6 ms·

Honest question: what are the equivalent numbers for Uber's side of the battle? Looking at one side of the question without the other doesn't allow a balanced a

Honest question: what are the equivalent numbers for Uber's side of the battle? Looking at one side of the question without the other doesn't allow a balanced assessment of the situation.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> what are the equivalent numbers for Uber's side of the battle? The bulk of Uber's ~$2 million/year of political spending in New York goes towards ad campaigns [1]. The taxi lobby bought the mayor and City Council; Uber created a grassroots backlash. This was the balance. Then Uber burned off its teflon coating. Since Lyft never bothered with politics and Juno/Gett is so young, the balance broke and we got this mess. [1] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/uber-spent-1-2m-lobbying-efforts-2017-article-1.3408470 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/uber-spent-1-2m-lob...
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  Thanks for providing the numbers and your take on the situation. I think we come away with quite different reactions to the same facts: I view it as telling that Uber spent roughly four times what the taxi lobby spent, but most of the conversational focus regarding spending targets the taxi lobby - one of many widespread biases in which some bits of the for-hire transportation debate get more frequently talked about and others usually overlooked. The (legitimately real) rank and file support and skewed discussion focus which Uber's ad/lobbying money has bought them isn't my idea of grassroots backlash, even if it unwittingly enlists the grassroots in their PR campaign. No doubt the taxi lobby is pushing their interests just like Uber pushes theirs. Neither set of industry lobbyists is truly looking out for the citizens. But when the conversation they've shaped pairs "bought the mayor and City Council" for the less-spending party with "created a grassroots backlash" for the more-spending party, I can only marvel impressed and saddened at Uber PR's effectiveness. In most cities, the local taxi lobby plus the citizens who oppose Uber/Lyft/Juno/Gett for normal public policy reasons are even more outclassed against a major VC-funded global would-be monopolist like Uber than NYC managed. I'm impressed at de Blasio and City Council for holding firm. (As you can tell, I'm no fan of these companies for several reasons, but explaining those reasons substantively would be a huge tangent.)
  - euyyn 8y ago
    Who cares how much money they spend on public ads? On the other hand, it's easy to understand why people care about how much money is donated to the campaigns of the politicians that will make these decisions.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      There's no legal problem with them spending as much on ads as they want, of course. But if public opinion is mobilized as a weapon through very selective presentation of the issues in ads, in a disproportionate way that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. The public can't react in their own interests if they don't have the right facts, so then polls will legitimately show what the company wants, by and large. Roughly the same problem arises if they fund a heavy "lobby your elected officials" campaign, targeted only at their supporters, with no equivalent resources mobilizing those who disagree - and indeed they did this.
      - euyyn 8y ago
        > that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, Then the other side has to also fund public campaigns, instead of just lining the politician's pockets. > it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. Yeah but one thing is lobbying and a very different one is "I fund your campaign if you benefit me economically". That's a soft version of bribery. Can't put it in the same level as propaganda ads that change public opinion on a topic.
  - dyarosla 8y ago
    You are definitely coming off as biased which to me is strange. Maybe Uber isn’t a saint of a company, but thinking that bribery is somehow morally equivalent to advertising (whatever the multiple) is very odd.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago

Honest question: what are the equivalent numbers for Uber's side of the battle? Looking at one side of the question without the other doesn't allow a balanced assessment of the situation.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> what are the equivalent numbers for Uber's side of the battle? The bulk of Uber's ~$2 million/year of political spending in New York goes towards ad campaigns [1]. The taxi lobby bought the mayor and City Council; Uber created a grassroots backlash. This was the balance. Then Uber burned off its teflon coating. Since Lyft never bothered with politics and Juno/Gett is so young, the balance broke and we got this mess. [1] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/uber-spent-1-2m-lobbying-efforts-2017-article-1.3408470 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/uber-spent-1-2m-lob...

jkaplowitz 8y ago
Thanks for providing the numbers and your take on the situation. I think we come away with quite different reactions to the same facts: I view it as telling that Uber spent roughly four times what the taxi lobby spent, but most of the conversational focus regarding spending targets the taxi lobby - one of many widespread biases in which some bits of the for-hire transportation debate get more frequently talked about and others usually overlooked. The (legitimately real) rank and file support and skewed discussion focus which Uber's ad/lobbying money has bought them isn't my idea of grassroots backlash, even if it unwittingly enlists the grassroots in their PR campaign. No doubt the taxi lobby is pushing their interests just like Uber pushes theirs. Neither set of industry lobbyists is truly looking out for the citizens. But when the conversation they've shaped pairs "bought the mayor and City Council" for the less-spending party with "created a grassroots backlash" for the more-spending party, I can only marvel impressed and saddened at Uber PR's effectiveness. In most cities, the local taxi lobby plus the citizens who oppose Uber/Lyft/Juno/Gett for normal public policy reasons are even more outclassed against a major VC-funded global would-be monopolist like Uber than NYC managed. I'm impressed at de Blasio and City Council for holding firm. (As you can tell, I'm no fan of these companies for several reasons, but explaining those reasons substantively would be a huge tangent.)
- euyyn 8y ago
  Who cares how much money they spend on public ads? On the other hand, it's easy to understand why people care about how much money is donated to the campaigns of the politicians that will make these decisions.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago
    There's no legal problem with them spending as much on ads as they want, of course. But if public opinion is mobilized as a weapon through very selective presentation of the issues in ads, in a disproportionate way that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. The public can't react in their own interests if they don't have the right facts, so then polls will legitimately show what the company wants, by and large. Roughly the same problem arises if they fund a heavy "lobby your elected officials" campaign, targeted only at their supporters, with no equivalent resources mobilizing those who disagree - and indeed they did this.
    - euyyn 8y ago
      > that leaves the public with a skewed picture of the pros and cons, Then the other side has to also fund public campaigns, instead of just lining the politician's pockets. > it has the same indirect effect of pressuring the politicians to act in the company's interests. Yeah but one thing is lobbying and a very different one is "I fund your campaign if you benefit me economically". That's a soft version of bribery. Can't put it in the same level as propaganda ads that change public opinion on a topic.
- dyarosla 8y ago
  You are definitely coming off as biased which to me is strange. Maybe Uber isn’t a saint of a company, but thinking that bribery is somehow morally equivalent to advertising (whatever the multiple) is very odd.
  - jkaplowitz 8y ago