ohh thats what I hate about the US election, that they can accept money from companies and more, that just screems "here is something fishy"
Also Im not if I like that google will also now have a little influence in politics.
That isn't democracy. It's corporatocracy. I think it stinks rotten. Britain is heading that way, too.
Thats almost as bad as the US being able to extradite British Citizens it wants without much hassle!
|Google NetPAC will support officeholders and candidates who share Google's goal of preserving and promoting the Internet as a free and open platform for information, communication, and innovation |
That may include copyright issues too.
I wonder who would win in a battle between Arnie and Google?
My money would be on the Governator!
Folks this is an excuse for manipulation on the big boy scale, it's about telling the public one thing and doing another. Smear stories.
Tell the public the group is for helping with the internet and it's policies when in the background there is a huge new group of payoff clerks to get anything they want and waste all our money and create more coporate BS & greed.
[edited by: Hollywood at 4:00 pm (utc) on Sep. 19, 2006]
Like the corporate lobby group that had a law passed that made it illegal to fly advertising planes over Disneyworld, even though it remained legal for advertising planes to fly over Universal's park.
How can the democratic system justify such a total waste of politicians' time?
it's a damn shame way things work, but if I run Google, I'd do the same. Other companies that oppose google are involved so for google not to do so too, would utterly stupid.
It's amazing to see how much money is spent on lobbying and elections, yet, it's NOTHING compared to our budget or GDP. Assume that it reaches $10 Billion /year (which is very inflated IMO)....would anyone notice a $10 billion on a $2.6 trillion budget? Of course the budget would probably trim to less than $2 trillion once we remove all the payback crap.
In New Orleans they have as many as 4 contractor and subcontractor layers. The huge corp got that $billion contract and hires X for 75%, X hires Y for 50% and Y hires Z for 25%...in the end everyone wins, but the taxpayers.
|That may include copyright issues too. |
That was my first thought when I saw the news. I'm sure some of Google's lobbying efforts will be good for the Internet in general, but I'm also sure that their own self interest will also come at the expense of small web publishers.
What's the news? This is how the American system works. Government for the corporations, by the corporations.
Search in the near future.
Vote for #*$!#*$! this election!
Previous Page ¦ Next Page
|What's the news? This is how the American system works. |
I am not going to try to argue the "moral" stance of PAC's however 'mister charlie' has a point, even though he seems to be adding a touch of sarcasm.
In America corporations are legal entities. As a legal entity, just like a person, they have rights protected by the constitution such as freedom of speech. (Some argue that corporations have even more rights than people because they are a perpetual entity. People die, a corporation can theoretically live forever.)
As such they are allowed to promote a certain point of view, just like a person. It's up to the recipient of such information to analyze it and determine its truths. There are hundreds of PAC's promoting every point of view possible (liberal, conservative, green, trade, anti-trade etc...).
For better or ill, money is a form free speech. Anyone in this country with a strong position on an issue who has, or can raise, money can form a PAC and spread their point of view to the masses and to members of government.
The only way, as I see it, around PAC's is to fiddle a little with the constitution. Someone tell me if I am "way off" on this.
|The only way, as I see it, around PAC's is to fiddle a little with the constitution. Someone tell me if I am "way off" on this. |
I think you were spot on in regards to how it works and the little detail about the constitution.
The only observation I will make is that the Supreme Court has in some instances limited free speech rights of corporations (e.g. upholding the FCC's ability to regulate broadcast TV).
Am I the only one happy they are doing this? Net neutrality has been a hot topic as of late in congress. At least with Google on the side of the users 'we' have a better chance of winning this thing.
This is disgusting, the most filthy thing I've heard this month. Do Google have no respect for democracy?
|This is disgusting, the most filthy thing I've heard this month. Do Google have no respect for democracy? |
This is part of the way our democracy works. Most other major companies also have PACs as do many organizations.
vincevincevince - It's well within your right to form a political action committee to lobby against all PAC's!
