Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-google-is-transforming-power-and-politicsgoogle-once-disdainful-of-lobbying-now-a-master-of-washington-influence/2014/04/12/51648b92-b4d3-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html?tid=ts_carousel

by selmnoo • 12 years ago

115 102 12 years ago

washingtonpost.com

fchollet2• 12 years ago

As a non-american, can anybody explain to me how "lobbying", defined as "spending money to 'influence' public representatives in the favor of a private entity", differs from the old-school concept of "corruption"?

I'm genuinely interested.

wetafur• 12 years ago

I guess it's a way to make corruption more transparent. Contributions are public.

kevingadd2• 12 years ago

If by 'public' you mean 'public, but in a way that ensures the information is not particularly useful'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

Have fun following the paper trail when donation disclosure can be delayed, and you can accept donations to your committee from other committees, creating as long and obfuscated a donation trail as you like, and then take the pooled-together corruption money and use it for anything you want.

I suppose it is still better than secret compensation under the table for favors, though. In some sense.

TheSpiceIsLife• 12 years ago

Government is one way to ensure criminals (politicians) report (some of) their earnings.

dragonwriter4• 12 years ago

Corruption: You give money, etc., to the public representative to influence their action.

Petition: You expend resources to advocate your views to a public representative.

Lobbying: You expend resources to have a third party advocate your views to a public representative.

Lobbying is a form of petition. It sometimes draws attention because corruption becomes a technique -- just as is the case sometimes with direct petition -- but it is as different from corruption as direct petition is.

kevingadd2• 12 years ago

Well, many lobbyists advocate your views by giving money, goods or services to public representatives... but I suppose it is distinct in that you are not the one directly offering the bribes and 'favors'.

Zigurd4• 12 years ago

The practical definition of lobbying also includes hiring the relatives of people in positions of power, and funding sinecures. It amounts to corruption with a fig leaf.

We don't have a government that produces representative policy outcomes for reasons of corruption and systemic flaws, like bad election mechanisms.

makmanalp2• 12 years ago

In the Ottoman Empire, Fridays were some of the busiest and were reserved for the emperor (Padishah) and council (Divan) to listen to appeals of court cases and the complaints of citizens. This was supposed to keep them in touch with the needs of their people and help them develop some compassion. Maybe we need some of this kind of guaranteed access to the representatives, which anyone can sign up for.

No staffer-only meetings, the representative must sit through it and must fulfill a quota of X office hours per month, set according to their schedule. Each person / group gets 15-20 minutes. The hours can be cancelled up to 24 hours before for emergencies but must be made up within a week. How does that sound?

I get a bit mad when people suggest that representatives don't have time for that. That's their job, damnit! Make time.

This would really cut down the power of nepotism / cronyism in lobbying and bring politicians back down to earth, closer to the people they represent. Everyone should have equal access to their representative.

mullingitover• 12 years ago

Its a lot like the difference between torture and enhanced interrogation.

at-fates-hands• 12 years ago

The main difference is that lobbying is seen as a indirect influence, where people being influenced don't have a "direct" gain from the money they receive from lobbying groups like the NRA and others.

For example, lobbying would be when the NRA gives tons of donations to the local republican candidate or party. The party can then use those funds to buy commercials and other advertising.

Corruption can be seen when someone directly benefits from money changing hands.

Corruption would be where the NRA actually writes a huge check to a congressman so they vote a certain way on a bill. There would be a direct benefit since the only person getting the money is the politician.

It's a thin line for sure, but the difference is who benefits and is it directly or indirectly? Remember the old saying, "follow the money"? That's how you define it.

RogerL• 12 years ago

That (giving donations) is not lobbying. Lobbying is hiring[0] a professional advocate who then argues for the merits of specific legislation to the representatives.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States

espeed• 12 years ago

Lobbyists help draft legislation, raise campaign funds, and produce propaganda. The "Lobbying Restriction" in the IRS 501(c)(3) tax code even describes lobbying as "carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation" (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.shtml). And if a politician isn't cooperating, lobbyists will often throw their weight behind the challenger in next election.

Changing this system is Lawrence Lessig's prime objective...

* We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim (http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_t...)

* On Aaron Swartz and the unstoppable walk to political reform (http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_the_unstoppable_wal...)

hga• 12 years ago

It's worth asking, "who's corruption"? I highly recommend the book "Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets" ( http://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Politicians-Extract-Money-Po...), which along with many things I've observed for a long time (e.g. the path and timing of Microsoft's travails, not to mention many of the details of a trial so bad the appeals court removed the trial judge while ratifying too much of his work), makes a compelling case a lot of this is a protection racket.

