Google's New Lobbying Power in Washington

*SECADM writes "Learning from Microsoft's error, Google is building a lobbying power house in Washington." From the Washington Post article: Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress. To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here — more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office — and is continuing to add people.

Comments

So?

[RevRigel]

He's just one US citizen. If he wants to have influence on Congress he can vote like the rest of us. The fact that he can't get personal meetings with them should be surprising or distressing, regardless of his net worth, given how difficult it would be for everyone else.

Re:So?

[gartogg]

Actually, I've never had a problem getting a meeting with my representative - have you ever tried to do so? It would be a shame if you were just talking out of you ass...

Re:So?

[crayz]

Except now they have a lobbying firm and presumably no trouble meeting with legislators. Is that not a serious problem with our system?

Re:So?

[couchslug]

"If he wants to have influence on Congress he can vote like the rest of us."

That's not enough. My vote alone isn't shite.
My vote and those of many NRA members, represented by lobbyists to remind Congress we exist, DOES matter.

Re:So?

[Ibag]

He's not just one citizen, though. It has nothing to do with his net worth either. He's in charge of a company large enough that congress holds hearings and proposes bills that not only directly affect his company, but sometimes affect only his company. If 535 men were discussing whether to restrict what only you were doing or whether to help only your biggest competitors, you would be entitled to an audience with them too.

Or are his opinions about net neutrality and Chinese Internet censorship no more important than yours when congress discusses them?

Re:So?

[nEoN nOoDlE]

regardless of his net worth, given how difficult it would be for everyone else.

given his net worth and in comparison to his peers and competitors of similar stature, it would be foolish to compare himself to "everyone else" when it comes to him not being able to get personal meetings with congressmen. If you want to have a qualms with this, take it up with the system he's trying to play in instead of the man himself.

Re:So?

[rtb61]

That is just really daft and probably the worst possible reason I have ever heard. The company has thousands of shareholders and hundreds of major investors and thousands of employees who also have a voice, how many times should the voice of that company be repeated over and over again to the exclusion of the general public.

He is just one citizen, with absolutely no more or less entitlement to access to politicians then any other citizen. If point of fact he has already well and truly profited by the system and the only reason for further access is to further inflate their personal profit. All people are created equally and should be treated as such in the eyes of the law and by politicians. It truly disgusts me that anybody thinks already wealthy people should have greater access than the rest of the community to politicians so as to further bloat their wealth.

In fact the system should be designed specifically that no individual has far greater influence than any other citizen. Further to that laws should be implemented to ensure any discussions between public companies and politicians or those who have influence beyond the voter should be made public, so the citizens at large can form their own opinions about the corporations the drive their own self serving agenda's and the politicians that listen and well as what those politicians agree too.

Re:So?

[Score Whore]

He's not just one citizen, though. It has nothing to do with his net worth either. He's in charge of a company large enough that congress holds hearings and proposes bills that not only directly affect his company, but sometimes affect only his company. If 535 men were discussing whether to restrict what only you were doing or whether to help only your biggest competitors, you would be entitled to an audience with them too.

Wait, is this Jesus we're talking about or some businessman? I make latex products and latex related products (not really), and congress makes laws that affect my company all the time. There has never been a time when either the senate or the house have considered a law that would affect only Google. Never. You are talking out of your ass.

Or are his opinions about net neutrality and Chinese Internet censorship no more important than yours when congress discusses them?

Congress should never discuss Chinese Internet censorship, it's completely outside the scope of their duties. And his opinions on net neutrality are no more important or less important than anyone else's. He's not a king, lord, duke, pope, bishop, prince, or queen. He's just one of the founders of a company that has been convicted of copyright infringement. Woop dee do.

Re:So?

[Puff of Logic]

I'm telling you people, this is just a harbinger of what's to come. A thousand years from now, as the Google empire reigns with an iron fist over the cringing masses of humanity, records will tell of that legendary sage Puff of Logic and his predictions of Google's rise to empire!

Re:So?

[Savage-Rabbit]

He's just one US citizen. If he wants to have influence on Congress he can vote like the rest of us. The fact that he can't get personal meetings with them should be surprising or distressing, regardless of his net worth, given how difficult it would be for everyone else. I'm sure I'll be punished for this with lots of negative modding but it's just to much fun to mutate some dusty Marxist theory beyond all recognition:

Why would the fact that people can't get personal meetings with members of Congress unless they have a high net monetary worth be distressing? In a pure capitalist meritocracy human worth is measured in money and access to the people's elected representatives is also prioritized according to the wealth of the citizen in question. Come to think of it in a pure capitalist meritocracy the country (assuming that concept would even exist in such a world) would actually not be governed by elected representatives but rather by the most wealthy citizens (who by definition would be the most worthy) wouldn't it? In practice pure capitalist meritocracies don't exist since, at least in the western world, quaint and annoying traditions like democracy tend to get in the way. But even if one only achieves a partial capitalist meritocracy it still is more or less true that the wealthier a citizen is the greater his/her de facto human worth and the more and better his/her access to elected representatives and the better, speedier, more merciful and generally favorable the treatment he/she gets from the courts. Even if you get arrested and sentenced to jail for some crime a regular, less worthy, citizen gets sent to a normal jail where he/she will be subjected to all the brutal horrors a modern penal system has to offer while a wealthy citizen goes to a special protected detention facility where time is served in relative comfort, things like getting raped in the showers is something they don't have to worry about and generous reductions in the time that has to be served are easy to obtain. What this boils down to is that each country and it's people have to make up their collective mind about whether they want to be a capitalist meritocracy first and a democracy second or vice versa. Each choice has it's drawbacks and expecting to get the best of both worlds will lead to disappointment.

Re:So?

[JoshJ]

That'd be all well and good if everyone started out on the same footing, but unfortunately inheritance gets in the way there.

Re:So?

[Score Whore]

Sure. He's not breaking any laws. But it's perfectly legitimate to judge him. To think less of him. Seriously, he's worth 11 billion dollars. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. If he's playing in the system then it's because he thinks it's ok. If he didn't think it was ok, he could take a billion dollars and setup a non-profit for the sole purpose of saying "We're watching you dirtbag politicians." It wouldn't change his standard of living in the least and he could be said to advance the ideals that the public face of his company claims to hold to (openness, access to information, do no evil.)

It is totally legitimate to look at Bryn and say "what a hypocritical putz." And in no way whatsoever is the system to blame.

Re:So?

[Short Circuit]

my representative Key point: YOUR representative.

Lobbying is about influencing more than just the representative from your district and the senators from your state. Could I get a meeting with my Representative Pete Hoekstra? Possibly. Could I get a meeting with my Senator Debbie Stabenow? Maybe, if she didn't prefer to ignore her constituents. Could I get a meeting with my Senator Carl Levin? Probably not, he hasn't responded to my letters since the Democrats became the majority.

But even if I were to convince all three that we needed to make law the presence of my product in every household, Levin and Stabenow are only two Senators in one hundred, and Hoekstra is only one Representative in several hundred.

Limiting your influence to those for whom you are a voting constituent won't get you very far. That's why corporations have lobbyists.

Re:So?

[pravuil]

Wait, is this Jesus we're talking about or some businessman? I make latex products and latex related products (not really), and congress makes laws that affect my company all the time. There has never been a time when either the senate or the house have considered a law that would affect only Google. Never. You are talking out of your ass.

Through the sarcasm, you do make a good point though. There's not just one interest vying for attention, there are thousands plus. Some of them disagree on certain issues that would divide the Red Sea. Some come out with sincere motives while there are others that provide realistic goals and opportunities. If morality was truly an issue or even a reasonable goal, whose responsibility is it for these effects to make itself known within the market? Demand is a good motivator for companies to lobby for things in which the majority would agree upon.

What happened to grassroots? What happened to educating the public? With the current technological capability, what are we doing to voice our concern? I don't raise these questions because we aren't doing this stuff. I'm raising these questions to re-evaluate the stance so the scope can be broadened to accomplish greater things and to provide better mobility to reach the audience that should be reached. If google has the power, what should that power be for us.

Re:So?

[jlarocco]

I think the GP *was* complaining about the system "the man" is playing in.

And if he's not, I am.

I understand that Congressmen and Senators are busy people, but if Sergey Brin wants to talk to one of them, he can shut the fuck up and make an appointment like everybody else. The fact that he founded a company and has a lot of money shouldn't be relevant in this situation, and it's disappointing that our representatives think it is.

Re:So?

[Short Circuit]

The company has thousands of shareholders and hundreds of major investors and thousands of employees who also have a voice The shareholders and investors (Technically, shareholders are investors, but we're not talking about accounting here...) depend on Google to carry its own interests. The point of buying shares in a company is typically to take advantage of that company's good market and management, not to take on an active role in aiding that company. It's just not cost effective to do it that way; the cost of effective lobbying* far exceeds the gain in stock value one might see as a result.

* Writing a letter and making phone calls is not an effective way to influence your representatives. I've written hundreds of letters and made around twenty phone calls to my representatives, and I only know of one time where one of my representative voted in favor of my position. $2,000 from a PAC is more likely to change their vote than a fifty cent letter or a free email and fax. I still write, though, because I have to do something, don't I?

Re:So?

