Ex-Googler Obama Appointee Gets Buzz'ed

theodp writes "Hillicon Valley reports that Rep. Darrell Issa of the House Oversight Committee is pressing White House Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin to explain his relationship with Google, where McLaughlin was employed as Google's chief lobbyist. 'The American people have a right to expect that White House employees are working to advance the public interest and not the interests of the lobby shops who formerly employed them,' Issa noted in the letter. 'The use of a Gmail account to communicate with lobbyists and evade transparency laws is at odds with President Obama's promises to limit the influence of lobbyists.' Concerns emerged after screenshots of McLaughlin's Google Buzz account emerged showing that a number of the search giant's top employees subscribed to the deputy Web chief's updates."

Comments

No lobbyists ...except mine.

[sycodon]

How many former lobbyists have been exempted from the no lobbyist rule now?

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[phantomfive]

Come on man, that guy driving the Toyota was as likely as not lying about it. In any case Toyota doesn't seem to be a significant donor. Neither is Google, which may be part of the problem. Microsoft, on the other hand, is, along with Raytheon.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[erroneus]

Without a doubt, it would be very difficult to put someone into a position like CIO without the person having had much in the way of experience with large and successful companies. If they selected someone that was not of that sort, they would be asking some other very serious questions like "what makes you qualified for this position?"

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[delvsional]

Come on man, that guy driving the Toyota was as likely as not lying about it. In any case Toyota doesn't seem to be a significant donor. Neither is Google, which may be part of the problem. Microsoft, on the other hand, is, along with Raytheon.

There is absolutely no reason that a company should be allowed to donate to a politician's political campaign or the government. Taxes are one thing but donations make obvious strings

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[eudaemon]

I'm afraid that argument was lost when "they" decided corporations are people, and more recently created a ruling that allows corporations to run for office. I happen to agree with you, but there it is.

There's actually a corporate policy that prevents me from naming my employer publicly (LOL) but they shamelessly and regularly plug their PAC via company e-mail trying to raise donations. But frankly what's in the best interest of any large corporate is rarely in the best interest of the consumer; most corporations simply want to suppress the competition and dominate their respective markets to maximize profitability... economics 101 but the consumer pays when these corporations "win" and dominate their markets.
We live in interesting times when an entity is required by the document that creates it to conduct itself amorally, and by that I mean that ponderous bromide "maximize shareholder profits" which is used to justify all kinds of corporate misbehavior that would never be tolerated in individuals.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[zippthorne]

He didn't say he'd hire zero lobbyists. He said he wouldn't hire a lot of lobbyists. As in, of the field of lobbyists, most would not be getting a job offer in the Obama administration. Depending on how many positions there are to fill, he could hire 100% lobbyists and still fail to hire the vast majority of them.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[phantomfive]

It wouldn't make a difference. If companies couldn't donate to campaigns, wealthy individuals would take their place. There's always someone with a purse who is willing to influence government. As far as direct donations go, the campaign donations from individual companies are not that huge. If a thousand or so blue collar workers got together to form an organization, they could easily out-donate the biggest donor to Mr Issa, which this year was $17,000. That would only be $17 each, very doable.

Complaining about corporate donations is really just a complaint about lack of citizen participation. The fact is, in a democracy, if the citizens don't pay attention, the people who are paying attention will get what they want. This is what's happened in America.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[__aasqbs9791]

And having seen that exact effect with FEMA, this really is a catch-22 situation. They have to hire someone qualified (with a proven track record) whose never worked for anyone before. That might be a problem.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[Immortal Poet]

"They... created a ruling that allows corporations to run for office"

Perhaps you should actually read the article before you link to it. A public relations firm announced they are running for office, true. Also true is that it is part of a publicity stunt to A) call attention to the potential implications of corporations gaining personhood from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and B) raise their own public image as an effective PR firm. No one created a ruling - whatever that means - and quite probably, no one is going to allow Murray Hill, Inc. to run for the House, no matter how hilarious it might be.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[jdigriz]

People always claim that if such-and-such would happen, 'x would move'. Or 'capital would flee; Well, sure, if you only change one thing, in your quest to reform the world. The reason the pro-corporate faction is always "Rah, rah free trade" is exactly so they have that option. to hold no allegiance to any country, and to flee if the People get uppity. If, at the same time you enact your other reforms, you reenact the capital controls that used to exist and you embargo trade with any corporation that pulls up stakes and leaves, then they're stuck. The megacorps need access to the largest (by dollar value) economy in the world. They'll fold like Glass Joe if we stand up to them. But people are surprisingly cowardly when it comes to the moneyed classes.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[mi]

He didn't say he'd hire zero lobbyists. He said he wouldn't hire a lot of lobbyists.

Weaselese...

As in, of the field of lobbyists, most would not be getting a job offer in the Obama administration.

Meaningless. There are tens of thousands of lobbyists in the US. Even if Obama staffed (stuffed?) his White House only with lobbyists, most of the the lobbyists would not have a job offer from him.

Here is, what he declared on the first day in the office though — already a change of tone from the election campaign:

In what ethics-in-government advocates described as a particularly far-reaching move, Mr. Obama barred officials of his administration from lobbying their former colleagues "for as long as I am president." He barred former lobbyists from working for agencies they had lobbied within the past two years and required them to recuse themselves from issues they had handled during that time.

That policy was immediately violated:

Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

And the list keeps growing...

It would've all been fine, of course — the President is entitled to pick anyone for his Administration (save for a few posts, which must be approved by Congress), but his pre-election grandstanding is now hurting him — despite your and yours best efforts.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[FiloEleven]

Without a doubt, it would be very difficult to put someone into a position like CIO without the person having had much in the way of experience with large and successful companies. If they selected someone that was not of that sort, they would be asking some other very serious questions like "what makes you qualified for this position?"

