10 ms·
Google won't donate to members of Congress who voted against election results
- bpatel576 6y agoI'd rather see Google make donations to the education system. We've seen that there are limits to money in politics. Once you get past a certain point, what we really need is a strong educational system so people can make rational decisions.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoThey run Grow With Google.
- protonfish 6y agoI went to school and they didn't teach me anything about critical thinking. Our grades mainly reflected how well we followed orders. So maybe we should make everyone take a course on critical thinking. OK, what course is that? Everyone I've ever seen is garbage. Which shouldn't be surprising coming from a population that discourages critical thinking.
- leesalminen 6y agoCheck out Methods of Inquiry [0]. I took it my freshman year of college and it’s proved to be one of the most useful classes ever. I still keep the book and reference it from time to time. 0 - Methods of Inquiry: Applied Critical Thinking https://www.amazon.com/dp/0757530443 https://www.amazon.com/dp/0757530443
- dimitrios1 6y agoI see plenty of people that graduate from ivy league schools that continue to make irrational decisions, publish irrational research, and work on irrational things. Being offered an education doesn't guarantee you get educated.
- the_local_host 6y agoMoreover making a rational decision isn't necessarily the same thing as making a moral decision.
- spacemark 6y agoMany schools of philosophy would disagree... those that western civilizations are built on, for example.
- CydeWeys 6y agoIt's not black and white, it's shades of gray.
- ihsw 6y agoYes, Google should support charter schools. They have a proven track record of providing high-quality education to students.
- markstos 6y agoIt doesn't have to be either/or. Google has funded "Summer of Code" and other education-related initiatives.
- newsclues 6y agoI rather see large companies like Google donate money to education or other social services, rather than use their money to influence politics.
- LegitShady 6y ago>Google donate money to education or other social services, rather than use their money to influence politics. they will use those donations to influence politics differently, is all. We will get a spinoff company whose job is education or social services, and that company will try to capture regulators and pay off the low end administrators they find in the education system.
- snarf21 6y agoI understand your hope but people don't have time/desire to want to be educated on a subject. Even those of us on HN, how many subjects are we really well informed on? or do we just believe the headlines from our favorite site? The spending bill that was recently presented to Congress was 800 pages and our representatives had four hours to read it before the vote. The world is too complicated and moving too fast.
- paulie_a 6y agoSkillshare, coursea, mit online courses, brilliant, TTC, and a hundred others disagree with you
- snarf21 6y agoI'm not sure what you are saying. Ted Cruz has a Harvard law degree but thinks, well who really knows. Being educated didn't stop millions of college graduates from believing that Dominion voting machines "flipped" votes to Biden or that tractor trailers full of "Biden" votes were dropped off but only in the states that Trump had more in person votes initially because the US Mail bad or fraud. I saw people reposting stuff on FB that X state had more votes than registered voters or even citizens but if you did a single Google, you would see that it was for the population of state X in 1980 or some shit. How does this happen in a world with Coursea?
- sandworm101 6y agoThere are lots of well-educated people siding against the election. Those elected representatives are not uneducated. We can believe they only pander, that they do not actually believe this stuff, but then we are the ones being naïve. Many educated people really do have faith in this issue. That faith is shaken but is far from gone.
- LegitShady 6y agoYou would think so, but I fear that google is a corruptive influence wherever it goes. What changes would google require education made to get its donations? How much vendor lock in will their 'donations' get them? A strong education system is important, an education system bought and paid for by corporate interests directly is another step towards giving google power it will wield to everyone else's detriment.
- Hermel 6y agoAt least their are not hiding their political affinity any more.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- neogodless 6y agoIs "politicians that uphold the constitution" a political affinity?
- Merman_Mike 6y ago90%+ of Alphabet employee donations go to one party [1]. So, that affiliation. [1] https://www.govpredict.com/blog/alphabets-political-contributions/ https://www.govpredict.com/blog/alphabets-political-contribu...
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoIts well established the educated tend to vote left. This is not the same as affiliation
- bsagdiyev 6y agoI’m educated. I don’t vote left or right typically even though my vote is pointless in California, does that make me uneducated now?
