Google Spent More Than Anyone On Lobbyists This Year

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
What's the point in having billions and billions of dollars if you don't spend some of it protecting all that money. ;)

But Federal Election Commission data show that the company spending the most money on lobbying is none of these traditional giants. Instead, it's Google. During the first quarter of 2015, Google spent $5.4 million lobbying the federal government, an increase of 43 percent from the same period last year, according to FEC data analyzed by the government transparency group MapLight.
Click to expand...
 
From the article: "It should be noted that these figures—representing the amount of money Google has paid lobbyists to advocate on its behalf—are separate from donations that the company has made directly to candidates, political parties, super PACs, and politically focused non-profit organizations. Since 2008, Google has spent $74.5 million on lobbying and given out an additional $10.2 million to politicians and political groups."
 
although the whole idea of lobbying and etc totally grosses me out...

i much rather google be buying of the politicians than the verizons and comcasts of the world...
 
goodcooper said:
although the whole idea of lobbying and etc totally grosses me out...

i much rather google be buying of the politicians than the verizons and comcasts of the world...
Click to expand...

off*

and yea, as gross as it is, this is how we enact change...

the new boss may be same as the old boss, but at least the new boss has fast internet
:D
 
goodcooper said:
the new boss may be same as the old boss, but at least the new boss has fast internet
:D
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder about in the future when Google has their cell phone service up and running and much more of the market as an ISP, will they block users from using VPN's. They make their money on mining user data after all. I'm sure they couldn't have all these useful services available if even 25% of all their users wanted some security and used a VPN.

New boss might end up worse than the old boss, just add time.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Democracy for sale!

We have democracy for sale!
Click to expand...
Plutocracy for sale*

This country is way passed any kind of a representative democracy (never really was one according to James Madison). The rich are getting their way every single day right out in the open arena and the poor and middle class just sit back and watch it happening.

The TPP is gonna be good, too! Make US workers compete with the poorest workers in other countries! WOOHOO!!! Merica! Fuck Yeah!
 
bigdogchris said:
I'd rather it be Google than the Koch brothers.
Click to expand...

There's no difference, they're using money to remove voters from the equation.

I don't care if it's the International Red Cross or Comcast, it's money being used to usurp democratic principals and concepts. Many western countries are already well on their way to complete oligarchies because we haven't paid enough attention to the money.

Whenever you want to find where things went rotten, you just follow the money.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'd rather it be Google than the Koch brothers.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was reading the other day about how the Koch brothers will be spending $900+ million dollars in the next election cycle. That makes what Google's doing look like peanuts.
 
If you look at the lengthy list of items in the article, Google has valid concerns with all of them and lobbying is an effective and legal way for them to voice opinions on them ... they also cover the full range of direct business concerns like online privacy laws, patent laws, copyright laws, energy policy, trade policy, immigration policy, tax policy and other topics that all affect their business and service offerings ... actually for many public companies (who tend to bear the brunt of most new laws or changes to laws) it would be extremely bad business policy to not lobby
 
Nope, spent less than comcast.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s&showYear=2014

US Chamber of Commerce $124,080,000
National Assn of Realtors $55,057,053
Blue Cross/Blue Shield $21,298,774
American Hospital Assn $20,753,146
American Medical Assn $19,650,000
National Assn of Broadcasters $18,440,000
National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $17,460,000
Comcast Corp $16,970,000
Google Inc $16,830,000
Boeing Co $16,800,000
Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America $16,640,000
General Electric $16,350,000
United Technologies $15,738,000
Business Roundtable $14,840,000
CVS Health $14,787,640
Lockheed Martin $14,581,800
Dow Chemical $14,430,000
AT&T Inc $14,020,000
Koch Industries $13,800,000
FedEx Corp $13,414,536
 
The difference between big government and small government is the degree to which they can be bought out.
 
Imagine if all that money was spent on Space Exploration? Or to feed the hungry? Or put in my bank account?
 
That is almost half a billion dollars spent from the top 20 spenders. And we are supposed to believe that the politicians think of the general population when making decisions?
 
Parmenides said:
The difference between big government and small government is the degree to which they can be bought out.
Click to expand...

