Submitted by “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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Lol “weird algorithms” NAILED IT.
I would love to do that. We’d be much better off if we did. For such a young country historically speaking, we tend to deify our traditional quirks. We tend to judge the means by the outcome, if my party is in power than the process is great!
It pretty much is
Here’s the definition on Wikipedia.
If that isn’t a form of corruption then I don’t know what is. The only upside to this is that it’s a bit more open than the alternative. There’s very detailed info on opensecrets.org.
Furthermore, quite a few of these tech companies spend money for the advancement of science and technology (obviously because it’s in their interest but it’s still a positive outcome).
Edited 2013-02-18 23:17 UTC
No corruption is actually buying their votes. Lobbying ( if done in a legal manner) is just supposed to be arguing for a policy position with only the carrot/stick of re-election. It is a bit unfair, in that the wealthy are heard much louder than those without the means.
Real corruption is more quid pro quo. Hey, you! Vote my way and I’ll drop an envelop of unmarked bills on your doorstep.
Sadly, that’s only slightly worse than what is really legal now. Hey, you! vote my way and I’ll set up a super pac to support your next election, fueled by unlimited cash to make up slanderous claims against your opponent! Its really citizens united that needs to be repealed more than anything else right now.
As a society, we should be evolving towards better government, which means raising the standard for what is considered “uncorrupted”.
Unfortuantly, the tide is headed out the other direction. If we could just get back to the level of corruption we had 20 years ago, it would be a vast improvement.
Do you think that’s possible? What you’re asking for are people who are qualified to be in the government, who cannot be bought. That seems like a tall order, since there aren’t many people like that. And even if we could find some, we’d have to get them elected without using the media, because the media is owned by those who would never allow such a thing to take place under their watch.
That doesn’t mean higher standards don’t exist or that we shouldn’t aim towards them…
Yeah, I don’t think they originally intended arguing to mean that the argument with the more money backing should win.
In US spending money to influence politicians and government officials is lobbying and legal. In EU the same thing is illegal and called corruption.
It might be just a small cultural difference.
If you honestly believe that there aren’t any lobbyists in the EU, then I have a bridge I’d like to sell you… no cheques, cash only.
How much money did Apple, the biggest “tech” company spent for the advancement of science and technology?
Or should we call Apple a “design” company, a “fake patent” company and not a “tech” company?
I’m sorry but if you’re arguing that Apple hasn’t done anything for the advancement of science and tech than you’re just as stupid as anyone who would argue the same for Google.
Just look at the original story linked, there’s plenty of reasonable examples there.
The undue influence of money on politics in the US has been a major story for years. I guess it’s now gotten to the point that European tech writers are noticing.
That large contributors like Google contribute millions to both political parties indicates a corrupted political system. They’re not trying to influence legislation, they’re trying to buy protection.
Legislation can no longer be passed in the US without the agreement of the companies affected. The Citizens United decision is at the root of the problem.
If money is speech, shouldn’t prostitution be legal? After all, it’s not against the law to use your speech to convince someone to have sex with you.
Get a former hooker/pimp into the government/senate.
The only reason lobbying is legal (in any country that allows it, not just the US) is because the ones taking the bribes are the ones making the laws.
Then it’s no longer prostitution.
Pardon me dear gentlemen, but shouldn’t we first and foremost blame the citizens who vote (again and again) for candidates who officially accept “donations” from for-profit corps? It’s like the guy who sold the Eifel tower to another guy. Shouldn’t we blame the “another guy” first and foremost for getting duped into a con like that?
If a candidate accepts “donatioms”, don’t vote for him/her. If everybody did that, “donations” would have to be under the table, which is unethical and probably illegal.
kurkosdr,
“Pardon me dear gentlemen, but shouldn’t we first and foremost blame the citizens who vote (again and again) for candidates who officially accept ‘donations’ from for-profit corps?”
I understand the sentiment, but at the same time it’s sort of naive. Politics is a millionaires game. Unless you are independently wealthy or have some corporate sponsors, you’re out. In principal many of us are against corruption and grey political “donations”, but such campaigns are at such an economic disadvantage that they rule themselves out of the race. It sucks, but it’s Darwinism at work, politicians who reject corporate funds are poorer and inherently much weaker than those who use them.
Go ahead and criticize the voters, but at the same time unless you can propose a general solution to even out the playing field, it will not change. Do you have an answer to the problem of how to give more representation to those who cannot afford it?
This is a widely recognized problem in US politics. Proposed solutions have not made much headway:
1. Cap campaign funding/spending (our last election had fewer restrictions than previous ones owning to the “money is speech” and “corporations are people” movements [*]).
2. Government funding of elections / media on behalf of candidates so that non-wealthy candidates have a fighting chance.