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoClearly there is a logic flow problem if you equate "educated means you tend to vote left" == "not voting left means you're not educated"
- spijdar 6y agoExit polls for the 2020 election show that there was an almost 50/50 split between Biden and Trump across multiple ascending education levels, the only exceptions are those with a postgraduate education, who voted 62/37 for Biden/Trump.
- the_drunkard 6y agoOh no, the largest modern day monopoly will no longer pay for political goodwill.
- zarkov99 6y agoNo, no, they will keep paying, of course, but only to those in the mainstream.
- EamonnMR 6y agoWhich is an entirely reasonable move, right? I think that it came a bit too close to an 'eat the rich' moment for Google's taste.
- zarkov99 6y agoYes of course, though I wish they would stop donating completely, but that isn't how the game is played. Hopefully Google will at least contribute to both parties.
- Chris2048 6y agoWhen the pendulum swings back to crazy conservative, after the country has had enough of crazy liberal, I assume google will have another change of mind?
- danaris 6y agoThere hasn't been any significant "crazy liberal" politics in this country for many decades, at the very least. "Crazy liberal" would be things like actual in-national-office politicians advocating for nationalizing all businesses, seizing the assets of the rich, etc. Advocating for all people to have basic human rights guaranteed to them is not "crazy liberal," it's common sense and common decency.
- eplanit 6y agoI doubt there was much love to be lost between Google and conservative congressmen, many of whom are being pushed and are pushing for section 230 reforms. This is just an opportunity for Google to leverage for PR.
- scottlamb 6y agoGoogle's NetPAC, which they encouraged Googlers to contribute to, was previously donating to many of these conservative politicians. This was a sore point for the many Googlers who would be negatively affected by those politicians' policies, notably including LGBT Googlers. And hard to reconcile with Google's stated values. This news is good but insufficient. For starters, "this cycle"? Really? Treason shouldn't be so quickly forgiven. For any Googlers reading this: please don't contribute to NetPAC. Try the EFF instead.
- tenpies 6y ago> Treason shouldn't be so quickly forgiven. That's the issue. One side is convinced this is treason - they survived an insurrection! Deploy the National Guard and unleash the Gestapo. We need to designate 74 MM Americans as terrorist sympathizers! All those politicians who are not with us should be executed and re-education camps opened now! The other side saw something closer to what most of the world saw: a demonstration where a group of people got out of hand and a handful of people in that group took it too far.
- Retric 6y agoIt’s clear this wasn’t simply a mob going to far, it was very targeted. If they simply occupied the several buildings that wouldn’t have been a big deal IMO, but it’s clear their was effort to rifle though specific offices looking for information etc. EX: https://www.foxnews.com/us/nancy-pelosi-laptop-capitol-riot-russian-intelligence https://www.foxnews.com/us/nancy-pelosi-laptop-capitol-riot-... I don’t know how accurate the above story is, but it does speak to significant premeditation etc. PS: If you look into how other countries covered the story it’s often portrayed as a more serious event than shown by American sources.
- eplanit 6y agoIs that limited to the 2020 election, or will it include the many Democrats who objected to the 2000 and 2004 election results?
- sanedigital 6y agoFor those downvoting OP, Democrats have voted against certifying 2000, 2004, and 2016: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republican-electoral-votes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republic...
- Milkman128 6y agowell 00 makes sense with florida's fuckery and its well known russia helped trump but we weren't sure how deep it went in 2016. so those 2 have real evidence and make complete sense. Dont pretend inciting sedition on completely fabricated claims is remotely similar
- greggturkington 6y agoHUGE leap to compare those to Trump and his attorneys falsely asserting widespread election fraud in public, and filing over 50 lawsuits across states > Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them > Senator Barbara Boxer [...] joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones [...] lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate Two hours in debate! You're really comparing that? (There was no vote in 2000 or 2016, so that isn't true)
- whiddershins 6y agoAl Gore and George Bush had lawsuits going for many weeks that ultimately went to the Supreme Court.
- greggturkington 6y agoAnd Trump's team had tens of lawsuits across Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, and Michigan. Many of them dismissed without merit. You're comparing that to Bush v Gore?!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- diveanon 6y agoIf they really wanted to send a message they would stop corporate donations as a whole. Of course this is all virtue signaling and not actually about making a positive impact on society.
