Google won't donate to members of Congress who voted against election results
axios.com
axios.com
The reality of the claims + the number of people making it are key factors. you cant honestly pretend there is no difference. which one of those lead to an attempted to coup? exactly.
It looks from my perspective like Google is trying to suppress the will of our people.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/05/952883116/objecting-to-electo...
Deleted comment
No, I'm answering the question "Please name the Democrats who objected to the certification of the Electoral College votes in 2000 and 2004."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvc4Ht3c2dk
Edit: Full Version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uiAex46pVw
https://web.archive.org/web/20201217051145/https://clerk.hou...
https://web.archive.org/web/20201212192739/https://www.senat...
32 Democrats in 2004, including Barbara Boxer and 31 congresswomen: https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2004
However, the objections in 2000 and 2004 were both limited and specific, a far cry from the maelstrom of kettle logic that spawned more than 50 frivolous lawsuits, and which attracted ten Senators and a majority of GOP Representatives. Were the votes counted wrong, as Barnette v. Lawrence insisted, or were the voting procedures unconstitutional, as claimed in Bognet v. Boockvar, or did Dominion Systems somehow install compromised voting machines? The latter claim is currently the subject of a defamation suit targeting one Rudy Giuliani.
The argument that what happened in 2020 is anything like the few objections raised in 2000 and 2004 is dishonest and reeks of disinformation. Nobody stormed the Capitol in 2000. No politicians tried to put pressure on state officials like Brad Raffensperger to manipulate the counting process. Nobody tried to disrupt the counting process itself in 2000, whereas Republicans filed lawsuits to prevent all votes being counted in Pennsylvania. Most importantly, no Democratic politician ever insisted to their constituents that the election would be overturned, whereas Trump did.
> Al Gore presided over the meeting in 2001. He overruled these objections because no senator joined them
> Senator Barbara Boxer [...] joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones [...] lodge a formal objection to Ohio’s electoral votes. The objection compelled Congress to spend two hours in debate
Two hours in debate! You're really comparing that?
(There was no vote in 2000 or 2016, so that isn't true)
You're comparing that to Bush v Gore?!
Trump and his attorneys falsely asserting widespread election fraud in public statements you should not want.
> The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. [1]
The courts essentially decided the cases have no merit to rule on.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
Details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
Contrast this to 2020, where there were 86 lawsuits after the election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related...
The crux of the issue isn’t how much time they wasted it’s the fact that they objected to a legitimate election.
Google needs to grow a pair and take a stand. But they won’t because it was never about that in the first place.
How so?
There weren’t any objections even technically filed. There were attempts to offer objections that didn’t meet the legal standard, which were ruled out of order.
If you mean the recount and associated lawsuits, then, no, that didn’t either. Bush won both before and after that.
Now, if you slice apart some subset of the recount/lawsuit process apart from others, you can say that, but that’s a rather artificial definition, and, anyway, there is a difference between lawsuits over who should be certified in a state and throwing out a state’s electoral votes in Congress.
You can form whatever opinion you like on the merits of the objections, but the end result is the same. In three separate elections this century there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results.
You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record.
> there were Democrats in Congress who voted against certifying the election results
Right, and one of them was a two hour debate.
You'd be gullible enough compare that to not supporting a campaign of bad-faith lawsuits across states that were clearly not based in voter fraud (and usually dismissed as a result). The most specific thing they have in common is "members of Congress voted."
No, there weren’t. The only votes on objections to an electoral tally prior to 2020 in this century (counting 2000 as “in this century”, to avoid ambiguity) were in 2004.
In 2000 and 2016 there were no votes, because votes only occur after the count is stopped for debate on an objection, which only occurs when a legal objection is filed, which (1) must be in writing, and (2) must be signed by both a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives.
In 2000 and 2016 some members of the House engaged in floor stunts proposing objections which were not signed by a member of a Senate, which resulted in no debate or vote as they were ruled out of order because, well, they were out of order.
> You can hand wave it away as much as you like. The facts will remain. It’s on the voting record.
Yeah, the voting record is against you here, so you probably want to stop waving your hands in its general direction.
She also said this summer Biden shouldn't concede under any circumstance.
There's dirt everywhere if you look for it.
This is not good and we've seen what it can lead to with the capital riot.
