immigration problem.

“We need everyone to understand that we are entering a new phase of this shelter challenge,” Healey said. “Massachusetts will continue to rise to this challenge. That’s who we are. But I want there to be no doubt. This is a federal problem that demands a federal solution.”

For Biden, to come up with billions in federal money for Massachusetts and other states burdened with illegal immigrants, is to admit he created the problem in the first place by opening the borders and allowing people in who do not belong here.

Healey would have been better off if she demanded Biden shut down the border.

It is just too bad that Healey is still not attorney general.

That way she could sue Joe Biden for not enforcing Donald Trump’s strict border laws – the way she used to sue President Trump for enforcing them.

For Democrats, though, the law, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Peter Lucas is a veteran Massachusetts political reporter and columnist.

A U.S. Border Patrol agent directs asylum-seekers waiting between the double fence along the U.S.-Mexico border near Tijuana, Mexico earlier this year. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy, file)

The war between Israel and Hamas has torn through American politics, disturbed communities across the country and unsettled political coalitions in both parties. Over the past two weeks, Muslim American voters and leaders have been increasingly outspoken about their fears of violent backlash and political exclusion in this wrenching crisis.

Among many Muslim American Democrats, there has been a sense of frustration about the Biden administration’s handling of the conflict. On Thursday, President Joe Biden made his most explicit appeal to Muslim Americans in his speech from the Oval Office, denouncing Islamophobia and deploring the murder of a 6-year-old Illinois boy, Wadea Al-Fayoume, by a man allegedly motivated by anti-Muslim paranoia.

To better understand Muslim American politics in this moment, POLITICO Magazine spoke Friday with Georgia State Sen. Nabilah Islam Parkes. The daughter of immigrants from Bangladesh, Islam Parkes, a former campaign strategist, became the first Muslim woman and the youngest woman elected to the Georgia legislature when she won one of the most competitive races in the state in 2022.

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Alexander Burns: It’s been two weeks since the Hamas attack and since the war started. I’m wondering if you can give me a sense of what those two weeks have been like for you as a Muslim American elected official.

Islam Parkes: Emotions are very raw right now. Listening to my community and how they’re feeling in this moment: They feel otherized, they feel left behind. I’m listening to parents who are worried about their kids that are potentially going to be bullied. People worried about losing their jobs. Folks are in fear of their safety. People are hurt and scared right now. And in my role, I’m trying to be there for them as much as I can, to let them know that they’re not alone and to lift their voices and make sure that they’re heard. I see that as a responsibility as a Muslim American elected official, to be there for my community in this very charged moment.

Burns: When you talk about the community — are you hearing from people who are your literal constituents, mostly, or do you feel like you have a broader responsibility than that?

Islam Parkes: I hear from constituents. I have a lot of Muslim Americans that live in this district. But I also do feel like I have a broader responsibility as well to be a voice for a community that just recently elected, for the first time, Muslim Americans to their state legislature. I definitely feel like there’s a bigger responsibility on my shoulders to uplift everyone’s voice in the state and I’m trying to do that.

Burns: Can you give me a sense of how you are doing that?

Islam Parkes: Well, I’m reaching out to folks and trying to find out, what are some things that they need right now? Whether it’s to stand with them in solidarity, to organize, raising funds. We’re having different events at mosques — and to just be there with them and to pray with them and to pray for peace in the community. I just don’t want people to feel like they’re alone right now.

Burns: Are you hearing from people who are currently being bullied or being marginalized in their workplace? How much is that already happening, versus people are just really scared because they’ve seen this kind of moment before and they feel like it’s inevitable?

Islam Parkes: I think people are just really scared. I was talking to many people about this, other Muslim Americans and other Palestinians in the state — it feels like it’s post-9/11 with the Islamophobic rhetoric. Or it feels like how it felt before we went to war in Iraq. There is this feeling that Muslims have to — whenever there’s a terrorist attack, the Muslim community feels like there’s an onus on them, like a target on them to respond and to justify and reaffirm that they oppose violence, that they oppose terrorism. Right now, we feel like our language is policed all the time. And it’s not healthy for democracy or for real dialogue. It’s like having to constantly prove that we, too, are Americans. No other group has to go through an experience like that, to have to reaffirm: Hey, we are against terrorism, and if we don’t say that, then somehow we are for terrorism. People are feeling very, very — they’re very scared right now about how our community is going to be marginalized. And as Islamophobia is increasing, they’re scared for their children and for themselves.

