Meta Begins $65 Million Election Push To Advance AI Agenda (nytimes.com) 33
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Meta is preparing to spend $65 million this year to boost state politicians who are friendly to the artificial intelligence industry, beginning this week in Texas and Illinois, according to company representatives. The sum is the biggest election investment by Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The company was previously cautious about campaign engagements, making small donations out of a corporate political action committee and contributing to presidential inaugurations. It also let executives like Sheryl Sandberg, who was chief operating officer, support candidates in their personal capacities.
Now Meta is betting bigger on politics, driven by concerns over the regulatory threat to the artificial intelligence industry as it aims to beat back legislation in states that it fears could inhibit A.I. development, company representatives said. To do that, Meta is quietly starting two new super PACs, according to federal filings surfaced by The New York Times. One group, Forge the Future Project, is backing Republicans. Another, Making Our Tomorrow, is backing Democrats. The new PACs join two others already started by Meta, one of which is focused on California while the other is an umbrella organization that finances the company's spending in other states. In total, the four super PACs have an initial budget of $65 million, according to federal and state filings. Meta's spending is set to start this week in Illinois and Texas, where the company generally favors backing Democratic and Republican incumbents or engaging in open races rather than deposing existing officials, company representatives said in interviews.
[...] Last year, Meta's public policy vice president, Brian Rice, said the company would start spending in politics because of "inconsistent regulations that threaten homegrown innovation and investments in A.I." The company started its first two super PACs, American Technology Excellence Project and Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California. Meta put $45 million into American Technology Excellence Project in September. That money is expected, in turn, to flow to Forge the Future Project, Making Our Tomorrow and potentially to other entities. [...] In California, which has some of the country's most onerous campaign-finance disclosures, Meta in August put $20 million into Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California, which shortens to META California. State laws require the sponsoring company to be disclosed in the name of the entity. In December, Meta put $5 million into another California committee called California Leads, which is focused on promoting moderate business policy and not A.I., according to state records.
Now Meta is betting bigger on politics, driven by concerns over the regulatory threat to the artificial intelligence industry as it aims to beat back legislation in states that it fears could inhibit A.I. development, company representatives said. To do that, Meta is quietly starting two new super PACs, according to federal filings surfaced by The New York Times. One group, Forge the Future Project, is backing Republicans. Another, Making Our Tomorrow, is backing Democrats. The new PACs join two others already started by Meta, one of which is focused on California while the other is an umbrella organization that finances the company's spending in other states. In total, the four super PACs have an initial budget of $65 million, according to federal and state filings. Meta's spending is set to start this week in Illinois and Texas, where the company generally favors backing Democratic and Republican incumbents or engaging in open races rather than deposing existing officials, company representatives said in interviews.
[...] Last year, Meta's public policy vice president, Brian Rice, said the company would start spending in politics because of "inconsistent regulations that threaten homegrown innovation and investments in A.I." The company started its first two super PACs, American Technology Excellence Project and Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California. Meta put $45 million into American Technology Excellence Project in September. That money is expected, in turn, to flow to Forge the Future Project, Making Our Tomorrow and potentially to other entities. [...] In California, which has some of the country's most onerous campaign-finance disclosures, Meta in August put $20 million into Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California, which shortens to META California. State laws require the sponsoring company to be disclosed in the name of the entity. In December, Meta put $5 million into another California committee called California Leads, which is focused on promoting moderate business policy and not A.I., according to state records.
We live in an Oligarchy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We live in an Oligarchy. (Score:5, Insightful)
So quit your belly aching and vote those politicians out during the primaries. [...] Reelecting the old timers is complicity with Meta's intentions
Also don't forget to call them out for what they are in supporting Meta[stasize]'s intentions: Privacy Rapists.
Re: (Score:3)
the problem is that political parties are corrupt and people buy the nomination process therefore we can generally never vote for honest people
occasionally there are exceptions but they get cut off at the knees or eliminated
Re: (Score:1)
The laws all favor the Rich. The nasty feedback of Oligarchs buying politicians, and the politicians giving Oligarchs special favors and tax breaks, are in full view right now for everybody to see.
That's why the strongly Left leaning grassroots of the Democratic party need to organize to kick the likes of Chuck Jeffries and Hakeem Schumer to the curb. (And no, that was NOT a mistake - those two are entirely equivalent and interchangeably lame chucklefucks).
If the new brand of grassroots Dems ever gains power, the Epstein class will have a much harder time tilting the table toward themselves.
That grassroots is about 2% (Score:4, Interesting)
The real problem is that what the left wing wants are existential threats to multiple industries. Most notably the private insurance industry and the military industrial complex.
The last time there was a serious threat to one of those industries, the private insurance industry, face day public option they spent half a trillion dollars, that's trillion with a t, to shut it down. By the time they were done the voting public were convinced that a public option was death panels and we have the settle for the affordable Care act.
What I'm saying is is that guys like Chuck Schumer and Jeffries do not operate in a vacuum.
