5 ms·

Yes those who have money buy political favors in US. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/07/amid-antitrust-talk-amazon-and-google-flex-lobbying-muscle/ https

by rdtsc 9y ago

Yes those who have money buy political favors in US. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/07/amid-antitrust-talk-amazon-and-google-flex-lobbying-muscle/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/07/amid-antitrust-talk... Google has 25 lobbying firms on retainer and spends at least $15M / year on lobbying. That is more than Verizon, Monsanto and Goldman for example, just to pick a few traditional big and scary companies off the top of my head. Also speaking of Google, it has a pretty wide revolving door: "22 former White House officials moved into jobs at Google, while 31 Google executives took government jobs". It's not necessarily more un-evil or better than Monsanto for example, but many people still think of it as the cute little startup with fun colorful letters in the logo.

estsauver 9y ago
The way I've always heard is that Google was coming up while the DOJ was tearing into Microsoft for anti trust and so was very culturally aware of the impact that government can have on the success of a company.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  They took a decade to really get going with it. See the chart midway through here: https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968686/google-joins-lobbying-elite https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968686/google-joins-lobb... Before 2009 they weren't spending all that much. The company was flush with cash at least since the 2004 IPO.
3pt14159 9y ago
Monsanto is evil for tricking farmers or for unfair business practices, not for lobbying. This is a false equivalency. Google advocates for things that are generally in the public interest and does not abuse those position as many companies of their size do.
- kogepathic 9y ago
  > Google advocates for things that are generally in the public interest and does not abuse those position as many companies of their size do. Yes, they do that now. What about in the future? There's no guarantee that they won't start lobbying for things which entrench their monopoly and help their business while harming consumers. Just look at Google Fiber. At one point in time it seemed they might actually disrupt incumbent providers like Comcast, but they figured it wasn't in their interests and mothballed it.
  - Secretmapper 9y ago
    Source on wasn't in their interests? I've only read that they couldn't continue it due to a: aggressive regulations by incumbers preventing entry of new ISPs (such as Fiber), b: most companies (like Comcast) miraculously offered fiber once Google Fiber was in the game, and c: they're focusing on wireless/balloon solutions. These are just what I read but I would love to hear if this was just PR and there was a sinister reason like you imply.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      > I've only read that they couldn't continue it due to a: aggressive regulations by incumbers preventing entry of new ISPs (such as Fiber) The truth is the exact opposite. Google got very favorable treatment from fiber cities: https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says-about-tech-policy-fiber-rings-fit-deregulatory-hands https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says.... See also: http://crosscut.com/2014/12/google-fiber-never-come-seattle-broadband-internet-2 http://crosscut.com/2014/12/google-fiber-never-come-seattle-.... The difference between Mountain View and Kansas City isn’t that that Comcast has somehow managed to out-lobby Google in Google’s own back yard. That’s absurd.
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  11 Sep 2017 · Google today appealed the record €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion USD) antitrust fine levied against it by the EU
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rrhd 9y ago
  > Google advocates for things that are generally in the public interest No, they advocate 100% for things in Google's interest. If those happen to be good for the public that's a nice bonus. It's also a pretty awful bar that they don't bother with anti-trust unless the consumer harm is blatant. Thankfully that ship seems to be turning.
VeejayRampay 9y ago
Amazing comment, you somehow manage to give Thiel excuses ("it's the way it is") and shift the topic to Google's lobbying at the same time.
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > Amazing comment Thanks! > you somehow manage to give Thiel excuses And what is he guilty of again? > and shift the topic to Google's lobbying The article is about Google and lobbying, so pointing out what Google is doing is interesting. Besides your complement and meta-comment what do you think about the article?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - VeejayRampay 9y ago
    No one is saying Peter Thiel is guilty of anything, but the article is about the fact that he gave money to officials probing Google's activities, which seems, if not illegal (not familiar enough with American law to judge on that), at least highly immoral. My comment was simply underlining the fact that this is never mentioned once in your comment, which ends up sounding a lot like basic whatboutism and, as such, like some form of blame-shifting. I understand that Google's behavior is no better, they are investing a lot of money to steer legislation towards their financial sweet spot, but then any discussion about anything is moot, because someone else is doing it. When Bloomberg writes an article about Google's shady business, then by all means, let's discuss that at length. As for the article, I found it was a tad light, I would've liked more details about the reason why Peter Thiel would care so much about Google and hurting Google specifically that he would do that. Some analysis about the sordid influence of money on politics as a whole would have been nice as well, it does seem from my remote French perspective that the relationship between money and elected office in the US has taken a turn for the worst in the past 5 to 10 years.
    - rdtsc 9y ago
      > No one is saying Peter Thiel is guilty of anything, but the article is about the fact that he gave money to officials probing Google's activities, which seems, if not illegal (not familiar enough with American law to judge on that), at least highly immoral. I was trying to point out that even though it is immoral, that's how things are done in US. The article went out of its way to paint this as some kind of freaky evil thing, even threw "Trump" in there for a good measure a few times. But sadly, that's how business is done. This kind of lobbying has a pretty good ROI as others pointed below. It would be better and it could be worse. It could all be completely hidden. Here at least we are talking about it, they have to disclose it and so on. It could a secret bank transfer to a cousin who lives in a tax haven, which is how "business" is often done in other countries. > which ends up sounding a lot like basic whatboutism and, as such, like some form of blame-shifting. What he was doing is not that unusual. In other words I didn't see much blame to start with. There is blame to be shared across the whole system of influencing and buying power, and is not really isolated to Thiel. Single Google was mentioned, I used them as an example. > When Bloomberg writes an article about Google's shady business, then by all means, let's discuss that at length. Like you said, the article is a bit light on details and I think Google lobbying and influencing exceeding those of what we traditionally think as "evil" companies is an interesting side conversation. > about the reason why Peter Thiel would care so much about Google and hurting Google specifically Well now we are talking. Not just Google but Amazon as well. Officially he talks about being a libertarian and he thinks those two companies are huge monopolies, they control what is bought, sold and read, searched and seen. But he is also an investor in Facebook and was founder of PayPal which is now part of eBay. Those two companies compete with Google and Amazon so it seems he also has purely financial reasons to support some companies and lobby against others. Also I am personally worried about Google as well and I think many still believe it is this cutesy startup-y little underdog so pointing out that it lobbies and controls the government to a greater degree than even traditionally "evil" companies. > relationship between money and elected office in the US has taken a turn for the worst in the past 5 to 10 years. Agree. A clear manifestation of that is people voting in candidates like Trump and Sanders - a TV personality or an unknown old white socialist guy from Vermont. Even though traditional candidates have had billions more in funding and the backing of large media conglomerates, Wall Street and so on.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I am always surprised how little money is really spent on lobbying. It really has an insane ROI.
- rayiner 9y ago
  If lobbying had insane ROI, wouldn't companies spend more money on it?
  - Eridrus 9y ago
    Not everything scales.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      There isn't more than $15 million worth of things a company like Google could be lobbying over?
      - maxxxxx 9y ago
        They may be already getting what's politically feasible.
        rayiner 9y ago
        That's one inference, but is it plausible? It's not exactly like courts and prosecutors are cracking down on lobbying right now. Also, the National Association of Realtors is spending about double what Google and AT&T are spending now. There is headroom to spend more without ending up at the top of the list. Also, have you ever even seen these lobbying figures cited in any news media? What mechanism is creating this backpressure?
        maxxxxx 9y ago
        Politicians can't favor one group too blatantly without backlash,. There also need to be PR campaigns that sway public opinion. I bet a lot of money goes there.

