Google Sought To Hide Political Dealmaking

A blog entry by Michael Kanellos at ZDNet links to and expands upon an article in the Charlotte Observer. Last year Google was apparently throwing its weight around in North Carolina, seeking tax breaks from state and local legislators. When the company didn't get what it wanted pressure was brought to bear on legislative aides, journalists, and politicians. The search giant was especially touchy about keeping the negotiations secret: "Executives didn't want anybody even to mention the company's name for fear that competitors could learn of its plans. Most involved with the negotiations were required to sign nondisclosure agreements ... That posed challenges for elected officials, charged with conducting the public's business in the open. As the tax measure wended its way through the legislature, some lawmakers began linking it to Google." The results of this deal are extremely lucrative for both sides. Google brought some $600 million in investment and as many as 200 jobs to the state, and legislation enacted with Google's help is projected to save the company some $89 million in taxes over 30 years.

Comments

Um

[Umbral Blot]

Can we just all agree that Google is about as evil as the average corporation now? Or do some of you still believe that Google really is above the rest morally?

Re:Um

[QuickFox]

Google has been slipping for a long time. They've been supporting domain squatting forever.

It's sad, really.

Re:Um

[TheRaven64]

The tax break isn't even that much of a loss of income for the government. If Google are employing 200 people, it works out at $15,000 per new employee. Somewhere between 30-50% of everything earned in the US eventually flows through the government in taxes (income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc), so if Google is paying somewhere between thirty to fifty thousand to each new employee then the government is breaking even or making a net profit.

Of course, some of this goes to the federal government, rather than the state, but I would imagine that they are betting that Google will expand over the next thirty years, employing more people and thus generating even more tax revenue.

This is ignoring, of course, the tax that will be paid by those people employed in construction of the new Google facilities, and any other taxes that Google will pay. I would be very surprised if the state government didn't make a significant profit out of this deal. It sounds like it's good for both parties. The only question really is why Google felt the need to keep it secret.

Re:Beatup

[tonyquan]

Sigh...do my fellow Americans understand basic civics anymore?

In a democracy, legislatures do not draft laws under non-disclosure agreements. The proper operation of a democracy hinges on transparency. There is a strong possibility here that Google was asking the legislators to violate the open meeting or sunshine laws of their own state, which guarantee that government business is done in the open. This is why some legislators refused to sign the NDAs.

That's where the evil is.

Re:Beatup

[mtenhagen]

They evil is with the Nondisclosure Agreement!

The people should be able to judge how their government is acting. The fact that google is asking this is not that weird that politicians on the other hand agree is the worst part. Lets hope (I know it wont) they will notice this the next elections.

Nothing Evil there

[Jack Sombra]

"The results of this deal are extremely lucrative for both sides. Google brought some $600 million in investment and as many as 200 jobs to the state, and legislation enacted with Google's help is projected to save the company some $89 million in taxes over 30 years."
Lets see, NC gets $600 Million investment that could have gone elsewhere, 200 odd new jobs (and tax revenue from employee's) that also could have gone elsewhere and it just cost them $89 million tax revenue over 30 years, tax revenue that they would probably not have got if they had not done the deal.

Sounds like NC got the better end of the deal by a long margin

The secrecy and nondisclosure agreements are pretty standard, for reasons that are obvious if you give it two minutes worth of consideration

Re:Beatup

[aussie_a]

That Google and NC worked through all the issues suggests... goodwill rather more than evil, wouldn't you agree? No it suggests that Google and the NC legislators are evil.

If a bill is being drafted specifically for a company, then the public should know which bill it is and which company it is. If Google can't pursue the idea without those stipulations (and the fact they're requiring a special law makes me immediately say they shouldn't be pursuing the idea, I'd need to be convinced they should pursue it) then tough luck.

The fact that the NC legislators are willingly helping Google in covering up their actions in creating a law simply spreads the evil, it doesn't negate Google's evil.

Tall poppy syndrome

[TapeCutter]

"Writing apps to rank and sort web pages strikes me as the type of problem that a lot of smart people would find a lot of fun."

Your at least a decade too late, the ship has sailed and it's called google.

"Yeah, the shine's definitely gone off Google, eh? at the rate google (and yahoo) are swallowing up other sites there's going to be some major monopolising going on."

Playing one state of against another is just the regular kind of "evil" found in all big-bussiness, big-bussiness don't pay tax bills like ordinary folk, they negotiate thier tax bill (global corporatization on a smaller scale). Google are paying tax and staying in the US. The politicians did thier job by attracting a large corporate to thier turf and getting gauranteed revenue for 30yrs plus all the spin-off effects on the economy, what more do you want?

Attacking google for this behaviour is like kicking the cat after a bad day, if you want to attack "evil" there are plenty of targets, corporations that lay the planet to waste and supply waring tribes with modern weapons. They destroy lives and feed from the public trough rather than create meaningfull employment and a nice pot of tax money. OTOH: "Kick the cat" often enough and it will scratch your eyes out while your sleeping.

Evil is as evil does - Gump.
The state where I live (not part of the US) built a power plant specifically for an Aluminium smelter, gaurenteed cheap dirty (and drit cheap) electricity for 30yrs or so. They also built a massive sewer to take the waste from a large paper mill and dump it in the ocean and called it a "green project" to rehabilitate the river the mill had already killed. The mill threatened to move overseas/interstate if it had to spend money and went so far as to infiltrate "enemy" community groups in order to discredit them. The crap these places spew and the fairy tale propoganda they use to justify it, is IMHO "evil", but try telling that to anyone who's livelyhood depends on it. Try telling the guy at the nuclear missle plant or the biological warfare lab that his work is "evil" and he will claim he is "preseving freedom" or some such rationalization, to him the thought of not planning for nuclear war is "evil".

I get kind of sick of the "we caught google being evil" shit that accompanies so many articles, it's not like they are claiming they have God on their side or that anyone else is "evil". Here in Australia we have some odd expressions, the one that fits google on slashdot is Tall poppy syndrome.

Disclaimer: "you" - not picking on "you" personally, just the general sociopathic pendantry that surround google's brilliantly provocative slogan.

Re:Tall poppy syndrome

[14CharUsername]

Yes but google's motto it "don't be evil". Maybe they should change that to "don't be quite as evil as the other guys". But I guess that doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Re:Tall poppy syndrome

[Guppy06]

"The politicians did thier job by attracting a large corporate to thier turf and getting gauranteed revenue for 30yrs plus all the spin-off effects on the economy, what more do you want?"

How about public accountability in a republican form of government?

"Attacking google for this behaviour is like kicking the cat after a bad day, "

The cat doesn't do much more than follow sunlight around the house, occasionally taking a break to eat. The cat isn't involved in perpetuation a corrupt mechanism and rob the people of access to their own government.

"The state where I live (not part of the US) built a power plant specifically for an Aluminium smelter, gaurenteed cheap dirty (and drit cheap) electricity for 30yrs or so."

Your failure to properly maintain your own government doesn't make it right for others to follow suit.

Re:The simple answer: IPO

[ringo74]

When you make any sort of investment, like buying insurance or a retirement plan, you don't ask how evil the corporations are. All you want is the biggest return for the lowest price, which means the portfolios that will make your investment will be composed of stock from the companies with biggest profit.

With all due respect, sir, you speak for yourself. I *do* check the behaviour and ethical standards of the companies I purchase from or invest in. Yes, sometimes this means lesser profit. So what?