Tim Cook: Apple doesn't donate to political candidates and PACs shouldn’t exist
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/tim-cook-apple-paul-r...
So much for privacy/environmental sustainability I guess
Sure American politics is corrupt but it would be utterly asinine for a big company like Apple not to engage with politicians.
> So much for privacy/environmental sustainability I guess
Quite, it seems like weasel words.
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-cal-p...
- Apple, as a company, does not donate any money to political candidates, CEO Tim Cook
said on Tuesday.
- He also said he doesn't believe that political action committee (PACs) should exist.
PACs allow corporations and others to secretly donate large sums to campaigns.
- While Apple doesn't try to get particular politicians elected, it still spend
millions annually on lobbying, records show.
- Cook explained, 'We focus on policies, not politics.'
I think this is an excellent stance, admirable and more companies (e.g. Google) should follow suit.I read that as "As long as you vote for what we want, we'll ignore anything else you may be doing". They can't escape politics if they want to influence (inter)national policies.
Corporate donations to political candidates are bright-line illegal, a (potentially criminal) campaign finance violation, so it would be surprising if Cook said anything else.
> He also said he doesn't believe that political action committee (PACs) should exist.
> PACs allow corporations and others to secretly donate large sums to campaigns.
This part has the facts all wrong which makes it harder to tell what is actually opposed; PAC donations are sharply limited and disclosed publicly by law, and while corporations can sponsor PACs they can only subsidize their administrative expenses, actual campaign donations cannot come from corporate funds, either directly or through PACs; PACs don't allow corporations to donate, and the donations PACs do make are neither secret nor large sums.)
Independent political expenditures as allowed by Citizens United (either directly by interested entities or by entities that collect donations specifically for that purpose, the latter of which are sometimes referred to as “SuperPACs”) allow secret, unlimited spending to promote or oppose candidates or measures, but cannot donate to campaigns or even legally coordinate with them.
It's not clear if Cook actually opposes PACs or SuperPACs, neither one of which actually matches the description of what the “PACs” he opposes are, or if he opposes some mythical thing which combines some features of PACs (donation to campaigns) with some of superPACs (unlimited quantity, secrecy, ability to use corporate funds for non-administrative functions).
What Apple is saying is that it doesn’t have a PAC that raises money from its employees, which is legal.
Furthermore with lobbying the activity is largely in public, while it can be unclear on what basis or understandings direct campaign donations are made.
Disregarding popular movements that's not how lobbying works at all. No private special interest group is going to be advertising the many ways in which it is trying to influence a person holding public office. You subscribe to a service providing you with personal data, you attend the same events, you help them. For example by commenting on or even drafting legislative texts.
Few millions a year for companies doing 10s or 100s billions in revenue, that's really rounding error.
And they would spend more if ROI is there but obviously it is not.
It says more on US politicians being cheap and essentially easy to indirectly bribe.
The revolving door between Google and the government suggests otherwise.
I agree it shouldn’t happen, but if politicians have to listen to money, at least listen to the lesser evil.
Doesnt run a PAC
Doesnt NOT donate to PAC, which can be for any cause or even a political candidate and also anonymous
Cheeseburgers shouldnt exist either, I still eat them
Apple is a company that benefits enormously from the intellectual and physical infrastructure of the United States. From this, many onlookers derive the ethical principle that Apple should pay its "fair share of tax".
So Cook's Apple must also have a meta-ethics that somehow judges this is not an important ethical principle.
Part of me wonders if this meta-ethics involves a cost-benefit analysis. And wonders when the rubber hits the road whether Apple's ethical principles actually go beyond the default corporate ethics of maximizing shareholder value within the rule of law.
On the other hand, anyone saying bad things about PACs, and good things about privacy, is fine and dandy with me.
Which means this ad must be made for people like me.
I'm sure there are some ways they minimise their tax bills, but it's not as though they don't pay tax or even pay very little tax overall.
The US system is ludicrous. A few years ago a British politician, who has never resided long term in the US but who's mother was a US citizen, renounced his dual US nationality because the US tried to tax him on his sale of his house here in the UK.
Snort! https://www.cultofmac.com/302651/apple-avoids-paying-taxes-i... , no they pay taxes in Luxembourg and say they have little profit in other European countries. But can we blame them, I would also try to optimize my taxes, and even the guy who set up this tax scheme to benefit Luxembourg is now... the president of the European Commission: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks
>Here’s how Apple avoids paying nearly all taxes in Europe:
That's blatant click-bait. It actually only applies to iTunes revenue which is a sliver of Apple's overall tax bill, most of which is paid on physical products taxed like any other manufacturer.
The basic fact is Apple pays a huge tranche of taxes to governments all over the world, more than any other single tax payer. Picking at little threads round the edges of their tax practices doesn't change that fact.
Source please? And more than any single tax payer where? Are you claiming Apple is the largest tax payer in every tax regime of the world?
> Picking at little threads round the edges of their tax practices doesn't change that fact.
OK Mr. Fanboy, nice work diminishing a tax avoidance as "picking at little threads". Sorry I insulted your idol.
Getting fined by the EC doesn't make it sound like what they did were legal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_illegal_State_aid_case_agai... . Of course, if the government says it's legal it might as well be legal, it doesn't mean it's morally correct, no wonder the populists hate the technocratic governments who are in bed with the corporations.
I guess in your books "they paid enough" is good enough to make them the good guys.