"Nice company you have here, would be a shame if anything happened to it...."

nitrogen• 12 years ago

What I heard about the MS antitrust case was that the judge lost his temper because Microsoft was being petulant and uncooperative, giving Microsoft an excuse to have him replaced by someone who wouldn't break up the company.

hollerith• 12 years ago

Those who lobby the US government must "register" (declare to a US governmental agency they are lobbyists). This registration includes disclosing all of the entities being lobbied for.

Most lobbying does not including campaign contributions. Where campaign contributions are made, they must be reported and there are strict rules against the contributions personally benefiting the person running for office or his friends and family.

crusso5• 12 years ago

The rules are fairly meaningless:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/28/reid-scandal-deepens-ca...

They are obviously not strict enough or they have no teeth. This kind of thing happens all the time. You read an article here or there about obvious corruption but then you very rarely see follow-through against the politicians. These ethics rules are written, revised, and enforced by the politicians themselves. What do we really expect?

It's kind of like the debacle of insider trading being allowed by members of Congress. Outright criminality that would land many in the private sector in jail (Martha Stewart), but we put up with it from our elected representatives.

coldtea3• 12 years ago

Most lobbying does not including campaign contributions. Where campaign contributions are made, they must be reported and there are strict rules against the contributions personally benefiting the person running for office or his friends and family.

Yes, because formally registered lobbyists have not also done under the table deals since time immemorial...

naaaaak• 12 years ago

Lobbying is a way to influence government, except only interests with lots of money can do it. The influence is so great, pretty much whoever has the most money has the most say. Sound like bribery? It is, but it was made legal.

Don’t worry - if you don’t have money, you can influence government by voting! But who or what you vote on is dictated by a lobbyist. In other words, they set the table and you get to decide which side you sit on. Don’t like what you see? You can walk out in the rain with the other Americans who don’t bother voting.

Great example: 2008 financial crisis. Ordinary citizens were opposed to giving the banks bailouts, like 99% to 1% in polls. The banks beat the will of the people because they are heavy contributors to both major parties. Don’t worry - most of the important politicians behind that move are still in power, because there are a lot of stupid voters in this country. Good thing we also take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to voting and force the will of the (proven stupid) masses on all individuals.

And that’s why lobbying works and won’t ever change. You want representation in this country? You better have money.

snowwrestler8• 12 years ago

Lobbying costs money because everything costs money.

Let's say you don't want oil companies to drill in ANWR. You give some money to the Sierra Club, who uses it to pay their staff to fight bills that would allow drilling. Those salaries would be reported in part as lobbying expenditures.

There is a constant confusion between campaign contributions and lobbying. They are distinct. Most campaign donations do not come from lobbyists, and most lobbyists do not contribute much money to campaigns.

Lobbying does not involve any exchange of value. Even buying dinner for a member of Congress is a felony.

sliverstorm2• 12 years ago

buying dinner for a member of Congress is a felony

Well, that puts a cramp in dating. No more, "I owe you one, let me buy you dinner"

Zigurd4• 12 years ago

Lobbying does not involve any exchange of value.

That's quite a whopper. Instead of buying your congressman dinner, how about hiring his son or nephew for a "job?" It took me about 2 minutes of searching to find a huge report on how congressmen pipeline campaign funds to relatives "working" as "campaign consultants."

Holding a bake sale for the Sierra Club is just a time-waster to keep the peons busy while the real Washington is playing a whole different game, by different rules, with several orders of magnitude more money.

declan6• 12 years ago

Even buying dinner for a member of Congress is a felony.

But hosting an Obama fundraiser in Silicon Valley where each couple who wants to attend writes checks for $64,800 to the Democratic Party, why, that's just the cost of doing business!

This is, of course, what happens when Obama comes out here for fundraisers at the "Portola Valley home of star Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla and his wife" and the "home of Marci and [Flipboard founder] Mike McCue of Palo Alto": http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/05/17/obama-headin...

Now, this isn't limited to the Democratic Party, of course, though they're better at extracting money from tech execs nowadays. Point is that it's rather silly to say "buying dinner for a member of Congress is a felony" when there are far more lucrative alternative means for influence-peddling politicians to extract $$$ from influence-seekers.

walshemj2• 12 years ago

Because in the English language raisng an issue with your reprasentitive is called lobying - it comes from the "Central Lobby" in the houses of parliment its where the general public can meet thier MP - The USA uses a lot of the same parlimentry language.