Burns: Did you watch the president’s speech last night?

Islam Parkes: I did not. I did not watch it.

Burns: I don’t know if you read the coverage of that speech or if you followed coverage of his remarks in general. I wonder how you would assess his message to Muslim Americans, his relationship with the Muslim American community?

Islam Parkes: Especially in Georgia, the Muslim community’s been huge allies to the Biden administration. We organized and we were very much part of that slim margin that helped him get elected. And I think overall, the Muslim community does feel a little — there’s a level of erasure that we feel, especially at the beginning of this — from two weeks ago. Folks don’t feel like their voices are being heard.

The tone of a leader really matters. And I will say that there are a lot of people in the Muslim community that feel like the president let them down. People are dying on both sides here, and our blood is the same color. We’ve lost — I think it’s been over 5,000 Israelis and Palestinians. And so there are a lot of people that are upset.

Burns: How much is the part they’re upset with the policy and how much is the part they’re upset with — when you say “erasure,” is it that the president has not done enough to address Muslim Americans directly?

Islam Parkes: I think that the president is trying to address Muslim Americans directly, and I encourage that level of engagement with the Biden administration in the Muslim community. And we need to see more of it. Right now, Muslims, Palestinians are being dehumanized in the press. There’s a lot of rhetoric that’s flying around that’s conflating terrorism to Muslims. And we need our leaders to make it very clear that there’s a difference between what a terrorist is and what an American Muslim is — or just Muslims in general. And we saw earlier that the poor 6-year-old child was stabbed to death by his landlord who was radicalized by listening to the radio and was paranoid that the Palestinians were out to get him.

We just need strong leadership to recognize the humanity on both sides — that people are grieving in the Muslim community and the Jewish community and that we’re going to get through this together. Right now, there’s a lot of divisive language, and it’s not helping.

Burns: I know you said you didn’t watch the president’s speech last night. I thought that there was a section of his speech where he did exactly what you’re talking about, and it was quite effective. And I also wonder what kind of difference it would have made if it had happened 11 days earlier.

Islam Parkes: I’ll speak to that. Muslim civic engagement has increased over the past 20 years, significantly, since post-9/11. Post-9/11, a lot of Muslims went into hiding, changed their names, hid their face. But now we feel like we’re part of the American political process. There’s over 60,000 registered Muslims in Georgia, and thousands of them organized, knocked on doors, made phone calls, voted for this president because we felt like this was an administration that respected our community and respected our input. And I think at the beginning of this, we were taken aback — it felt more one-sided from the beginning. It would have helped if the president had made it clear that this wasn’t Palestinians versus Israelis; this was very much a barbaric terrorist attack from Hamas.

Recognizing the humanity in the Gaza Strip would have gone a long way. I know that he’s trying to address that now, and I appreciate that and he should. But I think our emotions are very raw. People are very emotional right now. And he needs to continue to do that and keep reaching out to us in that manner.

Burns: Can I ask you — you’re Muslim American, you’re not Palestinian and you’re not Arab American. How much do you feel like this is a political moment that you want to be a part of, and how much do you feel like it’s actually something that because of certain cultural norms and expectations, you’re forced to be in?

Islam Parkes: In the past five years, I have felt a Muslim community starting to feel more a part of this American political process. We’re running for office. There’s a lot of firsts everywhere — people getting elected, whether it’s Congress or the legislature or school board.

We’re proud of those achievements, and this is a moment where we have harnessed political power and we need to use it. We need to use it so that our communities don’t feel like they have to go back into hiding. In fact, we’re leaning into it. And as a Muslim American elected official, as the first Muslim woman in the State Senate in the state of Georgia, I carry that on my back, right? That I have to be present and vocal and continue to make sure that our voices are heard, so that we’re not marginalized moving forward in the way that we were 20 years ago.

Burns: It was a small but significant group of Muslim American candidates who were elected for the first time in 2022 in a number of states, and I wonder — is there any kind of conversation among elected officials about navigating the dynamics you’re talking about?

Islam Parkes: You mean naturally or just locally?

Burns: Either.