This argument might have merit except that he was employed by Google as a lobbyist. He will be aware of new technologies, but only those developed by Google.

Re:No lobbyists ...except mine.

[the_other_chewey]

This argument might have merit except that he was employed by Google as a lobbyist. He will be aware of new technologies, but only those developed by Google.

Huh? Why? A good lobbyist better be aware of the stuff the competition is up to.

Yawn

[Mathinker]

> ... is at odds with President Obama's promises

Reality is at odds with (many of) President Obama's promises.

Details at 11.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

You know its funny how outraged people get over appointments. Guess what. Each party has its set of 'experts'. Many have been around for 20-60 years in various positions in the government and private industry. When their party is out of favor they get cushy jobs at some company and wait for the tide to come back around.

These dudes are professional politicians.

When the republican party is back in favor (and it will be) they will trot out their group of experts to fill all those positions. Just as the Democrats have done in the past year or two.

What do people honestly think these guys do while they are not in some sort of official office? They are helping some company weave its way thru the corridors of power. They are helping write up bills that they can give to their buddies in congress to get passed.

I think it is funny that people are actually shocked that this is going on. The American government is about favors. Not about actually helping anyone... That gigantic healthcare bill that just passed? You dont think it was 1200 pages just because it was that hard to do? No. I would be large portions of it is little 'I will vote for it if you put my pet project in' type things. The reason you didnt see any republicans voting for it was because the Democrats didnt want to owe any favors to them, not because they were actually listening to their constituents. Just as the republicans did in 2001 with the tax bill.

Re:Yawn

[B1oodAnge1]

I think it is funny that people are actually shocked that this is going on.

I'm not at all shocked.
I am fucking pissed though, and you should be too.

Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[kimvette]

Maybe the automatic opt-in of Buzz isn't so evil after all!

--Kim

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[pcolaman]

Let's be fair. The Bush administration got raked over the coals (rightly so) for using private webmail accounts to keep a lot of internal discussions off of public records. That's a big no-no. The Obama administration doing it is no more right than any other administration doing it. Keep the personal email for personal use. But it shouldn't be used for government business. Chances of him not using it at all for business related to his position within the Obama administration: Probably greater than 50% is what I'm guessing. If he's got nothing to hide, he should let a private auditor go over his gmail account to ensure that nothing government business related is on the gmail account, and if there is anything there government business related, he should disclose this and make those emails part of the White House document chain.

Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil!

[macshit]

No doubt, but from the description, there doesn't really seem to be any indication that he's done anything bad.

It reads more like grand-standing by some random Republican trying to smear by insinuation ("the Bush administration intentionally used private email accounts to bypass public accountability laws ... therefore if someone in the Obama administration merely has a private email account, they must be doing the same thing!").

lolwut?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ex-Googler Obama Appointee Gets Buzz'ed"
That realy sound like babble from a far, far future...

"Don't worry, scrote. There are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick-ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now."

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[zill]

No one mentioned anything regarding illegal activities. The congressmen is simply asking Mr. McLaughlin to explain himself. There's no accusation of criminal activity at all in this case.

Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas

[pcolaman]

The sad thing is people don't expect this at all. They hope for it, but they certainly (mostly) know better than to expect it. Obama's brand of change is no different than the brand of change pushed by any politician who's ever promised "change." The only difference is more people are willingly allowing the proverbial wool to be pulled over their eyes.

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[pcolaman]

I am not and have never been a Google employee.

So you are saying you are evil?

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[Miseph]

On the contrary, doing that in a public, official way IS making such an accusation. Reporting it in this way is a means of making the current administration look corrupt. The entire thing is most likely going to come to naught (but hey, if it turns out the guy is dirty, great), but any time it can be stuck into the back of people's minds that "Obama is corrupt", there are many people who will attempt to do so. If there is nothing to it, nobody will ever hear about it again anyway.

This is not new, nor is it unique to Obama. For some reason people seem much more eager to jump on any potential issue, no matter how trivial, with him than most, but the principle is the same.

I wonder if he cut off his friends on Facebook

[OctaviusIII]

WTF? The fuss makes no sense for a number of reasons: 1) A former high-level Google official has emailed other high-level Google officials through his Gmail account, and is probably friends with them.
2) High-level Google officials will be interested to see what the CTO of the Executive Branch is up to, no matter who that CTO is.
3) This needs to be kept an eye on, but is not indicative of endemic corruption by any stretch. Get a grip, folks!

Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda!

[Miseph]

"1) You seem to think that the current administration ISN'T corrupt.'

I've seen nothing to credibly indicate that it is particularly corrupt. Corruption is nearly universal to social constructs, including governments, businesses, clubs, schools, consortiums, and even informal groups of friends... it is, in some form, almost omnipresent. The question isn't whether or not the current administration is corrupt, it is to what extent it is corrupt, and to what extent it is more or less corrupt than others. In my opinion, there is insufficient credible evidence to conclude that it is notably more corrupt than other presidential administrations I can recall. This is not even remotely the same thing as concluding that there is no corruption.

"2) The political news media types jump on any potential issue, no matter how trivial, and no matter who it's about, because scandal brings ratings"

Yes, that was pretty much what I said... How am I fooling myself again?

Re:Personal account?

[e9th]

If Bush/Cheney did it, does that somehow make what McLaughlin allegedly did okay?

WTF? Buzz'ed?

[edittard]

Is this some new rule about apostrophe usage? I tell you what, I'll be pretty piss'ed if there was a memo and I miss'ed it or it whizz'ed over my head.