Slashdot Mirror
Investors Ask How Much Google Spends On Lobbying
Taco Cowboy writes: It has been estimated that Google has spent over $60 million on lobbying in Washington D.C. this year alone, and that figure does not include the money that Google gives to various trade organizations and "third party" groups. According to CNN: "On its website, Google lists 43 trade associations that it belongs to, such as the Ad Council and National Cyber Security Alliance, although it says that is a 'representative listing' and Google doesn't indicate how much money it gives these organizations. Google also has links to over 100 third-party groups like the AARP, Heritage Foundation and iKeepSafe that it 'provides support to.'" A group of Google investors are demanding that Google owns up to what they spend on and how much, and their push stems from one thing, and that thing is mainly connected to political correctness. It's public knowledge that Google contributes to the US Chamber of Commerce, and to some quarters, "the Chamber" is suffering from "Climate Change Denial Symptom" and they are doing their best to cut off any funding to "the Chamber" from Google.
When you need your investors to show you how to "do no evil" , wouldn't that mean it doesn't apply any longer?
Actually, Google could add a lot of value here.
They could create a vote buying system, much like their reverse auction ad bid system.
Have each senator put up the issues they are happy swing vote on and then have all the interest groups bid away.
It's probably the next logical step in what is effectively now a bribe based system of legislation.
46137
Because whatever they paid is about to cost them a whole lot more money and good will.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Seriously, has this term devolved to the point where it means promoting ANY idea that could be loosely considered left-leaning by the right wing fringe?
We're talking climate change. It's not an agenda--it's just science, it's neutral. If your policies stem from actively avoiding scientific data, your policies aren't going to be very good. Claiming that science has a leftist bias basically implies that there's no conservative way to deal with reality, and that's simply untrue.
And even IF we were talking about a liberal agenda, like, I dunno, single-payer healthcare or something... politically correct? Really? That's not the right term at all. Politically correct is about talking politely, using respectful terms for people, so that political discourse can happen without the discussion devolving into name-calling. Since the beginning, it's been a bit of a conservative boogeyman, some sort of proto-government-censorship (different only in that the government doesn't, you know, actually censor anything). To some degree, the demonization of the concept worked. People now no longer seem to spend much time before spouting an epithet or three, and political conversation goes nowhere fast.
So you're saying supporting policies that are informed by sound science is... er, politeness. No, really, maybe you should keep the political correctness boogeyman and the climate change boogeyman in separate corners, never to mingle again.
http://imgur.com/dXHWhNr
Do you see the red in that picture ? That's the CO2 mankind has added to the atmosphere. Color me unworried.
What an excellent standard for whether something is a problem! So, if, for example, the ocean levels rose 30 meters, inundating nearly every coastal city and displacing a majority of the human population, I could whip up a chart showing that the volume of water we added to the oceans is really actually just a tiny, barely noticeable red sliver compared to the rest of the water on the planet, and therefore my fellow refugees and I have nothing at all to worry about--almost as if it's not happening at all!