Those pious white house pentions are lobbying

declan6• 12 years ago

Your bio says you live in Texas and are the founder of the art website www.wysp.ws.

Let's say a congresscritter introduces a bill in the U.S. Congress requiring art websites to verify the age of their users so Junior can't access DeviantART or somesuch. "WE MUST DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" intones Rep. Deanna DeGatte (D-Colo.) on the floor of the House of Representatives, and then the president says he thinks it's a good idea.

If you hire your college buddy who now works in DC and regularly goes drinking with DeGatte's chief of staff, because this stupid law would put you out of business, is it lobbying or corruption? Or is corruption when mainstream art galleries, who are facing Internet corruption, hosted a fundraiser for DeGatte, and then she introduced her bill a day later?

Hint: Consider the difference between offensive and defensive lobbying.

glaugh• 12 years ago

Lawrence Lessig argues (I think persuasively) that lobbying should be classified as a form of corruption. It's not as egregious as directly paying someone off, but in the end the influence of lobbying is pernicious and pervasive.

Highly recommend his book about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic,_Lost

thefreeman• 12 years ago

Do they not have lobbying in non-american countries (legitimate question)?

It is basically the way that our government is run by corporations, rather then the people they govern. It is one of the main reasons I detest politics.

I naively assumed it was present everywhere; but it's good news if it turns out that is not the case.

igl3• 12 years ago

That probably depends on how much you skew your morals.

higherpurpose• 12 years ago

What upsets me most is that now they're using lobbying for stuff that are clearly against our interest, such as diluting privacy restrictions and fighting against restrictions on Internet surveillance, even though in their press releases they make it sounds like they would do the opposite, and would fight against Internet surveillance:

http://www.vice.com/read/are-google-and-facebook-just-preten...

camus2• 12 years ago

is public / general interest the sum of all private / personal interests? that's a fundamental question.

rayiner9• 12 years ago

There is a lot of misinformation about lobbying. My wife used to be a lobbyist, so let me dispel some myths:

1) Lobbyists costs a lot of money. The amount Facebook spent on WhatsApp is equivalent to fifty times the annual lobbying revenues of the top 10 DC lobbying firms combined.

2) Lobbying money goes to politicians pockets. American politicians are some of the most thoroughly scrutinized on the planet. Lobbying money doesn't go under the table to some politician. It usually doesn't even go to campaign contributions. The major source of campaign contributions is rich peolple making personal donations, not lobbyists. Lobbying money goes towards advocacy. For example, a lobbyist might commission a survey to show a politician that a particular position, advantageous to a client, is politically popular. They may also propose draft legislation, connect politicians with experts, etc. What Google is doing is a good example of the bread and butter of lobbying: simply helping politicians understand the prevailing point of view of an industry.

3) Lobbying is the same as corruption. The vast majority of lobbying is about helping politicians find votes. Its about showing how what's good for an industry is good for constituents. The message is overwhelmingly not "if you vote for this, there is money in it for you" but "voting for this will save 100 jobs in your district."

Do lobbyists help corporations exercise substantial political power? Yes. But most of the american labor force works for large corporations. Their livelihoods and that of their kids depend on these corporations. Their healthcare and retirement depend on them. Corporations don't need to corrupt the political system to wield power.

fchollet2• 12 years ago

1) Lobbyists costs a lot of money. The amount Facebook spent on WhatsApp is equivalent to fifty times the lobbying revenues of the top 10 DC lobbying firms combined.

Then again, the amount FB spent on WhatsApp is twice the cost of the Large Hadron Collider, the largest and most expensive scientific facility every built. And roughly the same as the final cost of the experimental fusion reactor ITER, the holy grail of energy sources.

Comparing things to the WhatsApp acquisition price does not tell you much.

notatoad• 12 years ago

Comparing things to the whatsapp acquisition tells you a lot. If it can be compared to $19bn, it's a lot of money.

slashdotaccount• 12 years ago

It tells me that money is meaningless and no-one knows how to measure value.

thomholwerda• 12 years ago

Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.

Private money - whether it be from rich people or large corporations - should have no place in politics. The vote of a poor single mother working two jobs to only barely feed her children should carry just as much weight as that of a rich tycoon. If you believe that money should institutionally equate to influence, then you do not believe in equality.

smtddr• 12 years ago

>Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.

