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?
Unless you are a class b share holder, forget about forcing Google to do anything, and most class b stock is in founder hands and does not trade
Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
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.
Yep, it wasn't that long ago that business people were calling Google naive for not spending money on propagandists...err..lobbyists.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
What is this another case of beat up random people that you can because you can't get the ones you want ?
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de...
There you go, as of 2011 China is at 27% of the emissions and still growing in both percentage and absolute amount.
Maybe these people need to disinvest in China and stop buying Chinese products ? Or maybe they just have some sort of a grudge they are pursuing by other means.
It pretty much doesn't damn well matter. The investors can want whatever they want, and it won't matter.
Between Sergey, Larry, and Eric, they control more than 50% of the voting stock, and therefore they control the board, and the investors can go pound sand for all of the real fiscal influence they have on the company. The can more or less just shut up and take their profits on the rise of the non-voting stock price, or they can sell their stock and let someone else take the profits.
PS: I notice no one has mentioned the fact that a lot of the charitable organizations they are giving to are 501(c)(3)'s, and they represent matching contributions for contributions by employees:
"Google will match employee donations from a minimum gift of $50 up to $6,000 per donor per year."
https://doublethedonation.com/...
Hey, don't get in the way of Taco Cowboy's Libertarian leanings, 'cause he is a true believer that government can't do anything right
I am just waiting to see evidence of a private company discovering a way to profit by NOT turning the world into an unlivable cesspool
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Conrad Black was convicted of fraud. The situation with Google is entirely different.
They have a contract with their employees for matching charitable contributions. This is a significant employee benefit.
It's asinine to insist that all of Google's employees be Social Democrats, Green Party, or any other single political block. They are a diverse group, and they will support a diverse set of causes, as diverse groups of people do.
Sergey, Larry, and Eric have been reasonable custodians of their company in an environment where, had it been possible for them to do so, an activist investor like a Carl Icahn, T. Boone Pickens, Jr., or like Starboard Value LP had taken over the entire Darden board, and basically killed Olive Garden (U.S. same-store sales slid 1.3% last quarter).
Activist investors are more generally Gordon Gecko's than they are people who want to help grow the business. It's pretty clear that Starboard fully intends to spin off the Darden group Real Estate holding as a separate liquidation, which will increase the per-store flooring costs. This was in fact a key point of their presentations to shareholders: take short term profit for long term loss (but by then you've sold out to some sucker who is only looking at quarter over quarter profits, one quarter deep).
God help Google if someone like Icahn or Einhorn gets his hooks as deeply into Google as both of them have gotten their hooks into Apple.
How much do other companies give, when you add it all up?
I know Microsoft gives to so-called "think tanks" to scientifically prove their propaganda is true.
Does Microsoft use it's money, and influence, to have smear campaigns published?
When I see Google singled out like this, I suspect a smear campaign, rather than a neutral party trying to inform the public.
That sells marketing information and sort sometimes produces software. So totally Web 2.0.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
When I see Google singled out like this, I suspect a smear campaign, rather than a neutral party trying to inform the public.
This is Santa Claus, I'm making a list and checking it twice. Right now we're checking Google. Because 'G' comes before 'I' and 'M'. Apple is getting a lump of coal for Q4'15.
So big companies corrupt politicians and organisations like FIFA, and nobody complains. Corruption flourishes because some entities propose money to people unable to say no. Both sides should be investigated by justice, but curiously little is done against big companies.
Sure, and those companies operate under supervision of laws that make those things possible
Look at water rights for example. British common law developed due to competitive use of water by different groups, agricultural, industrial and domestic. As a result the laws regulated how each land owner could affect the water running through their property. This is a very effective form of government control and is the model for water law that is followed in the US
On the other hand Spanish water law had a top-down approach where the people upstream could have greater control over the water and either not let it flow through or pollute what left their property. This has proven unworkable and Spain has gone through major reforms to modernize their water laws
Government control keeps companies from abusing each other, the public and the environment. That is why the Earth is still liveable and not a cesspool
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Government control keeps companies from abusing each other, the public and the environment
Blasphemy. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand is turning in its grave.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
It's all about the climate change nutballs trying to stop ANYONE that disagrees with them. Heck they already want climate change deniers put to death.
I'm guessing you don't have any citations for that?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Actively avoiding scientific data like that from the Magellan project?
?
Two of the top ten hits suggests that this refers to a spacecraft that orbited Venus, so I assume that this is some reference to the Venus greenhouse effect?
https://www.google.com/search?...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
What is this another case of beat up random people that you can because you can't get the ones you want ? http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/de... There you go, as of 2011 China is at 27% of the emissions and still growing in both percentage and absolute amount. Maybe these people need to disinvest in China and stop buying Chinese products ? Or maybe they just have some sort of a grudge they are pursuing by other means.
(I will point out that this large number is only because China has such a large population. In terms of emission per person, USA beats them hands down)
Can't do that. China is, at this point, decades ahead of the US in renewable energy tech. There's no way we can address climate change in any reasonable timeframe without using Chinese products, at least in the near term. I don't know if China's huge investment in renewable tech is related to the fact that they don't have a Chamber of Commerce over there, I'll leave that for you to consider.
That is why climate change is a wicked hard problem: you can't solve it on your own-- it has to be a collaborative solution involving multiple countries.
And that, in turn, is why some people would rather deny that the problem exists rather than find a way to solve it: they have an ideology that says the US should never work in collaboration with other nations, not ever, not for any purpose. They don't have any mechanism in their ideology to solve the problem, so the only choice is to deny it exists.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com