Note that lobbying and donations are two very different things ... although there is plenty of corruption in lobbying too, lobbying is mostly about our government representatives having very little technical knowledge of the subjects they regulate

Our representatives are almost exclusively lawyers and most of their staff are political types and not technical types ... because of this technical knowledge gap in government, it presents a need and function of lobbyists ... it does get abused, like when energy or entertainment lobbyists write the laws for the representatives to pass but it does fill a need currently

The long term fix, if people wanted to eliminate lobbyists (and assuming SCOTUS would allow their elimination without a violation of the first amendment), would be to found an independent technical office (similar to the GAO) that would provide the analysis and recommendations on technical issues ... even if you were forced to keep the lobbyists you could make this organization the arbiter of the different points of view

Otherwise, without the lobbyists (or some equivalent group with technical knowledge), you end up with people who don't understand how to send emails, think the internet is a series of tubes, and have no technical understanding of complicated areas trying to fund the groups that regulate or monitor those areas and passing the laws that regulate them
 
dagas said:
That is almost half a billion dollars spent from the top 20 spenders. And we are supposed to believe that the politicians think of the general population when making decisions?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean with that ... except for the president we have no elected representative that serves the general population ... Congressmen are elected to serve their district ... Senators are elected to serve half of their state that elects them (technically both are supposed to serve all in their state but they retain their jobs based on the small minority of voters who elect them) ... only the president is elected by the general population

What about Fracking laws as an example ... they may have adverse effects on the local population but a general policy on Fracking benefits the general population because they see lower energy prices (and don't have to suffer the localized environmental issues) ... if your only requirement is serving the general good then promoting Fracking should be a priority of the government (which it is)

The elimination of lobbying would create as many problems as it solves since now the politicians could vote strictly based on the political benefit of an issue (since that would be most popular with the general populace) rather than the technical merits ;)
 
 
flashoverride said:
but... the internet *is* a series of tubes...

(It's actually not a bad way to visualize it)


http://voodos.com/v2/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=20&Itemid=107 - AT&T
http://voodos.com/v2/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=26:level-3-usa&Itemid=107 - Level 3
http://voodos.com/v2/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=21:global-crossing&Itemid=107 - Global Crossing
http://voodos.com/v2/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=2:mci-usa&Itemid=107 - VZN
Click to expand...

Visualize yes, regulate no ... I would hope we regulate water pipes and "internet" pipes very differently :D
 
kbrickley said:
I am not sure what you mean with that ... except for the president we have no elected representative that serves the general population ... Congressmen are elected to serve their district ... Senators are elected to serve half of their state that elects them (technically both are supposed to serve all in their state but they retain their jobs based on the small minority of voters who elect them) ... only the president is elected by the general population )
Click to expand...
What he means is the concerns of the people are essentially invisible at the federal level, unless it's also mirrored by lobbyists. We have a government representative of lobbyists needs now, not the people's.
 
tetris42 said:
What he means is the concerns of the people are essentially invisible at the federal level, unless it's also mirrored by lobbyists. We have a government representative of lobbyists needs now, not the people's.
Click to expand...

There is a power in numbers ... "the people" are generally pretty bad about organizing themselves ... they either take the Occupy Wall-street approach (where they have no consistent message and leadership) or the Tea Party approach where they become mired in the messages of their least sane members ... business is extremely good at organizing, especially when they all agree on the solution (immigration, taxation, regulation, etc)

We either need to push more power down to the local levels (but we will lose some standardization and many things, like national defense, have to remain under federal control) or we need to make it easier for "people" to organize ... Obama seems to have been thinking along those lines with the White House petitions (but then the crazies jumped on that band wagon also)
 
kbrickley said:
Note that lobbying and donations are two very different things ... although there is plenty of corruption in lobbying too, lobbying is mostly about our government representatives having very little technical knowledge of the subjects they regulate

Our representatives are almost exclusively lawyers and most of their staff are political types and not technical types ... because of this technical knowledge gap in government, it presents a need and function of lobbyists ... it does get abused, like when energy or entertainment lobbyists write the laws for the representatives to pass but it does fill a need currently

The long term fix, if people wanted to eliminate lobbyists (and assuming SCOTUS would allow their elimination without a violation of the first amendment), would be to found an independent technical office (similar to the GAO) that would provide the analysis and recommendations on technical issues ... even if you were forced to keep the lobbyists you could make this organization the arbiter of the different points of view

Otherwise, without the lobbyists (or some equivalent group with technical knowledge), you end up with people who don't understand how to send emails, think the internet is a series of tubes, and have no technical understanding of complicated areas trying to fund the groups that regulate or monitor those areas and passing the laws that regulate them
Click to expand...

Lobbying isn't inherently evil. We can keep it. The problem is more to do with the attitude of the government and to what degree they see themselves as a business looking to cut deals. The more the gov opens up shop, the more bussinesses will pay. Collosal programs and tomes of laws have a lot of room for input. As soon as Obama got elected, everyone strarted to ramp up their lobby budget. Bussinesses lobby more when they are more confident that their stuff will get added in. It's like a competitive bidding war. Much of Google's lobby efforts is to just counteract opposing lobby efforts, e.g.telecoms. If Google doesn't lobby then they would be screwed by other businesses courting elected officials. But with a government that isn't playing that game, there is less need to lobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top