[emc]

Or are his opinions about net neutrality and Chinese Internet censorship no more important than yours when congress discusses them?

No actually, they are no more important. The only difference is that he has more to gain or lose (financially) than I do.

Re:So?

[speaker of the truth]

He's not a king, lord, duke, pope, bishop, prince, or queen. Well, actually.....

Re:So?

[RealGrouchy]

He's not just one citizen, though...He's in charge of a company

One citizen, two "persons".

- RG>

Re:So?

[TooMuchToDo]

A company is a distinct entity in the US system, and has plenty of the same rights as a person. So why can't it have lobbyists looking out for it's interests? Shut the fuck up and stop bitching until you do something as valuable or more then what Google has done.

Fucking Slashdot. Figures.

Re:So?

[Nossie]

think maybe Google is the new catholic church? and here was me thinking that was steve jobs' job.

disclaimer (I own a mac or two)

strange though... what is a religion at its basic roots? and what will be the next religion to rebel against in 1000 years from now..

Re:So?

[smilindog2000]

Heck, I'd settle for an automated reply e-mail. AFAIK, my rep completely ignores me, but given that many here on slashdot also ignore me, I shouldn't be surprised. The only two issues I've ever raised up the flag pole to my rep is 1) support for a law that would ban discrimination against IP packets based on origin, and 2) redefining the definition of rad-hard chips to take into account reality at 90nm and below, so that we can have a sane rad-hard electronics industry in the US. Maybe if I were in the habit of making political donations, it'd be different, but in general I believe political donations are worse for the country than burning the money.

So Google is getting political... I bet that will make it even harder for them to stick to their "Don't be evil" policy.

Re:So?

[Bazar]

Thats horribly short sighted.
If you believe that all citizens should be given the same attention, regardless of circumstances.

In the case of large multinational organizations, you want to be helpful towards them, as the welfare of those company's are reflected in their employees. Poor decisions can result in them just packing up and moving to a more considerate country. Then your down in both tax revenues and employment.

Its understandable why they should give large companies a little extra time to hear about their concerns. Their needs are simply more dire then the average citizens.

Re:So?

[mwvdlee]

I can't decide what surprises me the most about the US system; the fact that you have professional lobbyists or the fact that it's legal. Actually, the real surprise is probably that it seems to work. Any representative with a shred of moral decency would have a blacklist of all lobbyists and ban them from communicating with him/her.

Re:So?

[suv4x4]

He's just one US citizen. If he wants to have influence on Congress he can vote like the rest of us. The fact that he can't get personal meetings with them should be surprising or distressing, regardless of his net worth, given how difficult it would be for everyone else.

Uhm. He's representing a 8000+ employee company that plays crucial role on the Internet (despite the low lock-in effect, Google is a core part of the Internet as of right now, and has been for the last, like 7-8 years or so).

That's like saying Bush is just one citizen. The little details matter though.

Re:So?

[g_lightyear]

I'm sorry, but I need to call you on that.

An expert's opinion ought to be worth more than a layman's. If someone goes to congress, in an expert capacity, to discuss an issue, they are not doing so on the grounds of being your average punter - they are doing so under the auspices of fundamental expertise on the issue being raised.

That is not the same as your mom calling your Senator on the same issue. There's democracy and there's tyrrany of the majority; expertise needs to matter. The whole point of policymakers is that they're *not* the people who are experts on an issue; simply people whose job it is to find the experts on those issues and navigate a policy.

Re:So?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I'm telling you people, this is just a harbinger of what's to come. A thousand years from now, as the Google empire reigns with an iron fist over the cringing masses of humanity, records will tell of that legendary sage Puff of Logic and his predictions of Google's rise to empire! It won't matter what the records say, because Evil Google won't index them anyway.

Re:So?

[Capt James McCarthy]

"It would be a shame if you were just talking out of you ass..."

But that is a requirement for members of Congress.

Re:So?

[devonbowen]

An expert's opinion ought to be worth more than a layman's.

Absolutely. But why are you assuming the poster is any less expert than a corporate executive? Being an expert has to do with your knowledge of a subject, not how much money you have or how many initials come after your name.

Devon

Re:So?

[OctaviusIII]

Generally, it's not the representative that replies to those emails, it's usually a staffer. That doesn't mean it doesn't reach someone important, as staffers are oftentimes just as important as their elected boss, but it does mean that you probably won't reach the person you think you are. As for the issues you raised with your rep., my guess is that it was too narrow of a scope for whoever checks the emails at the person's office and, given a lack of talking points, couldn't formulate a proper reply.

The point of lobbying is to get face to face with someone and hold their attention. I've seen lobbyists change a legislative assistant from indifferent at best about a subject to being positively excited about it, but letters never do that. If those concerns you listed are important enough to you, arrange a meeting with your representative, their legislative assistant, or their chief of staff, and prepare a simple one page bulleted argument about why one of those topics is great and why the representative should care. That's how lobbying works, and it's just like convincing anyone else you don't know about something.

But yes, right, back to Google: if their enemies are doing political warfare, they'd better be duking it out, too.

Re:So?

[Colin Smith]

I still write, though, because I have to do something, don't I? Join a party that most closely represents your views and get out campaigning. Even if it's just leafleting.

Re:So?

[coolGuyZak]

The initials after your name are a "social shorthand" that (in the US, at least) symbolize expert knowledge of a subject. So, in a certain sense, they do denote expertise. ;)

Re:So?

[Short Circuit]

Actually, I have done some ground-pounding for a PAC involved with my local elections.

Re:So?

[moeinvt]

"Sure. He's not breaking any laws. But it's perfectly legitimate to judge him."

"It is totally legitimate to look at Bryn and say "what a hypocritical putz." And in no way whatsoever is the system to blame."

Did I understand that correctly? You're claiming that the system is not to blame in ANY way whatsoever? If you really believe that, I think you should take a closer look at "the system". The MS case is the perfect example. The "system" is such that if you have money, the elected officials get their cut, or you suffer the consequences. No sane business person can ignore the threat that the government poses to their operations. I don't blame Google one bit! The ROOT of the blame is with those eligible voters that either refuse to vote, or continue to vote for Republicans and Democrats.

Re:So?

[Mattintosh]

Unfortunately, all too often that subject is "getting through a decade long college course" and not something useful. There's no guarantee they're an expert in the topic at hand, or any topic, really.

There are exceptions to this that come to mind... DDS = dentist, MD = medical doctor, PE = professional engineer, CPA = certified public accountant. But anyone claiming to be an expert because they have "Ph D" after their name is likely to be what I described before.

Re:So?

[swillden]

$2,000 from a PAC is more likely to change their vote than a fifty cent letter or a free email and fax. I still write, though, because I have to do something, don't I?

This brings up a point that I've been thinking about for a while. Bear with me for a moment while I walk you throught my thought process.

If the regular constituents each put up a buck towards a given issue/bill they care about, we could *easily* outspend the PACs by an order or magnitude. There are a lot more of us. That leads me to suggest that when you write that letter, you should include a check for $5 -- if all letter-writers did that, their contributions would probably come close to matching the PACs.

The problem with that idea is that if you do that, the representative has your $5 whether he votes the way you like or not. PACs have the advantage that they're offering lare enough quantities of money that they can negotiate: "We have this donation for you, Senator, assuming that you'll support our cause". I don't know that they can directly say things like "We'll contribute $2K to your campaign if you vote for bill X", but they can certainly imply it (and maybe they can say it!).

You could try to do the same with your small donation, but it seems much less likely to actually get the representative's attention. That brings me to my idea: I wonder if it would be possible to set up a sort of non-PAC whose only goal is to improve the bargaining position of voters. This non-PAC wouldn't actually accept and give donations, and it wouldn't have positions on any specific issues. Rather, it would be a sort of an escrow fund to accumulate individual voter contributions, and forward them en-masse to specific candidates who showed support for the voters' key issues. It would also provide reports to the representatives of the donations its holding and the issues/bills that are important to the donors.

I imagine this system as a web site. You register your name and address, pick your issue/bill, state what your position is, what representative you want to influence, in what time frame you'd like to see action, and use Paypal or whatever to provide a donation. The system would aggregate your donation with like-minded voters and send a letter to the representative (while probably also sending a similar letter on behalf of voters who have the opposite position). If the representative acts the way you want, the system would disburse the money to the representative, filing any needed paperwork on your behalf (if any, I don't think there is) and send you a receipt documenting your donation for tax purposes. If the representative votes "wrong", or fails to act within your specified time frame, the system would return your money to you and send a letter to the representative pointing out the financial support he/she has lost due to his action or inaction on a particular issue. I think it should be up to the donor to make the final determination of whether or not the representative acted "correctly". The system should probably also allow a representative to make a statement about his/her intent and actions to be distributed to the voters who have pending donations, to help them determine if his/her work is in line with their preferences.

Such a system feels a lot like buying congressional votes, but I think that's exactly how the system works anyway, just less transparently and less accessibly to the man on the street.

Re:So?

[Captain Splendid]

Is that not a serious problem with our system?

That's commie talk, son.

Re:So?

[coolGuyZak]

They typically qualify as an expert within the field that the degree applies to. A PhD denotes that you are an expert in the general sense. Philosophically, you are well grounded with the norms and established theory of your specialized field, with concentrated knowledge within your region of research.

