3 ms·

In-kind political favors by companies is expressly illegal under FEC regulations. Google propping up a candidate or suppressing another is effectively campaign

In-kind political favors by companies is expressly illegal under FEC regulations. Google propping up a candidate or suppressing another is effectively campaign contributions (or suppression) worth millions of dollars by Google to certain candidates, in violation of FEC regulations. The monopoly status has weight in such cases, as it can be construed as illegal electioneering, given Google's control over speech discovery on the internet.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> In-kind political favors by companies is expressly illegal under FEC regulations. Yes, but monopoly status is irrelevant to that. It's as illegal from a non-monopoly as a monopoly and an act which legally isn't an in-kind contribution by a non-monopoly isn't transformed into one when done by a monopoly. And policies which are not targeted for or against a particular candidate that happen to affect a candidate differently are not, even presumptively, in-kind contributions under the law—there is no “disparate impact” rule for political content as there is for, e.g., racial discrimination in employment.
- writepub 7y ago
  > there is no “disparate impact” rule ... There are rules against circumventing campaign contribution laws. Intentional suppression (as alleged) of Tulsi's speech, or that of any other candidate, is equivalent to donations to her opponents of millions of dollars, given Google's scale, without following FEC rules on the same.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > There are rules against circumventing campaign contribution laws. Yes. > Intentional suppression (as alleged) Sure, the allegation is of something illegal There is pretty much zero evidence presented that favors the conclusion alleged over a policy that is not illegally specifically targeted but happens to adversely impact the candidate. But the allegation is itself a way of getting a not insignificant quantity of free media, which is a sufficient reason for a candidate that is polling at <1% in most Democratic primary polls at not above 2% in the most favorable, and who has raised close to an order of magnitude less money than the top tier Democratic candidates, to make it. The fact is, Gabbard’s never been anything but a third-tier candidate and no one would have any reason to lift a finger to suppress her campaign because it was never going anywhere.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> In-kind political favors by companies is expressly illegal under FEC regulations. Yes, but monopoly status is irrelevant to that. It's as illegal from a non-monopoly as a monopoly and an act which legally isn't an in-kind contribution by a non-monopoly isn't transformed into one when done by a monopoly. And policies which are not targeted for or against a particular candidate that happen to affect a candidate differently are not, even presumptively, in-kind contributions under the law—there is no “disparate impact” rule for political content as there is for, e.g., racial discrimination in employment.

writepub 7y ago
> there is no “disparate impact” rule ... There are rules against circumventing campaign contribution laws. Intentional suppression (as alleged) of Tulsi's speech, or that of any other candidate, is equivalent to donations to her opponents of millions of dollars, given Google's scale, without following FEC rules on the same.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > There are rules against circumventing campaign contribution laws. Yes. > Intentional suppression (as alleged) Sure, the allegation is of something illegal There is pretty much zero evidence presented that favors the conclusion alleged over a policy that is not illegally specifically targeted but happens to adversely impact the candidate. But the allegation is itself a way of getting a not insignificant quantity of free media, which is a sufficient reason for a candidate that is polling at <1% in most Democratic primary polls at not above 2% in the most favorable, and who has raised close to an order of magnitude less money than the top tier Democratic candidates, to make it. The fact is, Gabbard’s never been anything but a third-tier candidate and no one would have any reason to lift a finger to suppress her campaign because it was never going anywhere.