4 ms·

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 definit

by 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
  It doesn't seem practical to forbid every politician to have conversations that are not televised.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Yeah, I can't count how many Googlers have argued with me based on the claim that OpenSecrets is highlighting donations of individual employees, and that the company itself isn't buying these politicians... but that's what Google NetPAC is for. Google gives to their own PAC, which gives to their paid-for Congresscritters. Just a (thin) layer of obfuscation.
  - snowwrestler 10y ago
    Just to be clear, even though Google decides how to distribute it, the money in their PAC comes from individual donations, not the company.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      But Google both provided that cash (presumably, to it's employees as pay) and then got to decide how to spend it on political favors. And the lion's share of the donations are likely from high-level executives who have at least some stake in the company. So, I guess, you could clarify that it's still somehow routed through an individual at some stage in the process. But that's the sort of technical trickery that is used for this corrupt behavior in the first place... which is why individual donors are required to disclose their employer. As I said, thin level of obfuscation.

by kyrra 10y ago

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
It doesn't seem practical to forbid every politician to have conversations that are not televised.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Yeah, I can't count how many Googlers have argued with me based on the claim that OpenSecrets is highlighting donations of individual employees, and that the company itself isn't buying these politicians... but that's what Google NetPAC is for. Google gives to their own PAC, which gives to their paid-for Congresscritters. Just a (thin) layer of obfuscation.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  Just to be clear, even though Google decides how to distribute it, the money in their PAC comes from individual donations, not the company.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    But Google both provided that cash (presumably, to it's employees as pay) and then got to decide how to spend it on political favors. And the lion's share of the donations are likely from high-level executives who have at least some stake in the company. So, I guess, you could clarify that it's still somehow routed through an individual at some stage in the process. But that's the sort of technical trickery that is used for this corrupt behavior in the first place... which is why individual donors are required to disclose their employer. As I said, thin level of obfuscation.