The main reason specialized degrees (MD, JD, etc) exists is largely historical and political (see the politics of the Church & University circa 15th century, and the history of professional organizations), rather than practical. Even so, the work required to be esteemed as an expert is far from attending college for 10 years.

The degrees you discuss above--DDS, MD, PE, CPA, (also: JD = Juris Doctorate)--are each fields of specialized expertise. The difference between being an MD and a PhD is merely the specialization noted in the title. It is important to note an analogy here:

• A PhD in chemistry doesn't make me an expert in sociology.
• An MD in pediatrics doesn't make me an expert in virology.
• A PhD vs. MD in virology communicate different specialization as well. While the PhD focuses on science, the MD focuses on medicine. (Note: the only virologist I knew earned both degrees, incidentally).

As one can see, each of these titles denote expertise. The difficulty stems from determining what field said expertise applies to.

Re:So?

[Gablar]

Ok, so go ahead and make your voice heard, try and make your opinion count, and you will soon find out that your opinion will be muted by a thousand other opinions that have as much right as you do to be heard. Most people voices are muffled by the shear amount of people and some small amount of people(hubs) are heard. As unfair as this sounds is just the way it is, and until someone comes up with a different method of government thats the way is going to be.

See, I don't like it anymore than you do, but I recognize how the system works and decided I'm going to try to get my voice heard. There are several ways that it can be accomplished. The easiest one is probably just to start a blog, and get your ideas out there. If your ideas are good enough, just by natural selection they will be heard, if they are not, or you simply cannot convey them well enough for people to understand them, then they will die off. Another way to do it, is by going into politics and be successful at it. I don't like this way because you will eventually have to become dirty to get funding to get elected. To get funding you have to compromise your ideas, so if you get elected and finally have a voice, they won't be your ideas anymore, but at best a mix of your ideas and the ideas of the people that paid for you to be there. Which take us to the third way to make yourself heard. MONEY .

If you have money then you can definitely make your voice heard. I don't like this system because it just strikes me as immoral, but it is the way laws are made. whatever sector spends the most money will get the most favorable laws. This happens whether we want to or not. Is the ACLU evil because they spend money on lobbying? I dare to say they are not. The way I see it we have two options. Either we cross our arms and frown at the powerful and rich while they get more power, or we use their tools ( lobbying) to get what we think are good goals accomplished.

I think it is in the best interest of Google to keep information free and flowing. It is a big part of their business model, since they depend in enormous amounts of traffic and connections to make money. I like that. It benefits me that information is free, so in part I'm glad Google is going get more involved into government. The other side of the coin is that some of my information I wish to keep private. That goes against the Google business model. That do worries me.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried once to meet personally with Senator Dianne Feinstein. I even had a friend who worked on her staff. I'd say the response was somewhere between outright laughter and "drop dead." So fuck yeah, I resent it when Joe CEO can score face time with pretty much anyone in government at the drop of a hat. Just another example of hour warped our whole system is by money and commerce.

Re:So?

[JD-1027]

If it works or not is irrelevant. Paying for laws is wrong. Fix the problem.

Re:So?

[iamacat]

I would resent it too if an anonymous coward was able to score face time with Dianne without any prove that he/she represents the wishes of her constituents. Why don't you collect at least a thousand signatures on a petition amongst your friends, neighbors and co-workers and send THAT to her? I am all for publicly funded political campaigns and deferring most decisions to local governments that are accessible to their constituents. But for things that HAVE to be state or federal issues, we do need some hierarchical system of consensus building rather than politicians just listening to whoever is more aggressive in trying to contact them.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, he can make sure whenever they search for anything on google, "Meeting with Sergey Brin" shows up as the top link.
See, I knew there were advantages to this personalization stuff..

Re:So?

[Watson Ladd]

What about Noam Chomsky? He is an expert on American foreign policy, but has a PhD in linguistics.

Re:So?

[emc]

Sergey Brin is an expert on Chinese Censorship?

No, he is a man with a whole lot of money to be made by limiting Chinese Censorship.

There's democracy and there's tyrrany of the majority; expertise needs to matter.
You left out what we have here, which is governance by corporate interests. Google is as much an expert at these topics as the RIAA/MPAA is at Intellectual Property rights. The only difference here is that Google is doubleplus good, while RIAA/MPAA is doubleplus bad. Both organizations are working to have the government institute policies that directly benefit them.

I understand that the US Congress is bought and paid for by unions, lobbyists, and corporate interests. My point is that it sucks, and just because it's Google makes it no better.

Re:So?

[swillden]

If it works or not is irrelevant. Paying for laws is wrong. Fix the problem.

How?

Re:So?

[jlarocco]

A company is a distinct entity in the US system, and has plenty of the same rights as a person. So why can't it have lobbyists looking out for it's interests? Shut the fuck up and stop bitching until you do something as valuable or more then what Google has done.

Except a company isn't a person. There's a long list of things that individuals can do that companies can't. In my opinion, influencing our elected officials should be one of those things.

In a free market, the government's purpose should be to provide public goods and protect the interests of the people living under it by promoting fair competition and looking out for the public's best interest. I don't see how Google having access to law-makers helps either of those things.

If Google's executives want to talk to senators, great. But they should have to do it as regular citizens, not as paid representatives of Google.

Re:So?

[coolGuyZak]

This includes that, actually. Here, I discuss that the initials are useful. One can always be an expert without a field or education. The difficult part is proving you are such an expert.

Re:So?

[lpq]

In fact the system should be designed specifically that no individual has far greater influence than any other citizen.

Would you care to offer up a solution, or are you just criticizing?

How do you limit the "individuals" known as "Corporations"? As a speaker for the many stock-holders maybe such a spokesperson should find it a bit easier than most to get such meetings. Certainly Google has users in every state if not in every district. Stockholders buy stock in a company because they want it to "perform". That doesn't mean they want to be engaged in the day-to-day operations. Companies are not represented, typically, by individual stock holders who may hold 100's-1000's of stocks directly or via mutual funds. I can't imagine stockholders being expected to speak for company interests. The stockholders are not voices (other than their individual votes) for the company -- they don't know the day-to-day operations nor, likely, all the long term plans. The Corporate Spokesperson would be the only one qualified to speak to representatives about company issues.

Converse problem -- the corporation has "excessive voice", usually, because more than one lobbiest is usually sent by the largest companies. So corporations that have the legal standing of a person, in business also can have 24x7 multiple-voice representation. That's the real "rub" -- how many "individual people" have such representation?

If I had to choose, I'd rather each company be represented by 1 CEO, that would be closer to "fair" when talking about voices in congress, and that's assuming the CEO also has to run their company -- so their own "lobbying" job can't be anything near a full-time or regular job. However, that's not how politics are run right now.

Re:So?

[devonbowen]

The initials after your name are a "social shorthand" that (in the US, at least) symbolize expert knowledge of a subject.

Well, the initials I was referring to were "CEO". They don't really imply any kind of expert knowledge except for possibly in the internal workings of a company. And even then only in the best of cases. ;-)

Devon

Re:So?

[rtb61]

What right does a CEO of a public company have beyond that of any other citizen, next you'll be suggesting that they should also have additional votes, because that is the affect of influence peddling. Shareholders employ CEOs to manage their companies not their countries.

The solution is simple, 'criticize' the arrangement that clearly benefits the minority at the expense of the majority until such time as the behaviour is criminalised, that is the typical solution for all corrupt practices.

Re:So?

[coolGuyZak]

In theory, it denotes that you have leadership potential. In other cases it could mean that you are a crook. You could be considered to have expert knowledge of your company & business processes. You may be able to get away with expert knowledge of your company's core competency, depending on how you acquired said responsibilities.

Lobbyist.

[jshriverWVU]

Besides the typical point of view that Lobbyist are basically rich people with an agenda paying off congressman to get legislation passed in their favor. What is the real "legal" definition of what a lobbyist is supposed to do? You'd think if their sole purpose is to pay off people it would be illegal. Any pro's/con's in this?

Re:Lobbyist.

[.Chndru]

My friend, welcome to the american "democracy"...

Re:Lobbyist.

[garcia]

Well, we are talking about Google here, right? Let's ask them how Google defines a lobbyist and what they think are the pros and cons of lobbyists.

What better source than straight from the horse's mouth? ;-)

Re:Lobbyist.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the theory is that lobbyists are supposed to help with research and inform congressmen about the wants of the people.

Re:Lobbyist.

[cerberusss]

What sort of black/white world view do you have? The main point of a lobbyist is to talk to a politician to make sure he/she understands whatever the lobbyist is trying to get across. Now campaign funding might look like paying off said politician and there are rules about that. And I'm not saying these rules work or not, but the main point is TALKING.

And believe it or not, YOU can talk to your congressman as well. The other day, I read in the news that my congressman (a woman) was spouting off what I thought nonsense about how windenergy can't be stored. I wrote her an e-mail saying, yes, it can actually be stored and here's a wikipedia link to a great project in Scotland which does that. I got back a nice reply with a thanks, but she had heard of lots of problems in said project, so didn't see it as a viable solution.