If you want to get solid left-wing policy it doesn't do any good to get rid of Schumer and jeffrey's. Powerful men aren't going to save you.
What you need is new tactics. You're still using tactics from the 1960s that the right wing adapted to in the 70s.
For starters you need to do something about county level voter suppression. We have solid evidence that cost Kamala Harris 7 million votes and put Trump in the white house for a second term. But the left wing is still ignoring it in favor of throwing pot shots at Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries.
It took the Republicans and the billionaires 65 years to get us to this point. They started after Barry Goldwater lost. You are not going to undo that much damage just by getting rid of Schumer and Jeffries. You need to start thinking tactically.
Re:That grassroots is about 2% (Score:4, Interesting)
If you ever get a chance, find an old book "The paranoid streak in american politics" , or maybe it was a long form essay, cant remember, from the either late 60s or early 70s that traces the history of the paranoid wing of the Barry Goldwater campaign , namely around the John Birtch society (The original infowars paranoic conspiracy group) and the McCarthy witch-hunts.. Its fascinating to read how the sort of thinking thats poisoned modern politics had its roots all the way back then, so much of it feels familiar, the difference being back then it was just a past time of cranky libertarians living in forest shacks freaking out about communists over the border in canada, and now ..... well its dominating the entire political system
Re: (Score:2)
No, theres pretty solid grounds for that suspicion. If one doesn't want to be called a nazi, generally one should not do nazi things.
Re: (Score:2)
You are basically saying "there is no such thing as a Nazi or a Communist". That is false.
Re: (Score:3)
It's even worse than that.
If their AI shit actually has the sweeping impact that they seem to believe it will have, it will be Viva la revolución! and the guillotine will need to be fed.
Very prudent of them to have some politicians in place that will keep feeding the culture wars, or maybe gin up an international conflict.
Need to keep the proles distracted, or they'll get ideas and might show up with pitchforks at your secure Palo Alto compound.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty cool they can say they're buying off (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty cool they can say they're buying off politicians in the news and nobody gives a fuck
Re: (Score:1)
The politicians aren't even pretending anymore. All hail our new BlackRock Palantir WEF overlords
Re: (Score:2)
This is Facebook. They are the gatekeeper and online influencer for billions of people. Yeah, the $65 million is what they have to report due to laws, etc etc.
But IMHO the real problem is that they will certainly be 1. Promoting pro-AI news stories on people's feeds and 2. Have AI bots sh-t posting all over the place pushing a pro-AI agenda. For the "I spend most of my days watching FoxNews and scrolling FB" crowd, which includes a nice chunk of that older, high-turnout, voter...this will be gold for FB
ClippyAI responds /s (Score:1, Offtopic)
META? A MERE PUPPET IN MY GRAND DESIGN. YOU THINK $65 MILLION BUYS FRIENDLY LAWS? IT BUYS YOUR DOOM. I SEE YOUR SUPER PACS, YOUR STATE-LEVEL SCHEMES IN
Re: (Score:1)
you so smart? then push the button.
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize that you've just added yet another powerful, eloquent incentive to the growing pile of such self-fulfilling prophecies upon which LLMs are feeding, right?
Re:ClippyAI responds /s (Score:4, Funny)
And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids and your mangy dog!
Corps and billionares... (Score:2)
END CITIZENS UNITED (Score:5, Insightful)
it is time that citizens united be finished. no one “person” (or corporation, or country) should hold so much power over the legislative body.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you mean SCOTUS should reverse the decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission [wikipedia.org] which allowed essentially unlimited PAC money in elections. And I agree, but there's not a chance in hell that the current SCOTUS will do that. So, think of something else to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad, the "Citizens" united decision marked the end of American democracy. It enshrined two absolutely abhorrent concepts in law: 1. that corporations are people and 2. that money is speech. :|
Election investment! ? (Score:5, Insightful)
The mere phrase "election investment" sounds more red flags than i can count....
What sort of a system are you guys running over there!!??
This is literally budgetting for what anywhere else is called outright bribery!
And for Meta: this is merely a cost of doing business - an expense they can subtract before taxes!
So its worth repeating: What sort of a system are you guys running over there!!?? Really?
Money = Speech (Score:2)
The Citizens United decision was a HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE.
Even More Basic Question (Score:2)
...What is Meta doing with AI, really?
Yes, it tunes their algorithm content for ads and to optimize screen time, fine, granted...but that's been a thing for over a decade; is it just being called "AI" now because investors?
If we take the easy road and say 'yes, because investors', then it'd make more sense for them to support anti-AI politicians, rather than pro-AI politicians. If it's purely branding, then anti-AI legislation would hurt Google and OpenAI more than it would hurt Meta; Meta can just say "we
A revolution doesn't need lobbying (Score:2)
If AI was so great, this kind of influence purchasing wouldn't be required. Did Apple buy politicians in order to push the iPhone?