5 ms·

This is probably going to be a hard problem for a lot of companies. Spending quite a lot of money on Democrats and little on Republicans looked like a good str

This is probably going to be a hard problem for a lot of companies. Spending quite a lot of money on Democrats and little on Republicans looked like a good strategy given the polling, but now they have to deal with a office holder that is not the least concerned with building bridges and has a bit of vengeful streak. Not to mention all the contacts they have built up in the permanent staff might not be there as long as normal[1]. The typical hire former government workers to lobby current government might also be in danger if the President goes through with his anti-lobbyist rule changes. This is actually a big deal for a lot of people, because these permanent employees are a lot of organization's touchstones that cross administrations and party lines. I would advice Google to have a small talk with their doodle team to not rock the boat this year. That might be a signal on how aggressive they really are. 1) http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/top-state-department-officials-asked-to-leave-by-trump-administration/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/top-state-department-...

leesalminen 10y ago
> The typical hire former government workers to lobby current government might also be in danger if the President goes through with his anti-lobbyist rule changes. This is one thing that I'm really looking forward to.
- abraves10001 10y ago
  I mean I understand that we don't want stagnation of ideas and certain sects continuously ruling government. However, the reason that they are lobbyists is because they are generally experts on the subjects, in no small part due to their government experience. Removing all former government workers as lobbyists a blanket move is heavy-handed and poorly thought out.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Your version sounds good, but that's not the majority of what happens. They are lobbyists because they know people and its often a cushy, legal payoff for employees who helped the company secure and manage contracts while in government service. The most common reward is as an employee hire after they retire from government services, but the lobbyists often have their origin in the same process.
    - abraves10001 10y ago
      I don't disagree. My statement sounded far too overarching. Obviously, a lot of jobs are handouts in form of repayment. I don't think this should be encouraged but I don't think a law banning former federal employees is going to diminish the numerous concerns that lobbying brings up and potentially diminishes the quality of people advising current government.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        I got your meaning (and think the down voting on your original comment is a bit harsh), but the pendulum is probably due to swing the other way, hard. I really don't know what a good balance point is. I have heard a 5 or 7 year ban bandied about, and maybe something time-based is the answer. I think until it goes to a total ban we won't find the true balance point.
        leesalminen 10y ago
        The pendulum anaolgy is an excellent way of describing how politics in this country works. I've used it often over the past several weeks. One option would be to limit how long someone can work for a lobbying organization (instead of how long must wait before lobbying after government service). What if we restored the importance of civic duty in our society? Top talent could be incentivized to work for the government for non financial reasons. I don't think anyone knows the answer to this problem (yet), but it is a large problem worth solving. Personally, I do feel strongly about civic duty. But after having (briefly) worked on government contracts I found an incredible amount of waste, cronyism and general ineptitude to turn me off. So I joined the software startup world instead ;).
- pavlov 10y ago
  Trump's proposal is a five-year ban on becoming a registered lobbyist after leaving a government job. This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings.
  - dahdum 10y ago
    "but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists." Even if it's not 100% effective, won't this significantly reduce this behavior? Certainly adds risk to the equation. Many of his policies are questionable, but this one always sounded pretty good to me.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. And then they'll be breaking the law. Pushing the practice underground will make it less effective and less common. The appearance of propriety goes a long way toward convincing people that there isn't enough profit in being improper. > It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings. I don't understand why people continue to revisit things like this when there are so many legitimate problems with Trump. His tax returns are going to tell you how much money he made and how much tax he paid. How does that help you? It's bike shedding. And the conflicts of interest are inherently unavoidable. Even if he put every cent of his money in a blind trust (which is obviously expensive if the assets are illiquid real estate holdings), what about his family's assets? What about his business partners? The only reason anyone cares about this is the appearance of impropriety. If that matters in this case then why not in the other?
kyrra 10y ago
Google as a company gives equally between the 2 parties[0] (via it's PAC(s)). Google employees that donated to candidates or various government entities definitely leans towards the democrat side[1]. So the company knows to hedge its bets and give equally both ways. (Most large companies do this, like Comcast[2]). [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00428623 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte... [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000067823&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000067823&c... [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00248716 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte...
- protomyth 10y ago
  "The total of contributions to candidates from Alphabet Inc individuals is 2 times larger than contributions from PACs" I'm pretty sure they can do the sums and figure it out. Plus, they already have had a lot of news about claims of unfairness of searches. That employee number is going to influence things. I would be a bit more worried if I was Apple though http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/apple-wont-aid-gop-convention-over-trump-224513 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/apple-wont-aid-gop-con...
- tyingq 10y ago
  It's not just the money, though...it's the relationship, time, favors, etc. There's stuff like this organization: https://thegroundwork.com/ https://thegroundwork.com/ that Eric Schmidt set up for Hillary.
- mtgx 10y ago
  The problem is this shouldn't even be a thing. It shouldn't be "Google" that gives money to politicians. It should be individuals. And the sums should be capped at $200 (local/Congress elections) to $500 (presidential elections). Even "lobbying" shouldn't exist. There should only be public hearings. I don't want some other party to whisper secret stuff to my politician. I want it all on the record.
  - mac01021 10y ago
TorKlingberg 10y ago
I wonder if Google employees will revolt, if the company does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump.
- protomyth 10y ago
  does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump. Could you clue me in on where I said that? If you mean my doodle comment, then that's really not about Trump per se, its more about lack of attention to things his base cares about and might lead to problem.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    I would advice Google to have a small talk with their doodle team to not rock the boat this year certainly comes off as 'keep your head down' even though you may not have intended it that way. I mean, what sort of things do you think they should avoid that might rock the boat?
    - protomyth 10y ago
      Avoid? No, it not avoidance that stirs the pot, it has been what holidays they don't acknowledge.
- camus2 10y ago
  > I wonder if Google employees will revolt what would be intended result? to go against orders from the upper management?
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  If Google employees were going to revolt, they'd have done so already. Many have left on various grounds, but those that are left either have heavily bought into what Google's marketing team is selling about the mission, or simply don't care that they work for a company that has such a corrupt influence in government. A Googler I follow recently posted an angry social post about the recent Congressional proposal to gimp the Office of Congressional Ethics, and how that was "not normal" and such. I pointed out that Bob Goodlatte, the congressman who introduced it, was bought and paid for by Google, and has acted as a lobbyist for Google while supposedly serving the public. He largely dismissed the point, but I suggested that rather than blame Trump, who hadn't even been inaugurated yet, that he should maybe ask his employer to stop bankrolling this guy. He largely just dismissed my point and then closed the comments. I have no doubt Google's executives have drastically different social and moral views than their rank and file engineers, but they don't seem too inclined to do anything about it.
mudil 10y ago
"now they have to deal with a office holder that is not the least concerned with building bridges and has a bit of vengeful streak" Where is evidence for that? As a matter of fact, during the post election period Trump extended olive branches to his opponents and critics, such as Romney, Cruz, Bushes, etc.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Olive branch to Romney? He dragged him through the press like a trained dog. He said some nice things about the Clintons, but I haven't seen a lot of bridge building or olive branches. I'm more than willing to give him a chance, and I really want him to do well, but I don't think he suffers opponents gladly.
  - tomcam 10y ago
    What about the day-long meeting he had with Romney?
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I did not see Romney on the list of Appointees. It was a nice show with a lot of backchannel negative comments to the conservative press by Trump's staff.
tomcam 10y ago
Please tell me how President Obama attempted to build bridges with Republicans.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure I didn't mention President Obama in my comment, so why ask me that question? Are you probing for what party I support and trying to draw some equivalence?