Re:Lobbyist.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lobbyist is simply any person who wants to discuss some matter related to govt. and the law with someone in Congress. Congress is busy, however, so in order to get a meeting with someone, you need to donate a lot of money to their campaign. Professional lobbyists all ready have all the connections, so you pay them to get your meeting for you. If a congress person is honest, your donation shouldn't influence his position, only the strength of your argument.

Re:Lobbyist.

[unlametheweak]

It's a good counterpoint to the RIAA lobbyists. At least Google will be more likely to lobby against excessive controls on things like information sharing. They would certainly be a strong voice for net neutrality. Google at least has the incentive to fight for positive things like this.

Re:Lobbyist.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbyists are supposed to provide government officials with information relevant to legislation.

Re:Lobbyist.

[Kalriath]

Um, why is controls on Information Sharing "Bad" if Google disagrees with it, but "OMG Greatest Thing Ever" if, say, Microsoft or AOL disagree with it? I would prefer MORE controls on Information Sharing, not LESS.

You can rest assured, Google will fight against such things as Privacy Protection Laws, and Data Retention Restriction laws. Heaven forbid they not be allowed to retain 75 years of your personal data to mine.

Re:Lobbyist.

[JimDaGeek]

If a congress person is honest, your donation shouldn't influence his position, only the strength of your argument.

Huh? Why should someones argument be strengthened by how much money they have/bribe the politicians with? The strength of the argument should be based on the points of the argument. For example:

person #1: I think we should reduce copyright terms because blah..blah..blah.
Person #2: I think we should extend copyright terms because blah..blah..blah. Oh, and here is a nice fat check.

Is there such a thing as a long term "representative" that doesn't except bribes? Don't they all? There is no way that our "representatives" are not overly influenced by bribes. Just look at how extreme copyright laws are, or how messed up patent laws are. These two examples are because our so-called "representatives" have take millions in bribes from big corps while those who want a fair copyright system and better patent laws don't have the same cash to bribe as the big corps.

It is my opinion that corps. should not be allowed to give bribes or influence law at all. Corporations are fictitious entities, they are not people/citizens. Each member of a corporation has the ability to try to influence law, at the same level as any other citizen. However, when we let these big corps. with big bank accounts bribe our politicians it creates an unfair advantage that the average citizen just cannot compete against. Hence Americas progress toward a corportism.

Re:Lobbyist.

[unlametheweak]

Perhaps I could have worded that better, with more detail of what I meant. I meant sharing information with the public in general. Issues like (copyrighted) songs being played in the background of a YouTube video for example, or the use of thumbnails to copyrighted images have come up in legal controversies. I meant information sharing in the sense of information generally being free (and shared), as opposed to overly controlled.

No I did not mean information sharing like with 3rd party cookie. Sorry, I should have worded that better.

Re:Lobbyist.

[poopdeville]

If a congress person is honest, your donation shouldn't influence his position, only the strength of your argument.

Huh? Why should someones argument be strengthened by how much money they have/bribe the politicians with? The strength of the argument should be based on the points of the argument.

Wow, you need to practice reading. Sure, it wasn't the clearest sentence. But interpreting it to mean the exact opposite of what he meant takes a severe lack of reading comprehension. Especially since he talked about his point for several sentences before that.

Re:Lobbyist.

[evilviper]

What is the real "legal" definition of what a lobbyist is supposed to do?

Every citizen has the constitutional right to lobby their government. That is, to state their opinions on issues to their representatives, saying what they want them to do.

Like anything else, it has been corrupted, because whoever can spend the most money, can pay the most people to lobby for the issues they want. And, when big money gets that close to those in power, bribes are the natural result.

Re:Lobbyist.

[paxundae]

Lobbyists really don't buy votes very often, at least not in the corporate context. It's hard to hide large sums of money, so all sides of an issue can usually afford to pay the largest practical sum. No one 'wins' by money alone.

It's actually really unclear exactly why lobbyists are effective, though it is known that they spend most of their time lobbying those who already agree with them and trying to get them to mobilize on the issue. Hall and co do a good job of examining theories, poking holes in a lot of them, and eventually proposing their own in 2006.

Check out Richard L. Hall & Alan V. Deardorff, "Lobbying as Legislative Subsidy," 100 American Political Science Review 69 (2006). They give an overview in that article of a wider survey that's published as Richard L. Hall & Frank W. Wayman, "Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees," 84 AM. POL. SCI. REV. 797 (1990).

Re:Lobbyist.

[DerekLyons]

Those are Google searches - not the definitions or opinions of Google itself (or it's constituent personell).

Re:Lobbyist.

[OctaviusIII]

Well, think about it this way: if you're going to convince someone that you're right, it's a helluva lot easier to do that by talking to them face-to-face rather than through an email. It's not always about money or power politics. Usually, it's just about good old fashioned diplomacy checks, and you're free to make them too, as long as you're flexible with your dates so they can actually schedule you in.

Re:Lobbyist.

[i_ate_god]

I don't really care about Google knowing what I do, so long as they don't know that it's me who does it. In order to build trends, I really don't see why my IP address has to be associated with anything I do. Target marketing and context-sensitive ads are fine but that should be completely doable without anything that can personally identify me.

Whatever, welcome to the new age of accountability.

Re:Lobbyist.

[agileinfosystems]

yes you are right.

Re:Lobbyist.

[Kalriath]

Ah, that clears a few things up. That was really confusing before. It's hard not to think you mean personal information sharing when you look at the privacy focus literally every Google discussion eventually rolls around to.

They'll need it

[ibbie]

What with all the trials and litigation going around. But then again, they have seemed to pick legal fights when they wanted a law established. (re: google image search and copyright law)

hmmmm wierd....

[Anonymous Coward]

senators not wanting to meet google founder....they probably have not heard of these guys yet!

democracy

[wall0159]

It's a sad indictment of politicians that they need lobbyists to tell them what to think, rather than going out and actually talking to their constituents. Democracy is supposedly representative of the people - the skewing of this system towards serving only the wealthiest corporations is only going to take us to bad places.

Re:democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is Google we're talking about, and they do no evil. Therefore I am left to believe that they are only taking us to good places :o)

Re:democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been this way for 200 years. The fact that people are discovering it now is a sad indictment to the education of the typical American.

good god people Learn about your own country. It's far more important than the specs on your new volvo.

Re:democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the natural course of democracy (and government in general): expanding government (in terms of both revenue and power over the people) necessarily creates the need to bribe the power elite who control government. In today's business world, the winner isn't the guy who just wants to compete on fair grounds, trying to make the best product at the lowest price -- the winner is the guy who knows best how to work the system, how to exploit that special "right" to employ coercion which defines government.

How can you compete with that? You can't. The sad truth is that power (that special "right") trumps voluntary association. It always has -- that's why government exists.

ALL governments expand in both power and revenue over their lifetimes, especially democracies (republics) as history is now revealing. No government in the history of organized coercion has ever significantly and permanently reduced its power or revenue through the process of democracy. (Can you cite even one example? I sure can't.) There's a reason for that, and we'd do better to realize (or accept) it: power benefits the power eltie who control government, not the common man who holds no special right to employ coercion as his means.

Every year we are subject to more laws than the year before. Naturally, the more complex and ambiguous the system of law, the more exploitable the system of law. Lobbying (i.e. bribery) is a natural product of all this -- as long as power exists, there's no way that lobbying can't exist.

Executive summary: As long as the pie exists, the winners will be the ones who can get a piece of that pie.

Re:democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason, covers this exact point in a fair amount of detail.

Do no evil

[thewiz]

I'm surprised that the guys from Google can't get politicians to talk to them. After all, their willingness to help China censor the web and now using lobbyists is definitely a sign that they say one thing and mean the opposite. They're beginning to sound like the congresscritters.

Re:Do no evil

[42Penguins]

With the difference being that they actually provide a useful service while doing so.

Re:Do no evil

[SoopahMan]

You're kidding me right? The mere use of lobbyists is enough for you to decide Google's an evil company?

Have a look at the blog, you can read about what those lobbyists are up to. That's a major difference. The RIAA is evil - when they were busy turning singing into an act for hire, so they could own an artist indefinitely, do you think they were blogging about their intentions and notifying the American people? No. In fact, they did everything they could to hide it so it could torpedo its way into law before it was too late.

Evil companies and organizations like the RIAA are out there buying their way into legislation that gives them an unfair lock on all sorts of things. It's a broken system that works on money. Google is paying to keep it fair - the way it should be. It sucks it takes lobbyists to do it, but Google is working to keep the very worst ideas out of Congress. Or did you think Net Neutrality would just solve itself?

Re:Do no evil

[Doug Neal]

Google are disclosing their activities and intentions on their blog, sure. It's a PR move. Do you really think the blog tells the whole story though? Obviously they are going to put stuff on there about what they are doing that makes them look good, but if they wanted to do a bit of their own RIAA-style legislation-buying that wouldn't make them look so great on their blog, they wouldn't post it. Just because they've got a blog and blogs are "in", doesn't mean you should trust them implicitly. I certainly don't, anyway.

I, for one, welcome our...

[Will the Chill]

Googling-Money Oogling-Paige Congressional Overlords!

-WtC

Re:I, for one, welcome our...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot was nicer when this stupid joke was dying.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations sponsored the Nazi's bid for power in Germany, which was a democracy before they came to power. Of course they only agreed to rubber-stamp all laws the corporate sponsors wanted put in place, not to actually run the country ethically, but it wouldn't be in shareholders interests to insist politicians do that.