I have plenty of issues[1] with the whole lobbying process, but with your definition how does anyone get anything done at all? Ever? This is assuming you believe the system can be fixed while still working within the rules of the system. FWIW, I'm personally starting to doubt that but if anyone can pull it off it's companies like Google.

1. https://twitter.com/SMTDDR/status/418656414697926656

rayiner9• 12 years ago

Without money, advocacy is merely the expression of sentiment, and sentiment is a valueless currency in the modern world.

One the issues near to my heart is environmental protection. The advancements made in environmental protection over the last 50 years have all been accomplished through the expenditure of money. It costs very little money to convince people to adhere to the old ways. It costs no money to convince West Virginians that coal and coal mining is good. It costs no money to convince Oregonians that logging is good. Commissioning studies to show that the health damage from coal mining would double the price of coal if accounted for? Making movies to help people visualize the catastrophe of strip mining? That costs money.

What irks me the most about liberals' opposition to Citizens United is their failure to realize that money being speech helps them more than it helps conservatives. It costs very little money to promote conservatism. People are predisposed to wanting to preserve the status quo. Its those that oppose the status quo that benefit the most from high profile advocacy. The opposition of the tech industry to surveillance Is the paradigmatic example of this phenomenon. The tech industry will have to spend a lot more money on advocacy to move forward from cold war era views then defense contractors will spend to defend the status quo.

dalke• 12 years ago

I have enough private money that I can take time off of work to have a meeting with the politician for my district. I might, for example, advocate that government computers use standard document formats rather than proprietary ones. Or I and co-workers may chip in to send one of us to petition OSHA in person, to increase workplace safety requirements.

The National Woman's Party is an example of a lobbying group which worked for decades first for women's suffrage and then for prohibition on sex discrimination and the Equal Rights Amendment. Where was the corruption in that use of money to influence politicians?

In your example of a poor single mother working two jobs, that mother is very unlikely to have the private money to take the time off. Thus, private money will always have an effect on politics.

There are ways to limit its effect. For one, tax the richest people and most profitable companies much more heavily than they are now, and increase social support for the poorest. But by your criteria that's still going to end up with corruption.

The people should be able to influence a politician more often than just at the ballot box. The question is, at what point is that extra influence inappropriate? I believe your use here "corruption" is too strict and binary, such that no government can meet that standard.

walshemj2• 12 years ago

So you woudl ban any constiuant from lobying thier MP Congressman or Senator then.

snowwrestler8• 12 years ago

You are spending money right now to influence us, because human time has value.

In addition, you bought a computer and paid for Internet service in order to access and post to Hacker News--which were also expenditures.

These are the sorts of things that lobbyists spend their money on.

sliverstorm2• 12 years ago

Do lobbyists spend money to influence politicians? Yes? Then it's corruption.

So if I spend money to buy cardboard & a permanent marker, write a picket sign, and picket outside the office of a politician to influence him I am engaging in corruption?

The vote of a poor single mother working two jobs to only barely feed her children should carry just as much weight as that of a rich tycoon

To my understanding, their votes carry the same weight; the problem is the people's votes are easy to "buy". Prop 8 in California was passed when a surge of pro-Prop 8 money flooded the state. Did that money buy politicians? No, it bought votes.

As for money from corporations or private donors- how do you propose campaigns are funded? The only other source is out of the contender's own pockets. But I don't think you'll like that answer either, considering the better-funded campaign usually wins. Only the richest rich would be able to get elected!

sp332• 12 years ago

Rich people should never commission studies, just because poor people can't afford the same studies?

baddox• 12 years ago

That's ridiculous. Virtually all of government is funded by "private money." Why shouldn't I be able to use my resources to attempt to influence the group of people who can forcefully take an arbitrary percentage of my wealth for my entire life?

bradleyjg• 12 years ago

While this all looks accurate the conclusion shouldn't be: and therefore lobbying is nothing to worry about. Cognitive capture is in many ways more worrisome than outright quid pro quo corruption. Among other reasons, because there is very little that can be done about it, at least consistent with the First Amendment and liberal principles in general.

magicalist2• 12 years ago

Cognitive capture is in many ways more worrisome than outright quid pro quo corruption

Agreed, but it's also impossible to avoid this as long as the people in Congress are humans and not robots.