leesalminen 10y ago

> The typical hire former government workers to lobby current government might also be in danger if the President goes through with his anti-lobbyist rule changes. This is one thing that I'm really looking forward to.

abraves10001 10y ago
I mean I understand that we don't want stagnation of ideas and certain sects continuously ruling government. However, the reason that they are lobbyists is because they are generally experts on the subjects, in no small part due to their government experience. Removing all former government workers as lobbyists a blanket move is heavy-handed and poorly thought out.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Your version sounds good, but that's not the majority of what happens. They are lobbyists because they know people and its often a cushy, legal payoff for employees who helped the company secure and manage contracts while in government service. The most common reward is as an employee hire after they retire from government services, but the lobbyists often have their origin in the same process.
  - abraves10001 10y ago
    I don't disagree. My statement sounded far too overarching. Obviously, a lot of jobs are handouts in form of repayment. I don't think this should be encouraged but I don't think a law banning former federal employees is going to diminish the numerous concerns that lobbying brings up and potentially diminishes the quality of people advising current government.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      I got your meaning (and think the down voting on your original comment is a bit harsh), but the pendulum is probably due to swing the other way, hard. I really don't know what a good balance point is. I have heard a 5 or 7 year ban bandied about, and maybe something time-based is the answer. I think until it goes to a total ban we won't find the true balance point.
      - leesalminen 10y ago
        The pendulum anaolgy is an excellent way of describing how politics in this country works. I've used it often over the past several weeks. One option would be to limit how long someone can work for a lobbying organization (instead of how long must wait before lobbying after government service). What if we restored the importance of civic duty in our society? Top talent could be incentivized to work for the government for non financial reasons. I don't think anyone knows the answer to this problem (yet), but it is a large problem worth solving. Personally, I do feel strongly about civic duty. But after having (briefly) worked on government contracts I found an incredible amount of waste, cronyism and general ineptitude to turn me off. So I joined the software startup world instead ;).
pavlov 10y ago
Trump's proposal is a five-year ban on becoming a registered lobbyist after leaving a government job. This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings.
- dahdum 10y ago
  "but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists." Even if it's not 100% effective, won't this significantly reduce this behavior? Certainly adds risk to the equation. Many of his policies are questionable, but this one always sounded pretty good to me.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > This sounds good on paper -- but the more likely reality is that it will simply lead to lobbying becoming more covert, as former government employees working on behalf of corporations won't register as lobbyists. And then they'll be breaking the law. Pushing the practice underground will make it less effective and less common. The appearance of propriety goes a long way toward convincing people that there isn't enough profit in being improper. > It's also hard to believe that the Trump administration would do much to rein in backroom deals, considering the President himself hasn't released his tax returns nor taken any credible steps to solve the massive conflicts of interest posed by his holdings. I don't understand why people continue to revisit things like this when there are so many legitimate problems with Trump. His tax returns are going to tell you how much money he made and how much tax he paid. How does that help you? It's bike shedding. And the conflicts of interest are inherently unavoidable. Even if he put every cent of his money in a blind trust (which is obviously expensive if the assets are illiquid real estate holdings), what about his family's assets? What about his business partners? The only reason anyone cares about this is the appearance of impropriety. If that matters in this case then why not in the other?