Obligatory

[xinjiang77]

In Soviet Russia, Google controls the government.

Change....

[WwWonka]

...and due to another bombardment of being "Google"ized I am now officially switching search engines and mail service to someplace else. The underdog is now the king and it is further entrenching it's dictatorship.

Do no Evil?

[Handbrewer]

Do No Evil -> To Be as Evil as Everyone else. But what can you expect from public companies anyways, and an American system thats no more democratic than a banana republic anyways.

Re:Do no Evil?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to do evil. That's what the lobbyists are for.

Re:Do no Evil?

[geekoid]

Hiring lobbyist doesn't make a company 'Evil', it makes it smart.
To determine if they are evil look at what they are lobbing for.
Perhaps if more people learned that, they6would get together and hire there own lobbyists.

You want to add a speed bump to your street? you go talk to the city. AKA lobbying.
You want congress to take steps towards something you want, you write a letter. AKA lobby. Hell you might even be able to pay someone a few bucks to talk to a congress person instead of a letter.

I'll bite

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was in high school, my state had a YMCA Model Legislature program. Students would act as representatives, senators, and even governors (executive branch) to learn more about how the government worked. I was a lobbyist. The role of a lobbyist is to act as an expert on an issue. There may be lobbyists arguing both for and against a certain bill, giving valuable information to the committee of representatives and the chair so they can determine how to amend, pass, or not pass a certain bill. As you can see, a lobbyists are very important in the democratic process and often aren't even representing organizations. They may just be common citizens arguing their case on a certain bill. Disclaimer: This is my understanding of lobbyists in a bicameral legislature of a state government, but I assume it is similar at the national level. The captcha is "missed."

what a lobbyist is and why they're important

[JimBobJoe]

What is the real "legal" definition of what a lobbyist is supposed to do?

A professional who informs democratically elected representatives about issues.

While these professionals have to be paid somehow, and the root of their pay makes them beholden to some interest or another, what a legislator needs to do and understand is simply too complex without receiving counsel and guidance otherwise.

I live in Columbus near the Ohio statehouse and since I have a lot of knowledge about identity theft, privacy and driver's license security issues, I often show up at the statehouse and give testimony on a bill. I'm essentially a college student with a job with no set hours, so it's not hard for me to do. I can meet up with a legislator or make a committee meeting (which are always held during the day) with no trouble. People who might have the knowledge or expertise but have regular jobs will find that difficult.

But what I do I do for free, because I want to see Ohio have better laws on things that I feel passionate about or interest me. I can only devote so much time to it.

The other day, I testified on an identity theft bill. I was talking about a major problem with some state websites and I wanted to show the committee what the problem is--so I asked if there were a projector available to hook my laptop to.

The assistant to the chair of the committee said he's never asked for a projector before--and he's done the job for 3 years now.

That scared me. It doesn't take much computer knowledge to put together a powerpoint presentation, and we all know (stereotype alert) that low-tech types like powerpoint. It implied to me that the people who would often speak in front of this committee didn't have a very good knowledge of computing.

I did get my projector, and made my presentation (which included talk about "brute force" techniques.) The next week, a state senator's office called--the senator read my written testimony and asked during that committee hearing what was the difference between brute forcing a password and phishing. No one was there who could answer the question.

It's clear to me that Ohio needs to have a professional lobbyist walking around the statehouse who knows computer security issues and who could spend his time getting legislators up to speed. While lobbyists are often political mercenaries, they do fulfill a certain role that no one else can.

Re:what a lobbyist is and why they're important

[jshriverWVU]

Interesting read, especially since I live in Toledo :) Keep up the great work.

Re:what a lobbyist is and why they're important

[geekoid]

Contact the governer see if they can create a Chief Computer Advisor position to appoint you to. Some of those senators you have helped might be able to help you out.

Re:what a lobbyist is and why they're important

[lawpoop]

As a fellow Ohioan, I am glad to hear that you are working on my side!

Perhaps, for the legislator's benefit, you could put together a document that demonstrates the difference between brute-force and phishing. Something like this might work well both on print-out and in power-point:

<H1>Brute-force Attack</H1>

Welcome to Online Banking! Please enter your username password:

Username: buckeye_joe@internet.com
Password: ******
Wrong password! Please try again.
Password: ******
Wrong password! Please try again.
Password: ******
Wrong password! Please try again.
Password: ******
Password accepted! Your balance is $125.00.


<H1>Phising Attack</H1>

From: criminal_in_in_diguise@russia.net
To: buckeye_joe@internet.com
Subject: Online Banking Password Maintenance


Message:
Hello! This is your bank. We've recently done some maintenance and upgrades to our online banking website. However, we've accidentally deleted your password. Please send us your password as soon as possible, in order for us to assure the outstanding customer service you've come to expect from us!

Re:what a lobbyist is and why they're important

[TapeCutter]

"While lobbyists are often political mercenaries, they do fulfill a certain role that no one else can."

There used to be this quaint notion that the public service would answer a politicians questions "without fear or favour", and some public servants still adhere to that notion (eg: Jim Hansen).

The answers a politicaian gets from a lobbyist will by definition "favour" his employer and the lobbyist is (also by definition) working under the "fear" of losing his job.

Re:what a lobbyist is and why they're important

[Anonymous Coward]

Advocating that someone should denigrate themselves by going into politics?

Isn't there a law against that?

(kudos +1 to the gp btw. seriously.)

Re:what a lobbyist is and why they're important

[drix]

Are you suggesting he lobby the governor for a favor? :-) Touche.

Re:what a lobbyist is and why they're important

[Anonymous Coward]

As a fellow Ohioan, I am glad to hear that you are working on my side!

Strange. He didn't say which side of the identity theft issue he was on.

Or maybe the only way you could have known is if you had already stolen his identity -- score!

(I hope to see you at the Identity Thieves' of Akron luncheon next Tuesday, lawpoop. I'll be the big-boned older man with the killer combover wearing a wifebeater, with the nametag "Amy, Ohio State econ major".)

Google is just a regular company

[jorghis]

*gasp* Google paying out the nose for influence in Washington? Its almost like they are your standard multi billion international corporation.

Lets give it a rest already, this doesnt make Google evil. It just means that they are like any other company which is something nonfanboys have known all along. Do we need to see a headline every time a tech company hires a handful of lobbyists? What makes Google special?

Re:Google is just a regular company

[joeytmann]

What kinda flawed thinking is that? If you are going to have a holier than thou attitude, you better be holier than thou. If you are going to do the same bullshit all the major corps do, then you are a hypocrite and in my opinion just as bad, if not worse, than a "evil" company.

If you want to change the system, start with yourself and get others to follow your lead. You don't change the system by taking advantage of its flaws, you become apart of it.

Re:Google is just a regular company

[JimDaGeek]

What makes Google special?

Not special, but they do stand out. When Google started, they were "different". Young, full of ideas and most importantly, they attracted tech geeks because of their "do no evil" motto. A lot of people thought, hey a big company that won't just be another money grubbing corporation with no ethics!

Now, we see how Google has become what they appeared to be against, another big money grubby corp with no ethics. If Google really held to the motto of "do no evil", they wouldn't be censoring in China. If Google's founders held to the motto of "do no evil", the two founders wouldn't be flying around in a big multi-million dollar jet wasting tons of fuel (when they can fly on a commercial jet with more people on it) and polluting while on the other hand telling their employees to drive hybrids. I guess it is a case of "do as I say, not as I do"? I use to be a fanboi of Google in the early days. Now I don't care for them much as a company.

Re:Google is just a regular company

[Blakey Rat]

Yeah, Microsoft was the same way when they started out. Probably IBM, too, but I'm not that old.

Welcome to Reality 101: You can't be a successful business without being a business. That is, doing all those things businesses have to do... keep a legal department and lobbyists on staff, for instance.

Re:Google is just a regular company

[wellingj]

My father always said you had to be a part of the system to effectively change the system,
because change from within is more well received than forceful change from the out side.

Re:Google is just a regular company

[joeytmann]

Very true. But that doesn't mean you have to abuse its flaws. I originally intended that, but didn't convey it so well.

Re:Google is just a regular company

[r_newman]

If you are going to do the same bullshit all the major corps do, then you are a hypocrite and in my opinion just as bad, if not worse, than a "evil" company.

Don't be so naive. Google's "Don't Be Evil" credo certainly shouldn't require them to sit back and watch while lobbyists for Microsoft and others exert influence over laws that directly affect Google. They are fighting back in the most effective way, to secure their safety from badly-informed or biased legislators.

Good for Google. Don't be evil, but don't allow the "idealists" to force your business into obscurity either.

Readily searchable politics

[the_kanzure]

Would be very useful, Google. Maybe one of those nifty "email new search results" to give us heads up on potentially destructive politics?

Why do we put up with lobbyists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of having a government run by lobbyists, why don't we have a government run by us?

http://www.metagovernment.org/

Could it really be any worse than this tyranny that we pretend is a representative democratic republic?

Re:Why do we put up with lobbyists?

[Anonymous Coward]

Representative democratic republic? Hardly. Have you ever seen the Patriot Act?

Re:Why do we put up with lobbyists?