We all believe in something, we all find some point of view more reasonable than another, and we all have experience in life (who we grew up with, who we associate with now) that vastly influence those cognitive biases. We'll always be able to strive to expand points of view and limit time monopolized by any particular cause, but in the end there's no avoiding "cognitive capture".

rayiner9• 12 years ago

The best solution to cognitive capture is to make lobbying easy. If you make it hard to fight the status quo with money, you just make it harder to fight the status quo.

wisty• 12 years ago

4) That dirty back-room deals are usually done by lobbyists. In reality, a company that wants to pay off a politician will just donate the money, or offer a lucrative job. Lobbyists are under a lot of scrutiny, so they are the worst people to handle bribes.

If you're a regular citizen / company, you can pay a politician $10,000 to have dinner with them, and hire their best friend as a consultant. If you're a lobbyist, you can't buy them a coffee.

MaysonL• 12 years ago

Lobbying money goes to politicians pockets.

Well, not till after they (or their staffers) retire it doesn't.

igl3• 12 years ago

1) How do lobbying firms make revenue when they are basicly money sinkholes conveying surveys?

2) I have read too much of those 'drafts' which ended up being the legislation. And how come Google speaks for the whole industry? Are they In a particular need for change? Did the industry vote for them?

3) tay tuk yuu juuuuub

jejones3141• 12 years ago

If the government were confined to its proper function, companies would not have to attempt to influence it.

dragonwriter4• 12 years ago

If the government has any function, actors subject in any way to its authority, whether individuals in their personal capacity or collections of individuals acting for a common purpose like companies, will retain an interest in influencing how it performs those functions.

Not to mention that if government is confined in its function by some external constraints, those same actors will have an interest in influencing whomever is imposing that constraint -- which, in a very real sense, is the most powerful part of the real government, even if goes by some other name -- to align the constraint with the actors' interests.

crusso5• 12 years ago

Well, I'd revise that to say: If the government were confined to its Constitutional restraints, companies would have much less reason to even want to influence it.

It's the very size and scope of the government and acceptance into all aspects of our lives that gives it power. That power is what lobbyists broker for companies.

rayiner9• 12 years ago

If we held the federal government to strict constitutional constraints, we'd just do all this at the state level.

snowwrestler8• 12 years ago

If you look at nations around the world, there is no consistent correlation between the powers of a central government and its state of corruption. For example the Afghan government is very weak, yet is still very corrupt.

hackuser4• 12 years ago

If you look at nations around the world, there is no consistent correlation between the powers of a central government and its state of corruption. For example the Afghan government is very weak, yet is still very corrupt.

I would expect, without looking at data, that the relationship is the reverse: More corrupt governments are weaker. This data seems to bear it out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

brc2• 12 years ago

I take the original comment to mean : if you limit the size of the government, you limit the ability for people to abuse it's power for their own purposes. That's not the same as corruption. A government can still be powerful, but limited in the spheres in which it has power.

redwood• 12 years ago

I've thoroughly enjoyed watching House of Cards. Sure it's not accurate, exactly. But what it does emphasize so well is the difference in pursuing money versus power. The latter can be bought by wooing lobbyists. Money itself is harder to gain and generally more associated with the developing world's modes of corruption. Are they so different? Not exactly. However one difference is power is less easily extractive than wealth. As an example: A wealthy corrupt official will likely pull money out of the system and into their own private offshore account. A politician using lobbying money to ascertain power in exchange for political direction is not banking money outside the system. Of course the lobby-backing commercial interests are, indirectly. But at least these companies are focused on more than sheer family-enrichment. Still, I wish we had a better system.

magicalist2• 12 years ago

This thread so far has been pretty disappointing, reacting to the headline only, slashdot-style. The article is actually a pretty interesting look at what it takes to get people in Washington to start considering a different point of view, for good or ill.

The interesting part of that is that it's completely reasonable that you have to get people thinking about things like how a search engine should function in a free market (beholden to the users, not the businesses it finds for them), but when it comes down to it, doing that is also fundamentally paying money to buy influence (even if that influence is just "that position now seems reasonable to me"). My initial reaction is to find lobbying distasteful in the same way I find marketing distasteful. An idea or product should stand on its own merits. Of course, it never works out that way: you might want to be noble and not introduce a new bias into the public, but people already have a host of biases, and to get them to even consider something new, you often have to help them get there.