kyrra 10y ago

Google as a company gives equally between the 2 parties[0] (via it's PAC(s)). Google employees that donated to candidates or various government entities definitely leans towards the democrat side[1]. So the company knows to hedge its bets and give equally both ways. (Most large companies do this, like Comcast[2]). [0] https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00428623 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte... [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000067823&cycle=2016 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000067823&c... [2] https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte=C00248716 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2016&cmte...

protomyth 10y ago
"The total of contributions to candidates from Alphabet Inc individuals is 2 times larger than contributions from PACs" I'm pretty sure they can do the sums and figure it out. Plus, they already have had a lot of news about claims of unfairness of searches. That employee number is going to influence things. I would be a bit more worried if I was Apple though http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/apple-wont-aid-gop-convention-over-trump-224513 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/apple-wont-aid-gop-con...
tyingq 10y ago
It's not just the money, though...it's the relationship, time, favors, etc. There's stuff like this organization: https://thegroundwork.com/ https://thegroundwork.com/ that Eric Schmidt set up for Hillary.
mtgx 10y ago
The problem is this shouldn't even be a thing. It shouldn't be "Google" that gives money to politicians. It should be individuals. And the sums should be capped at $200 (local/Congress elections) to $500 (presidential elections). Even "lobbying" shouldn't exist. There should only be public hearings. I don't want some other party to whisper secret stuff to my politician. I want it all on the record.
- mac01021 10y ago

TorKlingberg 10y ago

I wonder if Google employees will revolt, if the company does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump.

protomyth 10y ago
does as you suggest and order them to not say or do anything that might anger Trump. Could you clue me in on where I said that? If you mean my doodle comment, then that's really not about Trump per se, its more about lack of attention to things his base cares about and might lead to problem.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  I would advice Google to have a small talk with their doodle team to not rock the boat this year certainly comes off as 'keep your head down' even though you may not have intended it that way. I mean, what sort of things do you think they should avoid that might rock the boat?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    Avoid? No, it not avoidance that stirs the pot, it has been what holidays they don't acknowledge.
camus2 10y ago
> I wonder if Google employees will revolt what would be intended result? to go against orders from the upper management?
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
If Google employees were going to revolt, they'd have done so already. Many have left on various grounds, but those that are left either have heavily bought into what Google's marketing team is selling about the mission, or simply don't care that they work for a company that has such a corrupt influence in government. A Googler I follow recently posted an angry social post about the recent Congressional proposal to gimp the Office of Congressional Ethics, and how that was "not normal" and such. I pointed out that Bob Goodlatte, the congressman who introduced it, was bought and paid for by Google, and has acted as a lobbyist for Google while supposedly serving the public. He largely dismissed the point, but I suggested that rather than blame Trump, who hadn't even been inaugurated yet, that he should maybe ask his employer to stop bankrolling this guy. He largely just dismissed my point and then closed the comments. I have no doubt Google's executives have drastically different social and moral views than their rank and file engineers, but they don't seem too inclined to do anything about it.

mudil 10y ago

"now they have to deal with a office holder that is not the least concerned with building bridges and has a bit of vengeful streak" Where is evidence for that? As a matter of fact, during the post election period Trump extended olive branches to his opponents and critics, such as Romney, Cruz, Bushes, etc.

protomyth 10y ago
Olive branch to Romney? He dragged him through the press like a trained dog. He said some nice things about the Clintons, but I haven't seen a lot of bridge building or olive branches. I'm more than willing to give him a chance, and I really want him to do well, but I don't think he suffers opponents gladly.
- tomcam 10y ago
  What about the day-long meeting he had with Romney?
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I did not see Romney on the list of Appointees. It was a nice show with a lot of backchannel negative comments to the conservative press by Trump's staff.

tomcam 10y ago

Please tell me how President Obama attempted to build bridges with Republicans.

protomyth 10y ago
I'm pretty sure I didn't mention President Obama in my comment, so why ask me that question? Are you probing for what party I support and trying to draw some equivalence?