3 ms·

So, uh, yeah, i'm a googler, met a lot of them :) "I'd argue that while perhaps 1-2% of those donors may be interacting with those politicians directly, that 1

So, uh, yeah, i'm a googler, met a lot of them :) "I'd argue that while perhaps 1-2% of those donors may be interacting with those politicians directly, that 1-2%, being founders, chairmen, SVPs, etc. are probably the lion's share of the actual money donated, given their higher compensation." This simply does not jive in any way with the amounts listed on opensecrets. You don't have to argue, either, the data is right there, and it does not support this claim. "Anna Eshoo is an excellent example of a paid Google representative: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=201.. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=201.... Here's one example: (Lofgren is paid by Google as well.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/anna-eshoo-zoe-lofg..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/19/anna-eshoo-zoe-lofg... Both of these are literally the representatives for Google's district, and more importantly, tens of thousands of Google employee's district. They are supposed to be representing what their constituents want, including Google, and Google employees. Let's ignore that though. Your claim, that they are a mainly "paid google represenatives" is not even supported by the data you cite: "Raised: $1,509,756" "Donations from Google Inc Total: $34,550 Employees: $24,550 PAC: $10,000" That's 2.4%. So your claim that this is a representative paid for and bought, because Google employees donated 1.7% of their total campaign take, and the Google company PAC donated 0.7%? This is pretty laughable. Even worse for your argument, literally the line below it shows that Stanford employees donated more to her campaign than Google employees. "Stanford University: Total: $25,200 Employees: $25,200 " Stanford has 1/5th the number of employees as Google! So by your logic, i'm guessing she's bought and paid for by Stanford, by a factor of 5 more than she's bought and paid for by Google?

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Heh, had a feeling you were, couldn't prove it fron the username alone. Her constituents also include even more people Google has ruined the lives of or put out on the street. But they don't pay her the way Googlers do. As a Googler, you may lack the perspective to evaluate Google's behavior fairly. Presumably, you get paid drastically more by Google than Anna Eshoo. As to my point about Googlers being pretty much the same as Google direct, here you are defending their investment in Congress.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Heh, had a feeling you were, couldn't prove it fron the username alone. Her constituents also include even more people Google has ruined the lives of or put out on the street. But they don't pay her the way Googlers do. As a Googler, you may lack the perspective to evaluate Google's behavior fairly. Presumably, you get paid drastically more by Google than Anna Eshoo. As to my point about Googlers being pretty much the same as Google direct, here you are defending their investment in Congress.