- ddevault 6y agoWhat the fuck is Google doing donating to members of Congress in the first place? It should be a crime. It was a crime, until Citizens United. Explain to me how this isn't bribery, plain and simple.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tzs 6y agoCU had nothing to do with donations to members of Congress or to candidates for Congress. The issue in CU was whether or not corporations and unions could pay for ads about candidates within 60 days of an election of 30 days of a primary. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited such things. The Wikipedia article covers this adequately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- ddevault 6y agoQuote from said article: >The ruling had a major impact on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions and fueling the rise of Super PACs. Later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), would strike down other campaign finance restrictions. CU rolled out the red carpet for corporate interests to install their cronies into office, who then worked to further erode any protections against political bribery - which is exactly what Google is doing in this thread.
- tptacek 6y agoAs 'tzs points out, corporate employee PACs were not unlawful before CU, which, at any rate, had little to do with employee PACs. There were any number of ways you could have learned this, but one obvious way would be to compare the date of the CU decision with the date of the creation of Google NetPAC.
- psychlops 6y agoIn other words, Google will continue to donate areas that support its business.
- tenpies 6y agoBig Tech will continue to tithe and sacrifice enemies of the political class people as long as the political class upholds their implied end of the contract: thou shall not pass any harmful regulation that would hurt Big Tech.
- Dem_Boys 6y agoDid Google previously donate to those members of Congress who voted against the election results? I may be wrong but I suspect they did not and are making this announcement as a way to pander and improve their social standing. I'd like to announce that I also won't donate to member of congress who voted against the election results.
- newacct583 6y agoAlmost all large corporations donate very broadly, so it's likely Google itself or a PAC they control did, yes. It's true that there's a certain amount of performative dancing (or "virtue signaling", if that matches your tribe's jargon better) going on here. Pulling back on giving at the very beginning of a congressional cycle, when little giving happens, isn't really doing much in a concrete sense. But no, the impact is real as far as it goes. Google is not a "democratic" company in any real sense. Almost no large corporations look partisan in that way.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- codecamper 6y agoWhich means they were donating to those people before they did what they did. The indexer of all information couldn't see this coming. Hmm.
- Covzire 6y agoIn the early 2020's it's apparently fashionable to claim you support democracy by only supporting those you agree with politically. I can understand only donating to one party, but not for the ridiculous reason Google has given. The vote was entirely within the process. If Google/SV are actually concerned about election integrity and stopping violence, they have a tremendous number of avenues on the left they can pursue to make America a less divided and safer place.
- seniorThrowaway 6y agoNot just SV. Many historical cycles are lining up negative extremes on the 2020-2030 decade; unfortunately I think we are only seeing the beginnings of the crisis.
- benburton 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoI don't know. I don't expect the right to take care of its racism problem any time soon. Or the problems it has with sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia. These aren't things that I can come to some middle ground with. It isn't that these issues aren't issues for the democrats (who aren't actually left, honestly), but by and large, such folks tend to vote republican or whatever party leans the most right. If you listen to these voices in your party, you don't care about making America less divided and safer since it will always be unsafe for a subset of people.
- Covzire 6y agoTrump was the first President in US history to openly support Gay marriage before his election, it couldn't even be said about Obama, and I don't think it's even possible to measure any amount of good will that got him or Republicans from the left or center. There are other things at work here than just the usual -isms -ias.
- 6y ago
- dfxm12 6y agoFollowing that review, the NetPAC board has decided that it will not be making any contributions this cycle to any member of Congress who voted against certification of the election results This is kinda milquetoast. It says nothing about Google's board's personal contributions. It also seems like they're only talking about direct contributions to candidates, and nothing about contributions to other (super)PACs that support them.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- kpennell 6y ago“When a coup attempt goes unpunished, it becomes a training exercise.”
- chmod600 6y agoIt's a little concerning that corporations basically donate to whoever is in power, presumably for favorable treatment. It's like a big thumb on the scale for incumbents.
- Simulacra 6y agoThat's actually perfectly fine for Google, it'll just come through an intermediary such as a PAC, or trade association. Politicians know where the money is coming from - it's too dangerous not too - and lobbyists will make sure they do. My husband is a former lobbyist and he often had to be the intermediary between group A with the money, group B with the good reputation that handled the movement of that money, and the Politician. What Google is saying sounds nice in the news, but it doesn't actually change a thing IMO.