In The First Months of Trump Era, Facebook And Apple Spent More On Lobbying Than They Ever Have (buzzfeed.com) 54
An anonymous reader shares a report: According to federal lobbying disclosures filed Thursday, Facebook and Apple set their all-time record high for spending in a single quarter. Facebook spent $3.2 million lobbying the federal government in the first months of the Trump era. During the same period last year, Facebook spent $2.8 million (about 15% less). The company lobbied both chambers of Congress, the White House, and six federal agencies on issues including high-tech worker visas, network neutrality, internet privacy, encryption, and international taxation. Facebook was the 12th-highest spender out of any company and second-highest in tech. [...] Apple spent $1.4 million, which is just $50,000 more than during the final months of the Obama presidency, when it set its previous record, but the most it has ever spent in a single quarter. Apple lobbied on issues including government requests for data, the regulation of mobile health apps, and self-driving cars. Google, once again, outspent every other technology company. It was 10th overall, tallying $3.5 million.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reality is that we now have the least transparent administration in a very long time.
FTFY - The Trump Administration is discarding 40+ years of post-Watergate reforms.
Re: (Score:2)
He's making America great again, like it was 40 years ago.
Like everything was 40 years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
"When it comes to policy decisions, it will do the right thing, and lobbying won't have any real impact."
Yeah, this is the part people seriously doubt.
When lobbying is no longer effective, you have moved into far darker territory, where now, there is only 3 manners of decision making: Nepotism, whims, and ideological bent of the person in charge.
Dictatorships are also relatively immune to lobbying. Do we really want to end up there? Lobbying is bad, limiting access to your government is worse, since now it
Re: (Score:2)
"Corrupt rich people can't be corrupted" is a very stupid argument. How do you think they got rich in the first place?
The benefit of having government made up of rich, corrupt people is that they're already corrupted, so the little dance around ethical barriers can be dispensed with from the get-go a
Re: (Score:2)
Being rich != Corrupt
Re: (Score:2)
There's ample evidence that in late-stage capitalism, being rich does indeed equal being corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think that's the case?
also the next time apple is asked unlock a phone (Score:2)
also the next time apple is asked unlock a phone will apple put up a fight?
Re: (Score:3)
I bet the next time Apple is asked to unlock a phone the government won't ask nicely this time.
Buzzfeed (Score:4, Informative)
Buzzfeed seems to only link their own articles in their stories, so it's not convenient to fact-check them. I would have prefered some other information on this subject and since there is none in the TFA, I will provide you with some more info on this lobbying dollout:
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/... [wired.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]
http://www.cbronline.com/news/... [cbronline.com]
From an obnoxious website that I won't link because of how totally obnoxious their javascript is; you may wish to read this anyway:
Re: (Score:2)
So basically there are 5 companies that "support" Donald Trump? And by support I mean say nice things about him not give him big payouts like Hilliary was getting? Hard to boycott nobody. The left already dumped all the hate they could on Hobby Lobby and they just shrugged it off. Most of their business is from people who think Trump is a little too far left. I think this shit is hilarious. Trump doesn't really owe anyone a damn thing except a bunch of redneck right wingers and a few people in the mid
Did You Vote Yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now I'm wondering if Facebook's "Did you vote yet?" campaign last November was a last gasp of thinking that the system is actually democratic before just knuckling down and paying for favorable treatment or if by then they were already participating as part of the system that keeps the People cowed into thinking that their vote is a symbol of freedom rather than one of control.
Perhaps as these companies broaden out to be real multi-nationals and they gain experience with governments around the world, they're becoming astutely aware of how commonplace bribery and corruption is and that helps them lift the veil on the reality of DC politics.
We can not like it and not blame them for doing what it takes to survive at the same time. "Blame the system, not the player," as they say.
Re: (Score:1)
On the one hand, is expect their lobbying budget to grow no matter who won. They are growing companies after all.
Trump and the Republicans gets special attention because of their policies on the internet and science. Also because Trump is relatively easy to influence - Shi Jinping made him do a 180 on NK in just ten minutes!
Damned straight, I don't want cheap politicians! (Score:3)
No more of these dime a dozen problems caused by cheap bribery, I only want to deal with massive high dollar issues caused by bribery!
Re: (Score:3)
Only the best government your money can buy!
The Gilded Age... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? If people are spending more on beer it could mean that beer has got more expensive. It could equally mean they're drinking more of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the relative differences between how much the Clinton & Trump campaigns spent on the election (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-campaign-spending), it seems as if the idea of buying votes is not as easy as once thought.
Re: (Score:2)
FIFO (Score:1)
Bribing not Lobbying (Score:2)
NOT THE PLACE FOR YOUR POLITICAL BEEFS! (Score:1)
Please stop it. There are plenty of places to express your political point of view - slashdot is not one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily because of Trump (Score:2)
This, in my opinion, has less to do with a Trump Presidency and more to do with both houses of Congress being held by the same majority. Where there previously was gridlock, there now is a hope for legislation actually passing at a decent volume. Why spend money on a locked congress getting next to nothing done, wait until there is some ability for action.
That being said, I do also think the content of legislation comes into play as well (tax code, H1-B).
Burying the lede - Google was #1 (Score:2)
From the last sentence of the summary:
Google, once again, outspent every other technology company. It was 10th overall, tallying $3.5 million.
Why was this not in the title?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Google didn't spend more but spent less? Dunno, you read the story and tell us...
Yeah, they spent $60,000 less. And no, that's not in the story.
The best president money can buy! (Score:2)
... at least its all out in the open now.
It does make sense. (Score:2)
Where Obama was fairly forward-looking and Hillary appeared to have a similar outlook; 45 is overtly hostile towards the technology sector and its interests in general; and the Bay Area and Silicon Valley in particular. Given said hostility on the part of the executive branch, it does make sence that Google, Facebook, Apple, and company, would look to buying themselves some congresscritters as a defensive move. Perilous times, and all that.
It's very far from an ideal situation. But tech has suffered in the