Google spent $18M lobbying DC in 2012
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Feb 2013 22:28 UTC, submitted by bowkota
In the News "The last time we looked at Silicon Valley's lobbying efforts, Google was the big spender and Apple the piker. That hasn't changed much in the past nine months. In fact, Google increased its political spending in 2012 - a Presidential election year - by nearly 90%, while Apple reduced its by 13%." Anti-SOPA or no, that's a hell of a lot of money. This should be illegal - it's thinly veiled corruption.
E-mail Print r 0   33 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/koa
Thread beginning with comment 552858
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
not veiled at all
by tomz on Mon 18th Feb 2013 22:58 UTC
tomz
Member since:
2010-05-06

The whole system is corrupt.

If Google didn't lobby, then their enemies would and are already winning some things.

Do you want to repeal the 17th amendment yet?

Unilateral disarmament is suicide.

If ANY corporation starts lobbying, the rest must.

Reply Score: 4

RE: not veiled at all
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Mon 18th Feb 2013 23:19 in reply to "not veiled at all"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Repeal the 17th? Heck no. My state is *more* corrupt than the Federal government. All of the gerrymandering that takes place to form the US house also exists at the state level. The direct election of senators is the one thing that results in good representation of my state.

I don't really understand why anyone would think that removing that direct link would be a good idea. The only think that makes sense to me, is that you prefer the way your state government is elected (gerymandering and all) than what a direct vote of all citizens. The only way you would like that is if it results in politics that you prefer. I'm a bit idealistic in that I prefer that the process is fair, more than I prefer that I have my way.

But I do agree with the rest of your argument.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: not veiled at all
by Chris_G on Tue 19th Feb 2013 02:19 in reply to "RE: not veiled at all"
Chris_G Member since:
2012-10-25

Amen! Before Senators were popularly elected, the position was often given to those who made the largest contributions to state government electoral campaigns. These were people who contributed with the expressed understanding that they would be rewarded with a seat for doing so. It was unspeakably more corrupt than what we have now.

And, for the record, the great majority of Senators were popularly elected (by the state governments' choice) at the time the amendment was passed. That's the only reason it did pass.

Edited 2013-02-19 02:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: not veiled at all
by twitterfire on Tue 19th Feb 2013 14:45 in reply to "RE: not veiled at all"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Repeal the 17th? Heck no. My state is *more* corrupt than the Federal government. All of the gerrymandering that takes place to form the US house also exists at the state level. The direct election of senators is the one thing that results in good representation of my state.


You know guys, I know you invented democracy, are the leaders of the free world and bla, bla, but you can, for instance, try to follow EU footsteps and vote directly for members of parliament and for the president, instead of resorting to weird algorithms and gerrymandering.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Read more of this thread... >