Slashdot Mirror
Google Leads Among Consumer Tech Companies Lobbying Congress
Nerval's Lobster writes "Google is still the tech company that spends most lavishly to make its influence known in Washington, D.C., according to a report analyzing the lobbying activity of technology firms. Using data from disclosure forms filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the oversight group Consumer Watchdog added up the efforts of tech-company representatives to get in front of lawmakers and state their employers' case. Facebook's spending on lobbying rose 47 percent between 2012 and 2013, from $980,000 during the third quarter of 2012 to 1.4 million during 2013. Microsoft also boosted its spending by 20 percent, from $1.9 million in 2012 to $2.2 million during the third quarter of this year. Google cut its spending on lobbyists, but still spent $3.4 million during the third quarter – three times what Facebook spent during the same quarter. Apple's lobbying efforts shot up 111 percent between the third quarter of 2012 and 2013, but still amounted to only $970,000 this year. Cisco Systems spent $890,000; IBM spent $1.18 million; Intel spent $980,000 and Oracle spent $1.36 million. Though telecommunications firms are in a separate category, Google still outspent Verizon (down 2 percent, to $3.04 million) and Verizon Wireless (up 19 percent, to $1.2 million). It was trumped by AT&T (up 23 percent, to $4.3 million)."
And I thought bribes were illegal.
Lobbying should be outlawed, because it's doesn't fairly represent the people. Laws shouldn't be introduced or passed because a lot of money is throw at the law makers.
Problem is, if Google doesn't spend the money, then the other companies that are spending the money are going to be heard, not Google.
Bullshit system that needs to be outlawed.
Be seeing you...
if Google is really the one spending the most. Could it be that they are just doing so more transparently than most, rather than obfuscating their lobbying by way of various third parties? I have no real knowledge of the specifics of what they're doing but it seems to be Google's style to be somewhat less sneaky than their peers.
While I agree with you, I can't blame these mega-corporations. Lawmakers have a tendency to pass laws that would crush private industries unless they intervened. My guess is that most of this money isn't spent trying to push some agenda, they're simply trying to protect their business from meddlesome lawmakers.
We'll need a government that doesn't screw with the private industry before the private industry agrees to stop screwing with the government.
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
I know this is a a bash Google article *sigh* (personally I quite shocked at how cheap Apple is...maybe not), but is anyone really shocked at how small the amounts are. Ignoring the fact that these amounts are peanuts to these companies; a few million protecting literally trillions in cash!? These amounts are smaller than many kickstarters. How about a kickstarter lobby congress for real tax laws, buy local hardware in government institutions, hell its cheap enough to have a open source or even better open standards mandated. I am going to stop there as mind is suddenly filling itself with ideas both ridiculous and nefarious. no pants fridays...and nuke france.
How about some results scaled by sales or by total assets? Google is big, so should spend the most.
Which explains why, in the 1950's and 60's for example, when spending on lobbyists was a fraction of what it is today, the economy was destroyed by laws that crushed private industries. Or was it one of the biggest growth period in our country's history? I forget. Screw it - ideological assumptions trump facts.
Those companies that you referred to generally made money by manufacturing products and selling them for a profit. That is not what Google does. It sells its hardware products at around cost (ex Nexus). It gives away its software (ex Android). It makes money off of services, in particular targeted advertising based on its monitoring of users (Search, Gmail, etc).
Google's business is **highly** vulnerable to potential legislation. Public sentiment is running a bit high against corporate (and gov't) "snooping" on individuals. Any restrictions on how a company can monitor or collect information on consumers could be quite harmful to Google's revenue. It makes great business sense to be in DC to head off or steer such "privacy" legislation in a manner that preserves Google's ability to monitor users.