3 ms·

The article looks like BS. The main source is this link: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00193342&contributor_name=C002275

The article looks like BS. The main source is this link: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00193342&contributor_name=C00227546&two_year_transaction_period=2020&min_date=01%2F01%2F2019&max_date=12%2F31%2F2020 https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&commi... According to that web site, quite a few other companies did the same, at the same day. Some even donated exactly same amount. https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00193342&contributor_name=C00075341&contributor_name=C00186288&contributor_name=C00428623&contributor_name=C00502906&two_year_transaction_period=2020&min_date=01%2F01%2F2019&max_date=12%2F31%2F2020 https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&commi... I think it's either creative accounting, or donations matching. Probably in combination with lazy payments processing, e.g. all transactions from March are labelled "March 31"

idlewords 7y ago
You don't know what you're talking about, to be honest. If you're going to call me out on BS, then state your claim.
- Const-me 7y ago
  > If you're going to call me out on BS, then state your claim. Sure. The title says “Microsoft's Hypocrisy on DACA”, and the article focuses on Microsoft. Meanwhile, many other companies did the same: Facebook, Google, Motorola, Verizon, Home Depot, UPS, Accenture, GE, Comcast, Siemens, and many others. You ignored the rest of them. You have cherry picked a single data point from a large publicly available database, and based your article around that. May I ask why?
tptacek 7y ago
As Maciej --- who has probably spent more time studying this issue than perhaps anyone on HN --- has pointed out elsewhere, corporations are prohibited by law from donating directly to political campaigns, nor can they directly "match" donations to company PACs. Corporate PACs are separate funds managed by lobbyists working for the company, and funded exclusively through individual named contributions from employees. You don't need Maciej to tell you this: authoritative confirmation will be at the top of a simple Google search. Companies have offered to "match" donations to their PACs by making contributions to charities, shifting employee discretionary donations to the company's PAC while offering the same net desired effect on the employee's preferred charity. But that obviously doesn't explain the phenomenon you're describing: the PAC itself still is and must remain employee-funded. This seems pretty basic, leading me to wonder why it was you felt it would be reasonable to sum Maciej's analysis up as "BS".

idlewords 7y ago

You don't know what you're talking about, to be honest. If you're going to call me out on BS, then state your claim.

Const-me 7y ago
> If you're going to call me out on BS, then state your claim. Sure. The title says “Microsoft's Hypocrisy on DACA”, and the article focuses on Microsoft. Meanwhile, many other companies did the same: Facebook, Google, Motorola, Verizon, Home Depot, UPS, Accenture, GE, Comcast, Siemens, and many others. You ignored the rest of them. You have cherry picked a single data point from a large publicly available database, and based your article around that. May I ask why?

tptacek 7y ago

As Maciej --- who has probably spent more time studying this issue than perhaps anyone on HN --- has pointed out elsewhere, corporations are prohibited by law from donating directly to political campaigns, nor can they directly "match" donations to company PACs. Corporate PACs are separate funds managed by lobbyists working for the company, and funded exclusively through individual named contributions from employees. You don't need Maciej to tell you this: authoritative confirmation will be at the top of a simple Google search. Companies have offered to "match" donations to their PACs by making contributions to charities, shifting employee discretionary donations to the company's PAC while offering the same net desired effect on the employee's preferred charity. But that obviously doesn't explain the phenomenon you're describing: the PAC itself still is and must remain employee-funded. This seems pretty basic, leading me to wonder why it was you felt it would be reasonable to sum Maciej's analysis up as "BS".