by rdtsc 9y ago

estsauver 9y ago

The way I've always heard is that Google was coming up while the DOJ was tearing into Microsoft for anti trust and so was very culturally aware of the impact that government can have on the success of a company.

maxerickson 9y ago
They took a decade to really get going with it. See the chart midway through here: https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968686/google-joins-lobbying-elite https://www.theverge.com/2012/4/23/2968686/google-joins-lobb... Before 2009 they weren't spending all that much. The company was flush with cash at least since the 2004 IPO.

3pt14159 9y ago

Monsanto is evil for tricking farmers or for unfair business practices, not for lobbying. This is a false equivalency. Google advocates for things that are generally in the public interest and does not abuse those position as many companies of their size do.

kogepathic 9y ago
> Google advocates for things that are generally in the public interest and does not abuse those position as many companies of their size do. Yes, they do that now. What about in the future? There's no guarantee that they won't start lobbying for things which entrench their monopoly and help their business while harming consumers. Just look at Google Fiber. At one point in time it seemed they might actually disrupt incumbent providers like Comcast, but they figured it wasn't in their interests and mothballed it.
- Secretmapper 9y ago
  Source on wasn't in their interests? I've only read that they couldn't continue it due to a: aggressive regulations by incumbers preventing entry of new ISPs (such as Fiber), b: most companies (like Comcast) miraculously offered fiber once Google Fiber was in the game, and c: they're focusing on wireless/balloon solutions. These are just what I read but I would love to hear if this was just PR and there was a sinister reason like you imply.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > I've only read that they couldn't continue it due to a: aggressive regulations by incumbers preventing entry of new ISPs (such as Fiber) The truth is the exact opposite. Google got very favorable treatment from fiber cities: https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says-about-tech-policy-fiber-rings-fit-deregulatory-hands https://techliberation.com/2012/08/07/what-google-fiber-says.... See also: http://crosscut.com/2014/12/google-fiber-never-come-seattle-broadband-internet-2 http://crosscut.com/2014/12/google-fiber-never-come-seattle-.... The difference between Mountain View and Kansas City isn’t that that Comcast has somehow managed to out-lobby Google in Google’s own back yard. That’s absurd.
PeachPlum 9y ago
11 Sep 2017 · Google today appealed the record €2.4 billion ($2.7 billion USD) antitrust fine levied against it by the EU
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rrhd 9y ago
> Google advocates for things that are generally in the public interest No, they advocate 100% for things in Google's interest. If those happen to be good for the public that's a nice bonus. It's also a pretty awful bar that they don't bother with anti-trust unless the consumer harm is blatant. Thankfully that ship seems to be turning.