[MLease]

I believe that's why the GP AC said, "...that we pretend is...".

-Mike

Um...what was Microsoft's "error"?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Blah...blah... Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here -- more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office -- and is continuing to add people.

Um...what was Microsoft's "error"? Are you telling me that Microsoft has never employed lobbyists?

And why is this news in the first place - you think "net neutrality" was really a term coined, flogged and pushed as a political issue by a bunch of angry nerds?

Re:Um...what was Microsoft's "error"?

[geekoid]

Microsoft ignored washington for a long time.

Re:Um...what was Microsoft's "error"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, they didn't. Think M$ would have gotten nailed with the monopoly conviction if they'd been schmoozing the right people and greasing the right palms? IBM was ten times worse when it came to strongarming people but they knew how to spread the money and influence around.

M$ learned their leasson and opened their wallets after the conviction. Notice how fast the anti-trust lawsuits went away after the administration changed?

Re:Um...what was Microsoft's "error"?

[jorghis]

Remember the anti-trust thing? Microsoft assumed that as long as they werent some contracter trying to bribe the government for pork they didnt need to lobby. Politicians love to pick on big companies, but they go after the ones that arent spending money lobbying them. MS wasnt sending out bribes so they got attacked by politicians. Google is now recongizing that they have the potential to be hounded for privacy concerns, intellectual property violations, unfairly leveraging their dominant search engine, etc. So they arent going to fall into the same trap MS did and assume that just because they arent breaking any laws grandstanding politicians and their lawyers wont go after them.

Re:Um...what was Microsoft's "error"?

[SoopahMan]

Did you read the article...?

Microsoft got slammed with a massive Antitrust case. The implication is that if they had more than one lobbyist, and had spent the millions they now spend, that case would not have happened.

Re:Um...what was Microsoft's "error"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that Netscape had a higher market share than IE when the lawsuit started, the implication is a valid one.

Google warns of IT worker shortage in US

[Anonymous Coward]

Google warns of IT worker shortage in US.

Wait a minute...that was Bill Gates who warned congress of the IT shortage.
Google doesn't have a shortage. Hmmmm.......

Yep. They're evil...

[usa1mac]

12 lobbyists. Wow. Sounds like something a Tobacco company would need.

Don't worry

[niceone]

Don't worry, Google's lobbying office's motto is: "Do no lobbying".

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "Don't be evil," not "Do no evil." Tard.

Check...

[stdion]

GOOG's intension was never DO NOT BE EVIL, it was one of their engineers who would write it around the office and Google decided to adopt that "philosophony."Didn't GOOG's stock drop when they denied the government's request for 3 months of search results? I wouldn't be surprised if many politicians had stock in "The Google." The ones with the information have the power which is why Google can get lobbyists on staff in the first place. Maybe next Google will buyout lumber mills, curbing the distribution of paper, so everyone will use their data; "Sergeying their stock" (he plays so dirty) through the roof.

Re:Check...

[geekoid]

Money is why google can hire lobbyists. WHat they they are lobbing for is what you need. What if they ar lobbying for a more transparent government? Government funding for new power sources?
Geez, your not supposed to eat the tinfoil, just make a hat out of it.

When they start lobbying for giving a pack of smokes to 1st graders, then they are evil.

Next monday I will be lobbying my mayor for a speed bump on my street..I'm so EVIL! MUAHahahahaha.. moron.

Re:Check...

[Anonymous Coward]

GOOG's intension was never DO NOT BE EVIL, it was one of their engineers who would write it around the office and Google decided to adopt that "philosophony."

Dude. If one of my engineers started scrawling "DO NOT BE EVIL" on the office walls, I'd send for a psychiatrist. Probably an exorcist as well.

Re:Check...

[91degrees]

Dude. If one of my engineers started scrawling "DO NOT BE EVIL" on the office walls, I'd send for a psychiatrist. Probably an exorcist as well.

I take it your company is as successful as Google. :)

And yes, I'm being facetious. I well aware that it's possible Google can afford to hire eccentrics because they're successful rather than them being successful because they hire eccentrics.

Here's a slashdot interview with a lobbyist...

[morganew]

and that Lobbyist was me! Many of these same questions keep popping up; things like "isn't lobbying bribery"? and "how dare congress listen to him/her!" Basic reality is, Members of Congress listen to their constituents, and issues they think will affect their constituents. And regardless of the opinion of Lessig and other ivory tower "experts", there is not simple answer to the money issue. I would posit that money has never been more important in politics, but 'single source' money has never been less influential.

Think of it this way, Members have to raise more than ever before, but they can still only raise it in relatively small amounts, so small that on single check for 2,000 has much influence when you consider that an average House race will cost in excess of 2 MILLION.

This creates a problem. The Representative must raise $2 Million, but has to do it in small amounts. This forces them to spend a disproportionate amount of time raising money, but it also lowers the influence of any one check. Members must spend endless hours calling hundreds of people to ask for $50, $100, maybe even $500 dollar contributions.

Because money is now a volume activity, all of the slashdotters who want to leap to the incorrect conclusion that all Lobbying is done through payouts from a few lobbyists are living in movieland. The reality is that the lobbyist's true power comes from being able to show a Representative how his support or opposition to a bill will make his Constituents happy - and encourage them vote for him. This reduces the Member's need to raise/spend money, and therefore is considered a great thing to the Member of Congress.

For example, Slashdotters assume that the only reason anyone would ever support the DMCA is because the RIAA paid them off. Well, as a recent consumerist report showed, the RIAA hasn't written very many big checks! However, many of the Members of Congress who are the most agressive in support of the DMCA have songwriters, movie studios, themeparks and software companies in their districts. It should come as no surprise that they want to help the people they represent keep their jobs, pay taxes, and generally be happy with their elected officals. As a side note, if you wonder how that article in Consumerist and Slashdot affected Capitol Hill, well, it didn't - because no one called in. I did an informal poll of the members who were on the top of the RIAA list as presented here on slashdot. Guess what? most offices got only a couple of calls. Here on slashdot, the DMCA is treated like it's legislation that will bring about the next anti-christ, but the rest of America doesn't actually care. If you compare the 1 or 2 calls on the DMCA with what happens when the NRA, the WWF, Sierra Club, Right to Life or NOW pushes people to call in, you begin to understand that Members aren't being paid off, they just understand that their constituents aren't appreciably harmed by the DMCA - in fact many have jobs that benefit from it. There has yet to be a Gallup Poll showing the DMCA coming in ahead of HealthCare, the War in Iraq, Education, Social Security or even the proliferation of hangnails as experienced by the elderly. So stop assuming that the only reason anyone could support a position is a payoff.

SImply put, leaping to the conclusion that anyone who dissagrees with you must be 'bought off' creates a false dicotomy. If it were literally all about the money, then there would be a lot less work for lobbyists!

Re:Here's a slashdot interview with a lobbyist...

[MilesNaismith]

Ah the concept of "corporate personhood" rears it's ugly head. You sir, are individually a constituent of your district and a voter. Your corporation is not a constituent or a voter. The rest of it is rationalizing bribery and influence peddling.

Re:Here's a slashdot interview with a lobbyist...

[servognome]

Because money is now a volume activity

Also important is votes are a volume activity. That's why running a campaign is expensive, and why groups like NRA, Christian Coalition, NAACP, are more influential than any corporation. Politics is now about representing specific groups because most people (those who participate at least) vote acording to what the group leadership tells them.

Funniest thing I've read in forever

[MerlynEmrys67]

To make friends on Capitol Hill, Google plans to initiate Google 101, a series of tutorials for congressional aides that will teach them how to use Google's search engine better and faster. The aides will learn, for example, how to do simple math by writing numbers in the proper order on Google's search line.

So you are telling me that these people aren't capable of doing math - either in their head, on paper, or with a calculator that they have to learn how to do math with Google?

Tired of this mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's well-known motto is "Don't Be Evil", not "Do No Evil".

It seems people use the latter more frequently than the former now, which is a pet peeve of mine. It's an easy mistake to make, but they're not at all the same thing. In some decisions you're forced to choose the lesser of multiple evils. For example, on the China censorship issue, you could easily have said Google is doing evil no matter regardless of what they did -- do they help enforce an evil government policy, or do they hurt users in China by making it more difficult for them to use their product?

It's a big world out there

[snowwrestler]

The laws and regulations on the books are so complex, and the nation so diverse, that unintended consequences are a frequent result of anything the government changes. The civil service is on the whole a bunch of smart, hard-working folk, but even with such a large government there is just no possible way they could hold expertise on every subject under the sun. Who's going to know (or care) about the implications of every new law and regulation for left-handed widget makers? Pretty much no one but the left-handed widget makers. And since they're busy making widgets, and they're not experts on law anyway, they hire someone to keep track of government activity as it relates to their business, and to speak on their behalf to the government. A lobbyist.

Re:It's a big world out there

[TapeCutter]

Oh I agree the public service themselves can not be expected to know everything...BUT...I would expect them to know how to find a an answser. However when the "left-handed widget maker" can routinely bypass the public service, the politician is effectively "cut off" from reality (often willingly).

Seems to me having lobbyists is not the problem

[NotQuiteReal]

Having a lobbyist is not the problem... if that's the way the game is played, you need to play it.

