Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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?
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)
The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
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.
Googling-Money Oogling-Paige Congressional Overlords!
-WtC
Creator of RPerl, Scouter, Juggler, Mormon, Perl Monger, Serial Entrepreneur, Aspiring Astrophysicist, Community Organiz
In Soviet Russia, Google controls the government.
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.
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 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.
*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?
With the difference being that they actually provide a useful service while doing so.
Would be very useful, Google. Maybe one of those nifty "email new search results" to give us heads up on potentially destructive politics?
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?
12 lobbyists. Wow. Sounds like something a Tobacco company would need.
Don't worry, Google's lobbying office's motto is: "Do no lobbying".
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
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.
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!
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
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?
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.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
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.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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.
This is called Worthington's Law.
After all, I am strangely colored.
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.
Read radical news here
> 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.
I believe that's why the GP AC said, "...that we pretend is...".
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
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?
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.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
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.
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.
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.
Of course it did a long time ago really.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
All hail the plutocracy of the United Dollars of America.
One Dollar one vote.
--meh--
Just because bribery in this country is legal does not make it less evil
*DrugCheese rants*
"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.
I think your sarcasm detector is broken. Please purchase another one. Thank You.
I'm not not licking toads.
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?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
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?
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.
This space intentionally left blank.
"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.