VeejayRampay 9y ago

Amazing comment, you somehow manage to give Thiel excuses ("it's the way it is") and shift the topic to Google's lobbying at the same time.

rdtsc 9y ago
> Amazing comment Thanks! > you somehow manage to give Thiel excuses And what is he guilty of again? > and shift the topic to Google's lobbying The article is about Google and lobbying, so pointing out what Google is doing is interesting. Besides your complement and meta-comment what do you think about the article?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- VeejayRampay 9y ago
  No one is saying Peter Thiel is guilty of anything, but the article is about the fact that he gave money to officials probing Google's activities, which seems, if not illegal (not familiar enough with American law to judge on that), at least highly immoral. My comment was simply underlining the fact that this is never mentioned once in your comment, which ends up sounding a lot like basic whatboutism and, as such, like some form of blame-shifting. I understand that Google's behavior is no better, they are investing a lot of money to steer legislation towards their financial sweet spot, but then any discussion about anything is moot, because someone else is doing it. When Bloomberg writes an article about Google's shady business, then by all means, let's discuss that at length. As for the article, I found it was a tad light, I would've liked more details about the reason why Peter Thiel would care so much about Google and hurting Google specifically that he would do that. Some analysis about the sordid influence of money on politics as a whole would have been nice as well, it does seem from my remote French perspective that the relationship between money and elected office in the US has taken a turn for the worst in the past 5 to 10 years.
  - rdtsc 9y ago
    > No one is saying Peter Thiel is guilty of anything, but the article is about the fact that he gave money to officials probing Google's activities, which seems, if not illegal (not familiar enough with American law to judge on that), at least highly immoral. I was trying to point out that even though it is immoral, that's how things are done in US. The article went out of its way to paint this as some kind of freaky evil thing, even threw "Trump" in there for a good measure a few times. But sadly, that's how business is done. This kind of lobbying has a pretty good ROI as others pointed below. It would be better and it could be worse. It could all be completely hidden. Here at least we are talking about it, they have to disclose it and so on. It could a secret bank transfer to a cousin who lives in a tax haven, which is how "business" is often done in other countries. > which ends up sounding a lot like basic whatboutism and, as such, like some form of blame-shifting. What he was doing is not that unusual. In other words I didn't see much blame to start with. There is blame to be shared across the whole system of influencing and buying power, and is not really isolated to Thiel. Single Google was mentioned, I used them as an example. > When Bloomberg writes an article about Google's shady business, then by all means, let's discuss that at length. Like you said, the article is a bit light on details and I think Google lobbying and influencing exceeding those of what we traditionally think as "evil" companies is an interesting side conversation. > about the reason why Peter Thiel would care so much about Google and hurting Google specifically Well now we are talking. Not just Google but Amazon as well. Officially he talks about being a libertarian and he thinks those two companies are huge monopolies, they control what is bought, sold and read, searched and seen. But he is also an investor in Facebook and was founder of PayPal which is now part of eBay. Those two companies compete with Google and Amazon so it seems he also has purely financial reasons to support some companies and lobby against others. Also I am personally worried about Google as well and I think many still believe it is this cutesy startup-y little underdog so pointing out that it lobbies and controls the government to a greater degree than even traditionally "evil" companies. > relationship between money and elected office in the US has taken a turn for the worst in the past 5 to 10 years. Agree. A clear manifestation of that is people voting in candidates like Trump and Sanders - a TV personality or an unknown old white socialist guy from Vermont. Even though traditional candidates have had billions more in funding and the backing of large media conglomerates, Wall Street and so on.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I am always surprised how little money is really spent on lobbying. It really has an insane ROI.

rayiner 9y ago
If lobbying had insane ROI, wouldn't companies spend more money on it?
- Eridrus 9y ago
  Not everything scales.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    There isn't more than $15 million worth of things a company like Google could be lobbying over?
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      They may be already getting what's politically feasible.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        That's one inference, but is it plausible? It's not exactly like courts and prosecutors are cracking down on lobbying right now. Also, the National Association of Realtors is spending about double what Google and AT&T are spending now. There is headroom to spend more without ending up at the top of the list. Also, have you ever even seen these lobbying figures cited in any news media? What mechanism is creating this backpressure?
        maxxxxx 9y ago
        Politicians can't favor one group too blatantly without backlash,. There also need to be PR campaigns that sway public opinion. I bet a lot of money goes there.