Google's New Lobbying Power in Washington 167
*SECADM writes "Learning from Microsoft's error, Google is building a lobbying power house in Washington." From the Washington Post article: Two years ago, Google was on the verge of making that Microsoft-like error. Davidson, then a 37-year-old former deputy director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, was the search-engine company's sole staff lobbyist in Washington. As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress. To change that, Google went on a hiring spree and now has 12 lobbyists and lobbying-related professionals on staff here — more than double the size of the standard corporate lobbying office — and is continuing to add people.
Lobbyist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
what a lobbyist is and why they're important (Score:5, Interesting)
A professional who informs democratically elected representatives about issues.
While these professionals have to be paid somehow, and the root of their pay makes them beholden to some interest or another, what a legislator needs to do and understand is simply too complex without receiving counsel and guidance otherwise.
I live in Columbus near the Ohio statehouse and since I have a lot of knowledge about identity theft, privacy and driver's license security issues, I often show up at the statehouse and give testimony on a bill. I'm essentially a college student with a job with no set hours, so it's not hard for me to do. I can meet up with a legislator or make a committee meeting (which are always held during the day) with no trouble. People who might have the knowledge or expertise but have regular jobs will find that difficult.
But what I do I do for free, because I want to see Ohio have better laws on things that I feel passionate about or interest me. I can only devote so much time to it.
The other day, I testified on an identity theft bill. I was talking about a major problem with some state websites and I wanted to show the committee what the problem is--so I asked if there were a projector available to hook my laptop to.
The assistant to the chair of the committee said he's never asked for a projector before--and he's done the job for 3 years now.
That scared me. It doesn't take much computer knowledge to put together a powerpoint presentation, and we all know (stereotype alert) that low-tech types like powerpoint. It implied to me that the people who would often speak in front of this committee didn't have a very good knowledge of computing.
I did get my projector, and made my presentation (which included talk about "brute force" techniques.) The next week, a state senator's office called--the senator read my written testimony and asked during that committee hearing what was the difference between brute forcing a password and phishing. No one was there who could answer the question.
It's clear to me that Ohio needs to have a professional lobbyist walking around the statehouse who knows computer security issues and who could spend his time getting legislators up to speed. While lobbyists are often political mercenaries, they do fulfill a certain role that no one else can.
Readily searchable politics (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would the fact that people can't get personal meetings with members of Congress unless they have a high net monetary worth be distressing? In a pure capitalist meritocracy human worth is measured in money and access to the people's elected representatives is also prioritized according to the wealth of the citizen in question. Come to think of it in a pure capitalist meritocracy the country (assuming that concept would even exist in such a world) would actually not be governed by elected representatives but rather by the most wealthy citizens (who by definition would be the most worthy) wouldn't it? In practice pure capitalist meritocracies don't exist since, at least in the western world, quaint and annoying traditions like democracy tend to get in the way. But even if one only achieves a partial capitalist meritocracy it still is more or less true that the wealthier a citizen is the greater his/her de facto human worth and the more and better his/her access to elected representatives and the better, speedier, more merciful and generally favorable the treatment he/she gets from the courts. Even if you get arrested and sentenced to jail for some crime a regular, less worthy, citizen gets sent to a normal jail where he/she will be subjected to all the brutal horrors a modern penal system has to offer while a wealthy citizen goes to a special protected detention facility where time is served in relative comfort, things like getting raped in the showers is something they don't have to worry about and generous reductions in the time that has to be served are easy to obtain. What this boils down to is that each country and it's people have to make up their collective mind about whether they want to be a capitalist meritocracy first and a democracy second or vice versa. Each choice has it's drawbacks and expecting to get the best of both worlds will lead to disappointment.
Re:what a lobbyist is and why they're important (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
* Writing a letter and making phone calls is not an effective way to influence your representatives. I've written hundreds of letters and made around twenty phone calls to my representatives, and I only know of one time where one of my representative voted in favor of my position. $2,000 from a PAC is more likely to change their vote than a fifty cent letter or a free email and fax. I still write, though, because I have to do something, don't I?
Re:Google is just a regular company (Score:4, Interesting)
because change from within is more well received than forceful change from the out side.
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)
So Google is getting political... I bet that will make it even harder for them to stick to their "Don't be evil" policy.
Sickening (Score:4, Interesting)
"As recently as last year, Google co-founder Sergey Brin had trouble getting meetings with members of Congress."
When PAYING for access to elected officials is treated as business as usual by the press, without the slightest hint of disdain or outrage, it's a clear sign that the nation is in trouble. It's obvious that Google can and MUST (as a matter of business) rectify that situation by greasing a few palms and dropping some strategic campaign donations.
I suspected this all along, but it's equally appalling to know that it was Microsoft's failure to pay "protection money" that prompted the government anti-trust crackdown. Apparently, the message from DC is "play the big money politics game or suffer the consequences".
It's interesting that the mafia is always portrayed as evil for extorting protection money and running numbers games, when the government does the same damned thing in the guise of "campaign contributions" and "lotteries".
The way to end this cycle of corruption is to extract the money and the power from Washington. If this government was ~20% of its current size and focused on the core mission outlined in The Constitution, many of the issues related to big-money influence in DC would take care of themselves.
Re:So? (Score:5, Interesting)
This brings up a point that I've been thinking about for a while. Bear with me for a moment while I walk you throught my thought process.
If the regular constituents each put up a buck towards a given issue/bill they care about, we could *easily* outspend the PACs by an order or magnitude. There are a lot more of us. That leads me to suggest that when you write that letter, you should include a check for $5 -- if all letter-writers did that, their contributions would probably come close to matching the PACs.
The problem with that idea is that if you do that, the representative has your $5 whether he votes the way you like or not. PACs have the advantage that they're offering lare enough quantities of money that they can negotiate: "We have this donation for you, Senator, assuming that you'll support our cause". I don't know that they can directly say things like "We'll contribute $2K to your campaign if you vote for bill X", but they can certainly imply it (and maybe they can say it!).
You could try to do the same with your small donation, but it seems much less likely to actually get the representative's attention. That brings me to my idea: I wonder if it would be possible to set up a sort of non-PAC whose only goal is to improve the bargaining position of voters. This non-PAC wouldn't actually accept and give donations, and it wouldn't have positions on any specific issues. Rather, it would be a sort of an escrow fund to accumulate individual voter contributions, and forward them en-masse to specific candidates who showed support for the voters' key issues. It would also provide reports to the representatives of the donations its holding and the issues/bills that are important to the donors.
I imagine this system as a web site. You register your name and address, pick your issue/bill, state what your position is, what representative you want to influence, in what time frame you'd like to see action, and use Paypal or whatever to provide a donation. The system would aggregate your donation with like-minded voters and send a letter to the representative (while probably also sending a similar letter on behalf of voters who have the opposite position). If the representative acts the way you want, the system would disburse the money to the representative, filing any needed paperwork on your behalf (if any, I don't think there is) and send you a receipt documenting your donation for tax purposes. If the representative votes "wrong", or fails to act within your specified time frame, the system would return your money to you and send a letter to the representative pointing out the financial support he/she has lost due to his action or inaction on a particular issue. I think it should be up to the donor to make the final determination of whether or not the representative acted "correctly". The system should probably also allow a representative to make a statement about his/her intent and actions to be distributed to the voters who have pending donations, to help them determine if his/her work is in line with their preferences.
Such a system feels a lot like buying congressional votes, but I think that's exactly how the system works anyway, just less transparently and less accessibly to the man on the street.
Re:So? (Score:3, Interesting)