* Edit:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/04/26/am.costello.co…
Edited 2013-02-19 15:24 UTC
Is it just me, or why the h… in an article talking about Google’s huge political propaganda budget does the author start jabbering about where Apple spends its propaganda budget?
Because everything in America today is about opposing teams – Republicans versus Democrats, Pro-choice versus Pro-life, etc. So this is just another one – Google versus Apple.
As I stated on another forum posting this news, Google uses lobbyists and Apple uses patent litigation. Both are totally ‘legal’ but are they ethical? No one really seems to care much anymore.
Lobbying is precisely a form of legalised corruption.
Money follows power. The power exists in Washington, so that’s where the money will run. If you want to remove the money from Washington, you need to remove the power and return it to the states like the founders intended.
The founders never intended the federal government to be anywhere near as powerful as it is today. They intended the majority of the governing powers to be held at the state level. This did several things:
* It created competition between the states, meaning good government policy would rise to the top and eventually be adopted by other states.
* It encouraged experimentation, giving states the leeway to implement policies that are progressive or unconventional, while insulating the effects of these policies from the rest of the country (unless they are deemed a success and subsequently adopted by other states).
* It allowed for policy differences based on subtle (or not so subtle) cultural differences between regions in the country, and it enabled people who didn’t agree with the policies of one state to flee to another state.
* Last, but most relevant to this discussion, it greatly diminished the influence and power of groups such as corporate lobbies, special interests and/or rich individuals by forcing them to distribute their influence over 50+ states to get the same results as they would otherwise by lobbying the federal government in DC. A million dollars for lobbying efforts in Washington DC is much MUCH more influential than $20,000 in each state intended to achieve the same results. In a strong federal government there is “one throat to choke”, so to speak, instead of 50 or so “throats to choke” in a distributed, federalist system.
So, long story short, if you want remove the effect of corporate lobbies, special interests and “big money” in Washington, decrease the size of the federal government and return the power to the states. As it currently stands, the money will eventually find it’s way to Washington no matter what rules or limitations we try to come up to prevent it… for no other reason than that is where the power is.
Edited 2013-02-19 16:51 UTC
You haven’t thought this through – in such scenario, only really wealthy corporations will be able to influence things effectively on a country-scale.
I don’t think many people realize that the right to lobby is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law … abridging .. the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
lobbying == speech. I.e. talking to people. How does one make that illegal? Making talking to politicians illegal (or talking to people who talk to politicians)? Seems like that wouldn’t really work.
Also, look at the issues listed:
Taxation (including the repatriation of profits earned overseas)
Education (including the use of digital textbooks in schools)
Telecommunications (including open Internet and children protection issues)
Environment (including electronic waste, Energy Star and EPEAT standards)
Trade (including free trade and border issues)
Consumer Issues (including privacy protection and the Do Not Track Me Online Act)
Investments and the SEC (including implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act)
Transportation (including the use of technology in cars and airplanes)
Computer Industry (including cybercrime)
Appropriations (including government precurement rules)
Media (including electronic publishing)
Medical (including the regulation of mobile medical devices)
Do you really think that a major tech company shouldn’t be talking to elected officials about anything on that list?
Take transportation, do you want self-driving cars? What about education, should we be using more electronic textbooks?
Is it good or bad that Apple doesn’t seem to want to engage the government about topics that it probably knows about more than politicians, who are probably relatively tech unsavvy?
Left to their own devices, who knows what sort of crazy stuff they would come up with. Clearly companies/people who are experts, *should* be engaging in discussions with the government, or else we’ll see more BS laws that make more sense, SOPA or PIPA anyone?
The issue is much more complex than Thom’s simple opinion makes it out to be.
sonnyrao,
I’m of the mindset that elected officials should be listening to their electorate first and foremost, they shouldn’t have any direct responsibilities or pressure from corporate lobbyists whom they’re not supposed to be representing. Corporate lobbyists have essentially disconnected the government from it’s legitimate constituents.
The way I feel it *should* work is that corporations should have to convince the public to pressure their representatives instead of taking the public out of the loop entirely as it is now. This would fix alot of problems with corporations getting disproportionate representation and entitlements without any public approval or oversight (DMCA, SOPA, etc). It would encourage more political involvement because the public’s input would actually carry weight. Corruption is partly mitigated by shifting away from bribing individual politicians to bribing the entire public.
Ideally this could be done in such a way that expert panels be involved. Their work must be explicitly open for public review. Most importantly though, unlike today, experts should be employed/contracted independently by the government and definitely not be not be connected to sources of corruption such as lobbyists/corporate funding.
pianom4n,
“Congress shall make no law … abridging .. the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Not everyone believes corporations should be treated as people in context of these constitutional rights. The feds generally declare it is so, but it is heavily debated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate