3 ms·

At the bottom of this thread is a comment by 'AmIFirstToThink' which has been inexplicably marked "dead". It seems to be the only reply as of writing this that

At the bottom of this thread is a comment by 'AmIFirstToThink' which has been inexplicably marked "dead". It seems to be the only reply as of writing this that makes the connection of Schmidt's stepping down to his strong bets during the 2016 election. A little-noticed WSJ piece from October would support that idea: > [Google] Employees donated $1.6 million to her campaign, about 80% more than the amount given by workers at any other corporation, and Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt helped set up companies to analyze political data for the campaign. Mr. Schmidt even wore a badge labeled “STAFF” at Mrs. Clinton’s election-night bash. > His support of the losing side didn’t go unnoticed among the victors. As President-elect Donald Trump was preparing for a meeting with tech executives at Trump Tower not long before his inauguration, he asked strategist Stephen Bannon whether Mr. Schmidt was “the guy that tried to help Hillary win the election,” according to someone who heard the conversation. > “Yes,” said Mr. Bannon. “Yes, he is.” > Google, one of the most powerful players in Washington in recent years, is now facing the consequences of its lost political clout—and is moving mountains to regain it. https://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-dominance-in-washington-faces-a-reckoning-1509379625 https://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-dominance-in-washington...

CalChris 9y ago
Schmidt is 62 and worth $13B. Maybe he just decided to do something else. I'm sure Google has plenty of clout in DC. They have 600+ lobbyists and a huge budget. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/google-silicon-valley-corporate-lobbying-washington-dc-politics https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/google-si...
em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
What do HN people think about a law to prevent corporate executives from giving money to politicians?
- sowbug 9y ago
  You mean overturning Citizens United (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) and McCutcheon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC). A law that targeted corporate executives would have no chance of surviving the legal precedent of those two cases. It wouldn't do much to solve the problem of dollars having more influence these days than one-person-one-vote in the U.S., but hey, don't let me stop you. Easy reading about those cases: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/22/14611/mccutcheon-decision-explained-more-money-pour-political-process https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/22/14611/mccutcheon-...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- eru 9y ago
  If you care about democracy, you want to make it easier for individual people to spend a lot of money on politics. As with so many regulations, it mostly benefits the people who have enough resources to work around them: With strict limits per person, you need a huge established machine that can reach out to many individuals to get your donations rolling. Without limits, you just need to convince one eccentric billionaire. While the latter is still hard, it's still much easier done than the former.
  - aalleavitch 9y ago
    Yes, because we want people with sufficient money to be the only ones with a voice, and we want their voices to massively outweigh the voices of everyone else. That's definitely what someone who cares about democracy would want.
    - eru 9y ago
      The supposedly money-restricted alternative is not the democratic utopia you paint, but the place where only established machines can compete.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
frik 9y ago
Thanks for pointing out, would have overseen the hidden comment - it gets harder and harder to read insightful news and comments here, as they get hidden/flagged for no apparent reason. (Maybe limit the system to upvote-only, it works for other sites.)
Trundle 9y ago
There's also this story by Assange outing Schmidt as a government lackey, which I find to be an interesting read. https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

CalChris 9y ago

Schmidt is 62 and worth $13B. Maybe he just decided to do something else. I'm sure Google has plenty of clout in DC. They have 600+ lobbyists and a huge budget. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/google-silicon-valley-corporate-lobbying-washington-dc-politics https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/30/google-si...

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago

What do HN people think about a law to prevent corporate executives from giving money to politicians?

sowbug 9y ago
You mean overturning Citizens United (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC) and McCutcheon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC). A law that targeted corporate executives would have no chance of surviving the legal precedent of those two cases. It wouldn't do much to solve the problem of dollars having more influence these days than one-person-one-vote in the U.S., but hey, don't let me stop you. Easy reading about those cases: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/22/14611/mccutcheon-decision-explained-more-money-pour-political-process https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/04/22/14611/mccutcheon-...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eru 9y ago
If you care about democracy, you want to make it easier for individual people to spend a lot of money on politics. As with so many regulations, it mostly benefits the people who have enough resources to work around them: With strict limits per person, you need a huge established machine that can reach out to many individuals to get your donations rolling. Without limits, you just need to convince one eccentric billionaire. While the latter is still hard, it's still much easier done than the former.
- aalleavitch 9y ago
  Yes, because we want people with sufficient money to be the only ones with a voice, and we want their voices to massively outweigh the voices of everyone else. That's definitely what someone who cares about democracy would want.
  - eru 9y ago
    The supposedly money-restricted alternative is not the democratic utopia you paint, but the place where only established machines can compete.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

frik 9y ago

Thanks for pointing out, would have overseen the hidden comment - it gets harder and harder to read insightful news and comments here, as they get hidden/flagged for no apparent reason. (Maybe limit the system to upvote-only, it works for other sites.)

Trundle 9y ago

There's also this story by Assange outing Schmidt as a government lackey, which I find to be an interesting read. https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/ https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]