Lobbyists are like advertising... nobody would pay for [ads or] lobbyists if they didn't work.

The problem is that "representing the people" has become a game.

Maybe we ought to just "draft" a congress. It probably wouldn't be worse than electing one of folks who want to be politicians.

As for the Senate, maybe we could just draft them too - from the pool of former drafted congress members who pass a post-service vote of confidence.

Puhleeze...

[mbstone]

OK, so lobbyists don't usually flat-out "buy" Members of Congress (although there have been lots of recent exceptions like the Duke Conningham or Freezer Dude Jefferson cases). But Members don't support bad legislation like DMCA because "they have songwriters," etc. in their districts. Lobbyists write the legislation. Lobbyists schmooze Members over free dinner or free Capitol Hill receptions or free or underpriced private jet rides. Lobbyists get their clients to give to the candidate's PAC, or have their clients' employees give, or have their clients' employees trade checks with a party campaign committee so it looks like Rep. X is getting a contribution from his or her own party committee. It's gotten to the point where Members seem to think there are no points of view other than are represented by some lobbyist. Look at phenomena such as Tech Policy Summit, an echo chamber composed of public-policy mavens from big tech corporations. Public policy is supposed to be for the public. The public interest might occasionally coincide with that of some big corporation, such as Google's stand in favor of net neutrality -- even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Tomorrow Google might merge with a telco and suddenly start lobbying in the opposite direction. Look at Sony, a company that used to lobby for fair use, then they bought a movie studio.

As for crowing about how few people "call in," do Congressmembers really believe the only calls that should count are those drummed up by lobbying organizations? I'll bet most people here on Slashdot believe calling or writing a Congressmember, on any issue, would be futile / a waste of time.

Re:Puhleeze...

[morganew]

Your comment is proof that your mind is so clearly "made up" that no amount of knowledge or insight will change your tightly held (albeit unsupported) beliefs. But for the others who may be reading this thread, let's break it down:

1. You are completely right about some of the total corruption cases we have had - bad news, bad actors, and they got caught pretty easily. The scrutiny is pretty tight nowadays, and some will still be so arrogant as to believe they will get away with it, but history suggests that they are going to get caught.

2. "Members don't do things because they have people in their districts". My only answer to you on this is: you are an utter idiot if you actually believe that, get yourself a tinfoil hat and stay away from open windows. And since you make these assertions, tell me how you "know this? I can tell you in excruiating detail the days, nights, weeks, months and even years of work that goes into it. Building coalitions, identifying members who are interested, fending off other interests, educating educating educating. If money were the simple answer, legislation wouldn't take long to pass. THe proof point here is even bills that you view as corporate give-aways take YEARS to get done.

3. "Lobbyists write legislation" - . "Lobbyists" don't automatically write legislation - what they do is say to a Congressional office"If you are interested in this issue area, we'd like to meet with you to discuss legislation that might be of interest to your constituents, or is relevant to the Committee you Chair". Then, a meeting is held and you essentally "pitch" the prospective legislation. Describing why it's good, who benefits, what are the risks, etc. etc. If the Congressman is convinced, then the lobbyist may play a role in crafting the legislation. Your problem here is you see the transaction as a "black box". The reality is the lobbyist is an issue area expert in the subject of the legislation. He is driven by enlightened self interest to know more about a subject than anyone else; he must be able to develop the entire argument, and counter-argument for the legislation. Moreover, he has to understand the politics of the issue, and explain that as well. So to say "lobbyists write legislation" can also be said as "Issue Area Experts write legislation". Most congressional staff are people under 30 years old making around 30k a year. You WANT issue area experts to have a hand in crafting legislation. Also remember that if the bill is controversial, then the 'other side' will come in and argue against it. Literally every imaginable viewpoint gets heard, if not via lobbying, then via hearings.

4. "Public Policy is supposed to be for the public" While this phrase sounds pithy, it means nothing. You complain about the TPS, but note that the people talking were people who focus on public policy. If I go to OSCON, I want to hear Tridge talk about SAMBA, I don't want to hear someone who isn't part of the development team tell me about the next version of SAMBA. And your comment about Google being "right" at least on occasion proves the main problem you have. You use your own frame of reference to define why a decision was made. If it's a good decision, well, then it was in the public interest - if it was a bad decision it was driven by "Corporations". Yet you are the only person defining "good" and "bad". So your model is flawed from the outset - better to look at legislation from the perspective of enlightened self interest. For example, IBM is pumping lots of money into lobbying for ODF preferences and tech mandates to be made into law around the world. Normally, you would probably oppose tech mandates and preference. But if you support ODF being instituted via law, then would you ignore the clear corporate interests and claim it's good policy? If you do that, then you can't support a public vs. corporate viewpoint. Stop looking at it from the "good" vs. "bad" and start looking at it as enlightened self interest.

There are lot

Re:Puhleeze...

[morganew]

Oh, and lest anyone think I came up with the theory of US politics as driven by enlightened self interest, I should point out that I am really stealing from de Tocqueville - you can read more by following the links on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-inte rest

Re:Puhleeze...

[mbstone]

Been there, done that, got to ride the private elevator, hate the weather there, left town.

I stand corrected. Lobbyists are really Enlightened Self-Interest Advocates.

Re:Puhleeze...

[trawg]

I can't tell if you actually, genuinely think this is a good system to have, and if so if it's just because you have been/are a lobbyist yourself.

As a non-American innocent bystander it just seems like a really weird way to operate. At the end of the day despite what you say, all I see is Google spending what I assume is a lot of money on what I assume will be their attempts to change laws to improve their chances in the market.

I suspect/hope Google will be working on changing draconian copyright laws. But is that really the best way for these laws to change?

I mean, I don't have any alternatives. But this way it just seems big business gets to have more influence over the rules than they should.

Re:Puhleeze...

[morganew]

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill: "It's the worst form of government....after all the rest". Seriously though, it very logical.

There's really no way to extract money from politics, or even to extract certain interests from having a significant impact on the system.

Why? Because the more affected you are by a decision, the more likely you are to care. The more you care, the more active you are likley to be. And while you might be able to elminate PACs and contributions and any other from of "cash" you can't eliminate people's willingness to spend time on something that will affect them. And since time really does = money for most of us, this becomes the most significant form of political contributions.

Google's spending on lobbyists buys them time, and that spending will DWARF whatever political contributions they hand out. The Goggle folk will be narrowly focused on specific issues and will understand the process. This makes them a valuable resource regardless of the fact that they can no longer buy anyone a drink, or a meal, or a plane ride. The commodity they will provide is "time". Time that a staffer can now spend doing something else, like answer the endless stream of constituent mail *shudder, it really never, never, never ends - I still have nightmares*

SO you are right when you say Google will be spending money to affect policy in a way that is skewed in their favor. And where your interests are aligned, you'll be happy, and where they aren't you'll (hopefully) write in, or better yet, contribute money/time to an organization opposing their efforts.

But here's the funny part - history shows us that you'll likley only do this if it truly affects your life. As I noted in the RIAA instance, people generated personal outrage, but it didn't really affect their ability to go about their daily lives. It's really only at the 'annoyance' level.

Another good example that's not as politically tinged as the RIAA issue is the comparison between turnout and age.

Young people just don't vote - noted political analist Charlie Cook refers to the 18-25 group as "non-voters". Yet these people often have more free time than the older demos, so why don't they vote?

Because the government simply doesn't impact their lives that much. In America, there's no draft, most of the 18-25 year olds don't own property, don't have kids of school age, aren't cognizant of their own mortality and therefore ignore Social Security. They are mostly healthy so Healthcare isn't as big an issue, they don't earn enough in wages for income tax to feel impactful... simply put, they don't vote because they aren't feeling the squeeze.

In the 60's kids voted in larger numbers, but we had a draft, and that meant there was a pretty dramatic 'squeeze' from the government.

When Americans start to pay mortgages, have kids in schools that are funded by property taxes, start having health issues, etc. they start to vote.

You know who votes the most? Old people on fixed incomes! They vote because they have time, and the government now affects nearly every aspect of their lives - and even how they distribute assets after their death.

So while you might think the system is weird, it's truly a very logical process based on level of impact and interest.

As to whether I personally like it, I'm mixed. I think that turning campaign money into a volume business reduces the ability of Members to keep abreast of legislation. It means that fundraisers become not only a source of money, but also of information. You contribute not to "buy him off" but to have access to his 'ear'. Part of me is ok with this b/c when you reach into your pocket and write a personal check, this sends a message that you care VERY deeply about a subject - and maybe you need to be heard.

But I have no good answer on how you free up Members to spend more time not just listening to all voices, including the corporations who employ people and make our current economic model function, but also

Worthington's Law

[poopdeville]

This is called Worthington's Law.

Their journey to the dark side is nearly complete

[Anonymous Coward]

Now all they need is astroturfers on slashdot ;)

Thank god !

[unity100]

Back last year when the anti-net neutrality shit hit the fan, courtesy of at&t again, i said that these kind of things were possible to thwart more easily with lobbying. If there was sufficient lobby of google, yahoo and the like back then this thing would never come around even. Good to see that they have understood what to do and going for it. If, a country is run by representatives who are persuaded/bought, you need to stick to the custom yourself to get things done too.

