Google Sought To Hide Political Dealmaking

A blog entry by Michael Kanellos at ZDNet links to and expands upon an article in the Charlotte Observer. Last year Google was apparently throwing its weight around in North Carolina, seeking tax breaks from state and local legislators. When the company didn't get what it wanted pressure was brought to bear on legislative aides, journalists, and politicians. The search giant was especially touchy about keeping the negotiations secret: "Executives didn't want anybody even to mention the company's name for fear that competitors could learn of its plans. Most involved with the negotiations were required to sign nondisclosure agreements ... That posed challenges for elected officials, charged with conducting the public's business in the open. As the tax measure wended its way through the legislature, some lawmakers began linking it to Google." The results of this deal are extremely lucrative for both sides. Google brought some $600 million in investment and as many as 200 jobs to the state, and legislation enacted with Google's help is projected to save the company some $89 million in taxes over 30 years.

Just be a little evil

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=google+corr uption [google.co.uk]

About 5.8 million hits.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google+corrup tion [google.com]

About 2.9 million hits.

And they don't censure results, either.

Re:Just be a little evil

[TapeCutter]

Just had to try it, 6.03M results for both links.

Re:Um

[QuickFox]

Google has been slipping for a long time. They've been supporting domain squatting [google.com] forever.

It's sad, really.

Uhh So?

[logicnazi]

This is just standard buisness practice. States compete to attract large companies with jobs and those large companies do their best to cut good deals for them.

There is nothing even slightly unethical about this. One might argue that such a system is undesierable as it gives large companies an advantage over small companies, and their is some truth to that, but on the other hand large companies may have requirements that aren't easily dealt with in non-negotiated ways.

So I certainly see an argument for the federal government outlawing states from making deals with companies to attract them (some sorts of tax breaks are already forbidden) google certainaly didn't do anything immoral by using the same system that everyone else does. I mean that's like arguing your a bad person for taking advantage of Bush's tax breaks just because you voted against them.

Re:Um

[Zeinfeld]

Can you not tell from the language used in the summary. Read blackmail or extortion for 'political dealing' if this was Microsoft. Note how the benefit to both parties is mentioned, if this were microsoft then it would be evil for everyone except MS.

The subsidies they obtained are not even that great. $89 million over 30 years is only $3 million a year. That is for a $600 million capital investment.

Expecting to do this quietly is somewhat strange, unless they were really concerned that there would be some sort of tree-hugger anti-Google faction.

What I would be rather more worried about if I was Google is the flood plain issue. Building a data center full of expensive delicate equipment in a flood plain is a somewhat odd idea.

I would not take this approach because it is more likely to be counterproductive. Bothering about the competition is silly, a data center is a cost center. It is only to Google's advantage if Yahoo was to build in the same area.

Re:do no evil

[wateriestfire]

what evil exactly is Google doing in China? To me it just looks like they are giving the people in China the best possible search under the current laws. They aren't killing people, they are just following the laws. If Google didn't censor their search, China would have censored it for them. China also could have just blocked Google from their country. Then you know what? NOTHING would have changed. Some Chinese search engine would just fill in the gap. Then what? bringing jobs to American cities and donating a lot to those cities is evil now? I am sorry, I had no idea, I'll think twice before donating anything towards public education from now on. Yeah, Google got money too but it's mere pennies compared to what they gave.

Re:Um

[HuguesT]

States have expenses too. Maybe not armies, but roads, schools, employees and so forth. Some of these expenses hopefully benefit the public. They have to be paid by taxes, and if Google doesn't pay these 3 millions a year, rest assured that someone else will, most probably taxpayers in one form or another.

Re:Um

[nomadic]

Here, in the American southeast, jobs are very important.

While in the rest of the country, nobody cares about jobs?

Re:The simple answer: IPO

[Anonymous Coward]

What nonsense! If you arent sure what capitalism is - dont bad mouth it.

Profit maximization is a red herring. Profit could be accrued in so many ways - short term,long term, brand reputation. There are companies which are public and which stand behind their motto.

Google may not be 'as evil' - but yes they seem to evil things. Basically Google is a Mini-microsoft.