Facebook Forming a PAC

DougDot writes "According to a recent SFGate article, 'Social networking giant Facebook is expanding its political footprint, confirming that it has filed the necessary paperwork to open a political action committee in advance of the 2012 elections. The move is the latest in a series of maneuvers boosting the Palo Alto company's political profile in recent years, joining a steady rise in lobbying spending, several high-profile fundraisers and the failed statewide candidacy of one of its key officers for attorney general last year.' With 800 million users in its social network, and with very deep pockets, we could have a new, powerful Congress-influencing entity steering American politics."

Comments

This will be highly successful

[Call Me Black Cloud]

"Senator, we were browsing through your Facebook messages and noticed a few interesting exchanges with 14 year old girls, your mother-in-law, and a llama rancher. I'm sure you can now see your way clear to vote against additional consumer privacy safeguards."

Re:This will be highly successful

[Bucky24]

Heh, facebook owns the database. They could CREATE the messages if they wanted to.

I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[damn_registrars]

After all, Facebook boy would probably happily spend millions to get his federal income taxes - all $300.18 that he paid - refunded to him.

Re:I'll bet he goes for the GOP

[ALeader71]

After all, Facebook boy would probably happily spend millions to get his federal income taxes - all $300.18 that he paid - refunded to him.

I bet he goes for both parties as a lot of PACs do today. Why limit yourself, when both parties are equally malleable? All he has to do is make a case for job creation and the politicians will line up to hear his pitch (after collecting the checks of course).

The Koch Bros of social networking

[countertrolling]

First on the agenda, make privacy illegal, and put anybody that desires it on the no-fly list and tag them as un-American terrorists

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are the odds that Facebook PAC will represent its users? About zero.

What are the chances that the sole purpose of this PAC is to loosen privacy laws so as to aid spying on it's users? Very high.

Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[Dragon Bait]

In 2008, Zuckerberg hosted Obama.

According to open secrets, Facebook employees support Democrats 97% of the time. But Zuckerberg personally hadn't donated enough to show up on the Fed's radar in 2008 or 2010.

Re:Probably neither party with Democratic leanings

[sanzibar]

attempt at /sarc or do you really believe the crap they sell u?

March 30, 1868 Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
October 7, 1868 Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
February 3, 1870 After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
April 20, 1871 Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
February 8, 1894 Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
August 18, 1920 Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
January 26, 1922 House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
October 3, 1924 Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
June 12, 1929 First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country
August 17, 1937 Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
August 8, 1945 Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
March 12, 1956 Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation
November 6, 1956 African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President
June 9, 1964 Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII
September 15, 1981 President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs

more... http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Re:Brilliant? Not.

[Dragon Bait]

The don't have much of a choice. It's either pay up you r lobbyists and campaign contributions, or be trampled. Politics has become a racket.

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. -- P. J. O'Rourke

An honest politician is one who, when he's bought, stays bought. -- Simon Cameron

I do not understand...

[cjcela]

..how many of the people posting take this so lightly. There should be outrage here. Companies bearing weight on congress is not a good idea, people. Maybe many of you are too young to see what is going on, but the idea is that the country is governed by the people and for the people, not by Mr. Facebook for his company. And while you have 20 seconds of laugh writing a funny post, your future is eroding right in front of your eyes, and you are completely oblivious to it...

Re:I do not understand...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Actually, the erosion I've noticed is in the awareness that it's people that form, invest in, work for, and patronize companies.

Actually, the erosion I've noticed is that some folks seem to forget (all too conveniently, it seems) that the people who form and invest in companies tend NOT to be the same people who work for them. And those who work for them quite are often not the same as those who buy the companies' products/services, either.

Re:I do not understand...

[cbope]

Agree. I suppose it's just that most Americans just don't give a shit anymore. As an American living abroad, I see far better protection of individual rights and freedoms in the EU. Which is ironic because Americans always tout their "freedom", but in reality you have little left. Following 9/11, it has nearly all been signed away in the name of fighting terrorism. Yet you still have weak government that caves to business interests on a daily basis. Strong government that is not fed by business is what is needed, but I'm afraid that is never going to happen because everyone in the US seems to be scared of "big government". As long as you continue to let the business interests control the politicians, it's not going to change, no matter who you vote for. Both the major parties are 100% guilty of this, and since the vast majority don't know how to vote for a non-democrat or non-republican candidate, you're pretty much screwed.

Re:I do not understand...

[dbet]

People are under-informed and outright lied to. The media reports what the government tells them to report. And they feel utterly powerless to do anything about it. No one cares that our armies are used as death squads, targeting civilians all over the world, to advance international business interests. No one cares that the president can legally murder any U.S. citizen with no judicial oversight. No one cares that the government uses "national security" to keep almost everything they do a secret from "the people" who are supposed to be informed about their government. No one cares that police who violate people's rights are never punished for it. No one cares that "corporations are people" means that a foreign corporation can have one satellite office in the U.S. and pump unlimited funds into American politics, meaning we legally allow our government to be run by non-Americans who have a few bucks to spare.

And please don't use the word "vote", because we try to, but the only two parties that are allowed air time and public campaign funds are the exact same party with or without the religion. And neither hears you. I honestly think a lot of these guys (and gals) want to do a good job, but they spend all day with people whispering in their ear, and those whispers aren't coming from "the people". And that's the worst part of it, that you have no voice. Your vote is supposed to be your voice, but it's not.

There's probably 5 or 6 members of congress in the last few years I've heard say anything outside the party talking points, they actually sound like people who know how to lead, know how to make things work. But they're drowning. Their peers are louder, and there's more of them, and they spend all year trying to shift their party's representation from 49% to 51%, all that time trying to KEEP their job rather than trying to DO their job.

Re:I do not understand...

[martas]

'cause they're all already jaded. Stephen Colbert is trying to show how ridiculous the influence of money in politics is, but he's having a really hard time doing anything more ridiculous than what is already the norm that everyone is used to. It's hard to be outraged 20 times a day, which is about the frequency with which stories like this seem to be coming out.

Re:I do not understand...

[AP31R0N]

What freedoms have i lost since 9/11, specifically?

AFACT, i've lost only the right to board a plane without taking off my shoes.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

More importantly, the parties switched positions on the issue. Funny how this list ends before getting to all the racist shit Reagan did.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

LOL I'm not even an American and I do know the history, and if it continues over the last 30 years, please point out where in the Reagan administration and later, Republicans have fought racism while Democrats have supported it. I'm all ears, eager to learn about what I've been unable to find so far.

Re:Conservative Democrats

[CanHasDIY]

The Republican Party has always stood for freedom, liberty and civil rights.

Yea! It's not like they singlehandedly passed the the most massive removal of civil rights in American history.

/sarc

Re:Conservative Democrats

[spazdor]

the damage the welfare state has done to the Black family

Yes, the Black family was absolutely undamaged before that!

Similarly, look at all the damage chemotherapy has done to cancer patients. They're so weak and hairless and stuff!

Re:Conservative Democrats

[GameboyRMH]

Well I had to work late and have to sleep real bad but I couldn't let the night go by with no content. So here's my section on the Reagan administration.

WILLFULLY IGNORANT IDEOLOGUES, LOOK AWAY! THE FOLLOWING IS BASED ON UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACTS WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED BY CALLING THEM PROPAGANDA OR LIES BECAUSE THEY WILL STILL BE UNDENIABLE HISTORICAL FACTS.

1980 - Ronald Reagan is elected, partly on a "state's rights" platform - at the time that phrase was a euphemism for allowing states to return to segregation, but Reagan's use of the phrase is controversial. Understanding what Reagan meant will be left as an exercise to the reader. Keep in mind that he always claimed that he was totally not racist and was deeply offended by such accusations.

During his presidency Reagan did not support the women's rights movement or any blacks' civil rights issues, except in his extensions to the Voting Rights Act (which he had verbally opposed beforehand) and Fair Housing Act. He opposed the establishment of MLK day and was only forced to sign it into law by a veto-proof majority. He considered the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional, and tried to veto the Civil Rights Restoration Act but was overridden. He also supported South Africa's apartheid regime and considered Jefferson Davis a personal hero of his.

I encourage anyone not familiar with those various acts to look them up, all conveniently linked within.