Go support your point of view and get others to follow. Hire a lobbyist to get congress to outlaw all PAC's. Simply make the system work for you.
One reason America is a great country is because, for the most part, the rules are transparent. Simply play the game and demand to be heard. If you don't think this is "fair" well...simply try this under "your friendly local dictatorship" and see where you end up! :-)
|At least with Google on the side of the users |
yeah right! Google on the side of Google.
They aren't going to affect change without throwing money at the system. In fact, some of this needs to be done to just to keep those who wish to skew things in their favor (T) at bay.
Unfortunately, this is the way that the game is played. It is sad, but unless you have a nice little handout for the politicians that have influence, your voice will NOT be heard.
It turns my stomach, but that is the deal.
Well let's see .. I've been saying for TWO YEARS on this forum that Google will soon be a monopoly that will need regulation. Since then I've seen numerous articles about how Google can make or break your business on a whim. I also see their efforts to unfairly challenge industries such as online dating at the source (you'll see in early 2007)....and now a PAC group. Sounds like they share my view of future calls to regulate this emerging monopoly...Looks like pre-emptive defensive move to me.
Soooo....I told you so...I told you so! :p
|The top priority...will be swaying "critical decisions affecting Internet freedom, innovation, and competition." |
That's fine with me.
|...unfairly challenge industries such as online dating... |
cabbagehead - By "unfairly" do you mean a company comes out with a better product at a cheaper cost that results in the competition going under? Sounds like capitalism to me...
|Since then I've seen numerous articles about how Google can make or break your business on a whim. |
Where is it written that Google owns anything to anyone's business. If a business owner relies only on Google as a business model then that is the business owners decision and has nothing to do with Google.
It's no different than when airlines cut the commissions paid to travel agents. If an agent didn't adapt and sell more vacation packages or hotel rooms they were at risk of going out of business.
nealw - Google essentially controls traffic flow for the Internet. When they begin to challenge entire industries with their control over that traffic, they have an unfair competition. One could argue they could (theoretically) leverage this advantage to commandeer every aspect of the Internet. Is that fair? Is that good for competition? Is that good for the economy as a whole?
You suggest this is similar to the airlines. That's not an accurate analogy beause (a) you're talking about multiple airlines not a single entity, and (b) that was an industry trying to take control over sales of their own product; Google does not own the Internet!
This is more akin to Microsoft leveraging their operating system to give unfair advantage to encourage use of their own products versus other's products. And we all saw what happened there! Lawsuits and government internvention regarding unfair competition. And I bet you there's some consideration to that precedent in Google's decision to form a PAC. Google is always thinking a few steps ahead and I'd guess this is a prime example of that.
|Google essentially controls traffic flow for the Internet. |
Google is one of many search engines. We all have a free choice of which ones we use, just as we can choose between many competing airlines.
As a search engine, Google doesn't force us to do anything.
|Google is always thinking a few steps ahead |
I understand the points you made, but I'm afraid I just don't feel threatened by what I perceive as being a successful, forward-thinking company branching out in a free-enterprise society, and forming a PAC to help make sure that wise decisions are made regarding our online future.
> "We all have a free choice "
We all have/had free choice regarding what OS we us too. Didn't stop M$ from getting sued!
Yes, there are other search engines - but I don't know anyone that doesn't use Google primarily. Again - think M$. That isthe model you must look at, when predicting Google's future; not AT&T ort he airlines.
|to help make sure that wise decisions are made regarding our online future |
It is the duty of Government to take decisions that are good for the people. It is the remit of paid lobby/pressure groups to pursuade Government to take decisions beneficial to their self-interest. Certainly the two may overlap and decisions can be taken that benefit everyone, but a "wise" decision may not benefit the people.
I don't use G primarily, but I'm probably in the minority.
Brin is known to be smoozing around Washington in person lobbying for such and such...
Specifics, please, if possible.
Maybe he'll visit the Pentagon and finally get the junk food removed from the vending machines.
Headline: "Google guru makes major leap toward world peace"
Subheading: "Decision-makers calmer, more agreeable"