Islam Parkes: I think we’re all evaluating how to talk about this, respective to our communities. We all live in different parts of this country, and we’re trying to figure out the best ways to engage in this conversation. We don’t want our Jewish friends to feel isolated. We don’t want our Muslim friends to feel isolated. We’re all grieving and we should be grieving together. On my end, I want to be a coalition builder and to let everyone know we’re in this together, that we all want peace, that we don’t want more civilians dying. We’re friends, we’re neighbors, we’re colleagues. And at the end of the day, we are all Americans, grieving and trying to find a better way.

Boston City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson is expected to sail through in next month’s election, but political observers say her comments on the Israel-Hamas war could be a factor in two years if she faces a stronger opponent.

Her description of the Hamas terrorist organization as a “militant group” and characterization of the Oct. 7 attack that killed more than 1,400 Israelis as a “military operation” last Wednesday was heavily criticized, but isn’t expected to turn off a majority of voters in District 7, two former city councilors said.

“Do I think it’s going to impact her election? Probably not,” Michael McCormack, an attorney who served five terms on the City Council, told the Herald. “I think she wins with so few votes that the people who vote for her are probably just as uninformed as she is with respect to what she filed and her comments.”

Also working in her favor is the “very weak” opponent she’s running against, McCormack said, referring to Althea Garrison, a perennial candidate who was trounced by Fernandes Anderson in the September preliminary.

He noted that Fernandes Anderson benefited from facing another weak opponent two years ago, stating that had she faced strong opposition like the other district councilors, “she probably would not have been elected in the first place.”

“She’s probably the one who does as little as possible and who in her representation of her constituents is the weakest of the district city councilors,” McCormack said. “But she’s running against someone who historically just runs and runs, and that’s Althea Garrison who will not beat Fernandes, in large part because no one votes in her district. Simple as that.”

The progressive Fernandes Anderson was elected to represent District 7, which includes Roxbury, Dorchester, Fenway and part of the South End, in 2021.

She was heavily criticized by some of her colleagues for her description of Hamas and the terrorist attack it carried out on Israel, in a resolution she filed calling for de-escalation and a cease-fire in Israel and “occupied Palestine” at last week’s City Council meeting.

Comments made by Fernandes Anderson as part of a discussion on the resolution were also described by two Jewish groups as “antisemitic.”

Related Articles

Kendra Lara faces fewer charges related to June crash into Jamaica Plain home

Battenfeld: Boston city councilors hand out big, taxpayer-funded bonuses to staffers

Boston city councilor slammed for ‘antisemitic’ remarks on Israel-Hamas war

Boston rabbi recounts horrors of Hamas terror attack in Israel

Pro-Palestine demonstrators arrested for trying to enter Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s office

“I think the likelihood of this impacting her is slim,” Larry DiCara, a former city councilor and longtime observer of Boston politics, told the Herald. “But that does not mean that two years from now, there may be an effort to move her out, and then some people may step up and put some money behind it.”

He said he wasn’t surprised by the comments, however, saying that Fernandes Anderson identifies as a Muslim, who has a tendency to speak from the heart and a different way of viewing things going on in the Middle East.

“Certainly my Jewish friends are all up in arms about it,” DiCara said. “It may be just one of many things that will hurt her down the road.”

Both McCormack and DiCara said the City Council should have stayed away from weighing in on the Israel-Hamas war, with DiCara stating, “I wouldn’t have touched it with a 10-foot pole.”

“We have enough problems that we don’t have to delve into the problems of the rest of the world,” DiCara said.

Fernandes Anderson filed her resolution in response to one made by Councilor Michael Flaherty, who wanted to condemn “Hamas and their brutal terrorist acts against Israel,” and express solidarity with the state of Israel and Israeli people.

McCormack said he didn’t like Fernandes Anderson’s comments “on a personal level,” but was more broadly struck by how she “has no idea what her role is as a city councilor,” which is to deal with city issues, “not make comments that are at best just fatuous and a waste of time.”

Michael Ross, an attorney who served for 14 years on the City Council, declined to comment on the upcoming election, but did speak to the councilor’s remarks, and other left-leaning criticism of Israel in the wake of this month’s attack.

“As a progressive Jewish person, I am heartbroken that some on the left are incapable of standing with the Jewish people during the worst attack against them since the Holocaust,” Ross told the Herald. “Israel is not perfect, but what happened on Oct. 7 defies geopolitics, and demands humanity’s collective outrage for the perpetrators and support for its victims.”

Boston City Hall (Amanda Sabga/Boston Herald, file)