Evil, for want of a better word, is Good

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> Google is building a lobbying power house in Washington

Google is so rich they why don't they just buy Dick Chenney? They can afford him, and not like he's not for sale. He can also lend his expert skills to filling in that void left by the ever shrinking 'Don't do Evil' motto. You'll get FOXNews and the rebranded Wall Street Journal thrown in for free.

The result would be excellent PR: Within six months 56% of Americans will believe Microsoft was behind the 9-11 attacks. Look out for Photoshopped photos of Osama bin Laden swinging a chair.

Re:Evil, for want of a better word, is Good

[IGnatius T Foobar]

The result would be excellent PR: Within six months 56% of Americans will believe Microsoft was behind the 9-11 attacks.

Umm, dude, Microsoft was behind the 9-11 attacks. Ballmer and Gates were so angry over Wall Street's use of Linux in their data centers that they called their buddy Osama bin Laden to drop a couple of skyscrapers in the financial district.

hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone explain how we know that google is not a government project?

Reform!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly why we need political reform.

My suggestion is simple.
If you can't vote in an election legally, then you shouldn't be allowed to contribute campaign dollars. This doesn't prevent Google or Microsoft or "Kill, Kill the baby Whales" from having a say, they just can't give real money or in-kind donations (free food, free trips, free cars, OR free cash).

Who can vote?
        * Special Interest Groups - nope.
        * National Parties - nope.
        * Corporations - nope.
        * Illegal Aliens - nope.
        * Dead People - nope.
        * Registered Citizens in the county, city, and/or state for the election? YES!

There needs to be a contribution limit per voter, per election. I don't know what it is, but if an average voter might contribute $100, then perhaps $50,000 would be a reasonable limit for anyone? We don't want to infringe on anyone's right to free speach, but we don't want anyone buying an election either.

We need for the politicians to pay attention to the people they represent, not the biggest money from anywhere - including overseas!

Sound reasonable?

Re:Yep. They're evil...

[BlackCobra43]

Most tobacco companies have hundreds of lobbyists in order to influence a large number of both House and Senate representatives. It's not usually 1:1 either; they gang up on 'em.

Sickening

[moeinvt]

I don't blame Google one bit, but this whole story is a sickening testament to the blatant corruption afflicting this government.

"As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress."

When PAYING for access to elected officials is treated as business as usual by the press, without the slightest hint of disdain or outrage, it's a clear sign that the nation is in trouble. It's obvious that Google can and MUST (as a matter of business) rectify that situation by greasing a few palms and dropping some strategic campaign donations.

I suspected this all along, but it's equally appalling to know that it was Microsoft's failure to pay "protection money" that prompted the government anti-trust crackdown. Apparently, the message from DC is "play the big money politics game or suffer the consequences".

It's interesting that the mafia is always portrayed as evil for extorting protection money and running numbers games, when the government does the same damned thing in the guise of "campaign contributions" and "lotteries".

The way to end this cycle of corruption is to extract the money and the power from Washington. If this government was ~20% of its current size and focused on the core mission outlined in The Constitution, many of the issues related to big-money influence in DC would take care of themselves.

Re:Sickening

[Jeremi]

The way to end this cycle of corruption is to extract the money and the power from Washington. If this government was ~20% of its current size and focused on the core mission outlined in The Constitution, many of the issues related to big-money influence in DC would take care of themselves.

Of course, the people with the power to make that change (i.e. the elected officials) are by definition the ones who benefitted most from the status quo. Convincing them to bite the hand that feeds them is therefore quite difficult. Catch-22 :^(

Mods on crack again?

[coolGuyZak]

The GP is modded insightful, which is outright wrong. While the GP may be funny, he conflates a google search with google's opinion. The parent post points this out, and is modded flamebait? The parent should be modded insightful or interesting, not the GP.

Re:Mods on crack again?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree it should have been moderated Funny (which is what I intended) but I shouldn't be dropped into oblivion due to bad moderation by someone else.

Re:Mods on crack again?

[coolGuyZak]

That's what the "overrated" moderation is for. I was going for the other way around: get him out of flamebait zone, coz he didn't deserve it. The mistaken post gets modded up as "collateral damage". Modding you down would remove the applicability of my response anyway. ;)

And that's how democracy died.

[Snaller]

Of course it did a long time ago really.

I hate Americas' lame attempt at democracy

[hswerdfe]

All hail the plutocracy of the United Dollars of America.
One Dollar one vote.

Typical "conservate" answer

[Anonymous Coward]

He must be a conservative: his answer to doing anything in government is hiring lobbyists.

Maybe Google is thinking all the info they are giving the CIA should give them some kind of political capital.

Do no evil!!

[DrugCheese]

Just because bribery in this country is legal does not make it less evil

Scary....

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how easy Google found it to assist the repressive government of China in censoring free speech and given their corporate zeal to violate the copyright of authors without even bothering to seen permission, this is scary news. I dropped Google News when it became obvious that they were biasing what displayed first to favor the official Chinese government news agency.

Google has replaced Microsoft as the technology company to distrust and their close relationship with Apple is more than a little troubling. "Do be evil" (or at least jump in bed with those who're evil) seems to be their corporate policy and greed is obviously their motivation. And given the sick state of Congress (both parties), they're likely to a lot of harm with their lobbying. Not good. Not good at all.

Ned? Is that you?

[El Kevbo]

"We're seeking to do public policy advocacy in a Googley way," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's director of public policy and government affairs.

Unless you're quoting Ned Flanders, use of the word "googley" should be forbidden.

Re:Yep. They're evil...

[j79zlr]

I think your sarcasm detector is broken. Please purchase another one. Thank You.

So bribery is OK as long as everyone's doing it?

[SEMW]

I find it absolutely mindboggling that not only has this been advanced as a serious suggestion, but enough people apparently agree with you that you've been modded up to +5 without anyone taking issue with it. Individuals bribing elected representatives is every bit as morally corrupt as companies doing so (and anyone who tried to claim that promising campaign contributions in return for votes on legislation isn't bribery needs to go look up bribery in a dictionary).

Else what the hell's the point of having a representative democracy in the first place? The whole idea of electing a representative to speak and vote on your behalf is rather lost is the representative then goes and votes on the basis who whoever promises them more money on each piece of legislation! Unless you perhaps think we should cut out the middle man, junk the whole democracy idea, and declare a plutocracy, with all legislation decided on the basis of some kind of pecunial referendum?

jews

[Anonymous Coward]

jews run google, jews run america, so everything works out fine.

Re:So bribery is OK as long as everyone's doing it

[ardle]

Anyway, all the corporations would need to do is bribe individuals, rather than those they elect. Probably happening subtly already in industrialised societies (notice how "green" the oil companies' advertisements are these days; well it's ok to keep on burning stuff then, they got it all under control), less so elsewhere.

A bought-out majority of individuals is capable of drowning the voice of a worthy minority, whatever the forum.

I can only imagine decentralised decision-making succeeding if an individual were deciding where their tax money went (dividing their tax across a mind-map of issues and/or services) and even then there would need to be some kind of external control on the weighting an individual could apply (maybe over an extended period). If they could control how their money was spent locally, they would be less likely to pay grants to corporations that screw individuals or for bombs to be dropped on another country (statistically).

Actually, they're not paying for it, are they? How much of all this recent aggression has been funded by debt? Governments are living beyond their means in order to do right. Who is the money borrowed from again? These people understand, don't they, that doing the right thing is more important than money?

Anyway, who's gonna lobby for all these wacky ideas?

Re:So bribery is OK as long as everyone's doing it

[jasonjacks0n]

Individuals bribing elected representatives is every bit as morally corrupt as companies doing so

I don't really disagree with your statement, as you've stated it, but IMHO the "non-PAC" the GP described isn't really "individuals bribing". It's closer in sentiment to publically-funded elections (but with a free-market approach).

With the large number of voters involved that he's implying, I don't think the non-PAC would represent any "special interests" - more like the "general interest", to coin a term. It would be more to counter (and reduce the meaningfulness/impact) of special-interest money.

I'm partially playing devil's advocate here, so let me just throw in another point: our system (assuming you're American) now seems to be run by moneyed interests. Not ideal, but given that situation, a pragmatic approach may be in order. And if you're not willing to cough up a few (extra) bucks in support of your positions, how important could they really be to you?

It's something to think about, at the very least, rather than dismissing out of hand.

Re:So bribery is OK as long as everyone's doing it

[sir_montag]

"Else what the hell's the point of having a representative democracy in the first place? The whole idea of electing a representative to speak and vote on your behalf is rather lost is the representative then goes and votes on the basis who whoever promises them more money on each piece of legislation!"

Because in effect, the genie is already out of the bottle. There's no going back. Bribes that are semi-public are much better than deals no one knows about.

If the rules for winning change in a game, you adjust your strategy. Of course, this is if you value winning over all else. One can argue from a high position of ethical authority that 'but this isn't the way things SHOULD be!!'. However, notice the fact that the statement admits that things have changed. They're not going to change back without some amazingly compelling reason to do so. And money wins out over a sound ethical position any day.

The trick is to simply minimize the damage (of corruption) and come up with the best strategy that puts your interests on top. If it involves soft bribes (aka 'Lobbying'), so be it. Having the ethical high ground is of no real use aside from the warm fuzzies it generates.