The emails they got under a FOIA request are also interesting in that light[1]. The Post tries a bit to make them sound somewhat scandalous, and I know we're trained by the media to only be interested in smoking guns, but it's interesting in precisely how mundane and completely reasonable lobbying can be, while still being about shaping the entire dialog to be more favorable.

That said, there are some really bad parts here too, like describing SOPA as

"And, in what Google saw as a direct threat to the open Internet, major lobbies such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America were mounting a legislative campaign to place restrictions on the sale of pirated music and movies."

ugh. Kind of weird, too, as in the past the Washington Post has given good coverage of SOPA protests and why anyone would be protesting it...

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/2014/04/12/how-g...

declan6• 12 years ago

really bad parts here too, like describing SOPA

Yep. I think any article that describes SOPA as merely "placin[ing] restrictions on the sale of pirated music and movies" is begging to be criticized, especially here on HN. It makes you wonder what else it gets wrong!

On the Post's SOPA point: First, it's been illegal to sell pirated works since the Copyright Act of 1790, as amended. Second, it's been a felony to distribute (as in, not selling but merely sharing) pirated works since the NET Act of 1998. Third, as far as I can tell, Google has no problem with those long-standing restrictions on the sale of pirated music and movies. Fourth, that "restrictions" language mischaracterizes the many unrelated problems with SOPA.

I can tell the Post put a lot of work into the article, and it was a good read, even though it buried the lede (Microsoft's PAC is larger), made factual errors (companies don't donate to PACs), missed a big reason Google was able to reach out to libertarian/conservative groups (it toned down its misguided lobbying for aggressive Net neutrality regs/laws), spent too much time on a conference barely distinguishable from dozens of others (organized by an academic center that had for years publicly disclosed it received funding from Google), and claimed that limiting government surveillance draws "unexpected bedfellows" (left-right pro-4A coalitions linking ACLU and conservatives date back at least 20 years).

Disclaimer: I know most of the folks interviewed in this article and spent a decade in DC. Fortunately I'm now in the SF bay area and doing something rather more productive. :)

AJ007• 12 years ago

Its fair to now note that the Washington Post is now owned by Jeff Bezos. The article should have disclosed this. (Amazon is included in the chart of campaign donations.)

ChrisNorstrom• 12 years ago

1) Good lobbying: Google lobbies congress to allow self driving cars in all 50 states. result: good because its asking for permission not taxpayer handouts, consumers pay the entity through supply and demand not taxes

2) Grey area lobbying: Light rail manufacturers lobbied congress to increase federal spending to help with light rail projects across America. result: uses taxpayer dollars, might increase light rail projects in areas where it isn't needed, takes tax payer dollars and transfers them to the entity doing the lobbying

3) Bad lobbying: Chrysler, GM, & Ford lobbied congress to lower the fuel efficiency standard (MPG) and prevent increases. result: screwed themselves over because in the long run they could no longer compete fuel consumption wise with foreign auto makers and had to be bailed out

Most people don't understand that lobbying is a tool. It can be used to enact laws that benefit or hurt different groups of people. It's more talked about when it does bad so people assume all lobbying is bad. Same with "bacteria", "fat" and "cholesterol".

rayiner9• 12 years ago

One point about "good lobbying" though. Often, "bad lobbying" takes the guise of "good lobbying." Imagine a coal company lobbying to loosen air pollution controls, to leave to the market the decision of whether cheaper electricity or cleaner air is more valuable. It is easy to disguise permission to externalize negative effects as simply permission to let the market decide.

hackuser4• 12 years ago

I wouldn't say the primary criteria is whether tax dollars are spent, though that can be important. There is also ROI on the public expenditure, non-economic effects on citizens (health, security, etc.), democratic fairness (does lobbying unfairly reduce other citizens' voice in the decisions), and justice (do the results cause injustices to others).

brc2• 12 years ago

...and radiation.

iwwr• 12 years ago

The interesting part of that is that it's completely reasonable that you have to get people thinking about things like how a search engine should function in a free market [...], but when it comes down to it, doing that is also fundamentally paying money to buy influence

That's because it's not a free market. It's a system of political patronage where if you don't have political support, someone (possibly competitors, or even the Department of Justice) will go hunting for you. It's not merely distasteful, it's deeply corrupt.

presootto• 12 years ago

If you have any questions regarding Google's activity in DC don't hesitate to send an e-mail to these addresses:

rachelw@google.com lawyercat@google.com

Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence

Related Stories