4 ms·
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 cappe
by 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 agoIt doesn't seem practical to forbid every politician to have conversations that are not televised.
- ocdtrekkie 10y agoYeah, 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 agoJust 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 agoBut 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.