Following Tech's Money Trail In Washington

snydeq writes "Having outlayed $111 million to gain political influence in 2009, the tech industry is clearly learning how to play the lobbying game, writes InfoWorld's Bill Snyder. And while longtime lobbying stalwart General Motors nearly outspent the tech industry on its own, the rise of lobbying among tech giants, especially those under antitrust scrutiny, is staggering. Google, which has been drawing interest from the feds over its online advertising business, has increased its efforts twelve-fold in the past four years. And while Google frames its sudden increased interest in Washington as a matter of growth inspiring greater civic responsibility, the company may find itself sucked further into Washington, now that it is party to an international spat involving both the US and Chinese governments. Among those that top the list of tech lobbyists, Oracle, Intel, and Microsoft all have come under scrutiny in the past year, with Intel accused of monopolistic practices and Oracle requiring sign off on its merger with Sun."

Comments

Just what we need in DC...

[Pojut]

...more influence bought by money.

Re:Just what we need in DC...

[XanC]

I'm assuming that you're advocating stricter rules on campaigning, more restrictions on speech and donating, etc.

That's going after the symptom, not the cause. The cause is that government has too much power. As we descend into banana-republicanism, everybody with any interests has to play this defensive game. Because at any moment, they could find themselves a political target.

Restrict government to its constitutional duties, and suddenly these corporations have no reason to care what's going on in DC.

Re:Just what we need in DC...

[twidarkling]

Restrict government to its constitutional duties, and suddenly these corporations have no reason to care what's going on in DC.

And that's where you'd get most of the argument coming from. What would qualify as a constitutional duty? As the world changes, should those duties change as well? Should they be explicitly demarcated, or loosely interpreted?

You've presented what seems like a simple, direct, excellent answer, but it's still as much of a minefield as anything else. But I'm Canadian, what do I care? You guys are just our largest trading partners, so I've no interest in your well-being as a nation. ;)

Re:Just what we need in DC...

[trout007]

I don't know if you have ever read the US Constitution. The powers of each branch are explicitly demarcated. The meaning of the Constitution should never change. If the people think something is important enough to change we have a way to amend the constitution. If enough people think the government should have a power it doesn't currently have we can easily give them or take away those powers. People actually used to respect it. For instance we had an amendment to prohibit alcohol. We then passed another amendment to repeal that one. But now we let the government prohibit all sorts of things without an expressed authority.

Re:Just what we need in DC...

[thomst]

I think we need to work for a constitutional amendment, to basically say a corporation is NOT a person with 'speech rights'.

Good luck with that.

I think we need a number of other constitutional amendments, too, including one specifically guaranteeing a right to individual privacy - but I'm not holding my breath, because, according to Article 5, there are two and only two mechanisms in the U.S. constitution for amending same:

1. Congress (both houses) must pass a proposed amendment by a 2/3 majority, and that amendment must then be ratified by 3/4 of the individual state legislatures or state constitutional conventions, or

2. On petition by 2/3 of the states' legislatures, a national constitutional convention can be convened for the purpose of proposing amendments, which then must be ratified as above.

Note that Congress - which is the body the amendment you're proposing to regulate thereby - is unlikely in extremis to pass such an amendment even by majority vote, much less by a supermajority, and that a constitutional convention isn't going to happen, either.

Thomas Jefferson opined, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants." I'd say that nowadays the blood of lobbyists and machine politicians would make a good substitute "natural manure."

Trust me, your mileage won't vary.

MS Lobbyists

[bsDaemon]

Back in 2007-2008, I was doing lobbying work for an non-profit organization. At one event for a certain congressman from Iowa, I was seated between a lobbyist from Northrop-Grumman and a lobbyist from Microsoft (incidentally, I was across from a sugar industry lobbyist, and ended up getting into a separate argument with him about tariffs on sugar being why we have to use hfcs in soda and whatnot, but that's irrelevant).

During the lunch, I got into a conversation with the MS lobbyist and asked him if he thought it would be worth it to upgrade from XP to Vista on my laptop, to which he replied "do you still have the XP disks that came with the computer?" "No," I said, "I got the laptop as part of the compensation from my last contract and it didn't come with the disks." "Well, then," he replied "I'd just leave well enough alone since you won't be able to go back when things go wrong."

Frankly, it was one of the most sensible things that I'd heard anyone say then entire time I was in D.C.

Re:MS Lobbyists

[__aaclcg7560]

After the big anti-trust trial, MS was paying $200 million or more per year for lobbyists. Why? Because Washington can't ignore a company with $25 billion in the corporate treasury. If a tree has money, the politicians will shake it hard.

And in other news...

[hyades1]

The anticipated increase in demand for lobbyists has led to a sharp rise in the NYSE, apparently in response to higher stock prices in the weasel breeding industry. Revised tipping fees at local dumps are also expected to change as the unfilled demand for lobbyists increases "landfill mining" to recover used sanitary products.

Observers say both source streams should be on-line and supplying lobbyists within the year.

s/lobby/brib/

[Hurricane78]

“lobbying” is nothing else, than a euphemism for bribing. Which would be equal to treason for the politician, if that were not changed trough... you guessed it... bribing.
Which would mean at least a decade of well-deserved prison or death penalty, in most law systems.

Yay. “But it’s just lobbying. It’s normal.”
No, it’s not! Way to twist reality...

Paging Wesley Mouch... Mr. Mouch...

[inviolet]

It doesn't take long for an industry to develop (or simply realize) the reality that it is cheaper to lobby the government to ban your competitors than it is to out-compete them (or become commoditized). Even the good guys have to pay, because even if they are not seeking government protection, their competitors are.

If you allow the government any control over economic activity, for totally virtuous reasons, you'll end up here. Eventually it becomes more profitable to regulate (i.e. to destroy) than to produce. At which time a cultural reboot is necessary.

Re:Paging Wesley Mouch... Mr. Mouch...

[blahplusplus]

"If you allow the government any control over economic activity, for totally virtuous reasons, you'll end up here"

The same thing happens without government, cartels, monopolies, and corruption. You're just transfering governing power from one institution to the next, this is what is lost on free market extremists. Everything will not be ok if we just let it be. Human beings are the problem.

Re:The corruption is scary.

[Jeremy Erwin]

The U.S. government consistently spends money it doesn't have, and is has more debt per citizen than any country in the history of the world.

Wrong.

Re:The corruption is scary.

[toastar]

The U.S. government has 6 times the percentage of its citizens in prison of any other country in the history of the world.

Well, Most other oppressive governments just kill their opposition.