The Trumpist attempt to overturn the election was doomed electorally and legally, but it was presented to the voting base as a very real effort. Congressional republicans were going to go to congress and fix this fraudulent election.
And it was all a lie. Everyone involved knew it was a lie. And eventually a mob stormed congress because of that lie.
Let's "raise the bar" of debate.
The topic of the post is career / financial implication of voting against the certification of elections. I think fleshing out exactly what that means is an important part of the "debate", as you say.
I don't think pointing out that Democrats voted against certification in 2004 is a defense of what Trump and the Republicans did in any way. I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification.
Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism.
> We should defund all politicians who vote against certification
> Voting against certification is a normal thing that people from both parties have done, maybe we should come up with better criteria?
> How dare you bring up $PartyA, I only want to talk about $PartyB
> I think its an important clarifying point in deciding how we want to treat voting against certification.
> Crying whataboutism is a very tempting way to avoid nuance. I see a lot of people propose dramatic, sweeping action. When the consequences and implications of those actions are brought up, everyone cries whataboutism.
Two things: #1) I pretty much agree with you. #2) Aren't you avoiding nuance when you employ rhetorical devices like "everyone cries".
(FWIW, I'm not decrying "whataboutism" above, I'm tone-policing. It's also an odious practice, and I feel a little low and preachy doing it, but WTF, let's go ahead and try to have the nuanced and informed conversion if we can, eh, yo?)
I feel like it's on all of us to take a deep breath and step back from the drama. We have shared values and common ground. Instead of shouting on Twitter and in the streets, let's talk.
FWIW I know of a few formal methods for communication that seem to hold promise, I'll mention NVC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication ) and E-Prime ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime ).
For 2000 in particular, the objections differed massively from the 2020 objections on every one of those points.
This is false. There were no votes against certifying in 2000 or 2016. (For there to be a vote, there must first be an objection signed by at least one member of each house.) An objection so raised triggers a debate in each house, after which there is a vote in each house.
In 2000 and 2016, no objection meeting the requirement was filed, so there was never anything for anyone to vote on.
In 2004 one objection was raised to Ohio’s votes with the required signatures (and that case was a very different thing than the 2020 one; the group of objectors — Senator Barbara Boxer and a number of members of the House — explicitly stated at the time that the purpose of their objection was to have the debate and draw attention to the issue of electoral reform, not to overturn the results; and they weren’t part of a broader movement headed by the defeated candidate painting the outcome as illegitimate.)
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/05/952883116/objecting-to-electo...
The only obvious difference is the argument between voter suppression and widespread election fraud, but the actual act of objecting to the certification of election results was ultimately the same. A less obvious difference was the way citizens forced their way into the Capitol Building just before the certification and objections took place.
A question one might ask is did the Democrats (that objected) believe there was really sufficient voter suppression to swing the vote, or did they just use this as a tactic to try to change a legitimate election?
And did the Republicans (that objected) believe there was sufficient widespread election fraud to swing the vote, or did they just use this as a tactic to try to change a legitimate election?
So their main concern is just being on "the right side" of the issue, rather than necessarily having any actual impact.
> certifying the results of the presidential election, following the deadly Capitol riot
The full sentence in the article is ambiguous in this regard, as it depends on what clause the subordinate "following the deadly Capitol riot" is specifically referring to.
Does it mean this?
> Google will not make contributions from its political action committee this cycle to any member of Congress who, [following the deadly Capitol riot,] voted against certifying the results of the presidential election.
Or this?
> [Following the deadly Capitol riot,] Google will not make contributions from its political action committee this cycle to any member of Congress who voted against certifying the results of the presidential election.
No expectation of reversing anything.
No threats.
No breakdown of Law and Order.
No takeover of the capitol.
No insurrection.
And absolutely, positively no malicious incitement by lame duck president of the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/clinton-calls-trump-to-conce...
She might complain to anyone willing to listen that he didn't win fairly, but she never made the claim that he didn't win, and has stated on several occasions that he did win.
Voters did not. Even today, most republicans think the election was fraudulent. The people who should have been telling them the truth lied to them. And that's what this effort is about, not the very narrow sense of the objections. The objections were part of a coordinated effort across the whole party to lie to the american people in an attempt to subvert an election.
This was already the new normal. We'll see it again in 2024 regardless of which side wins or loses.
Over that time period, Republican primary voters have evicted moderate Republicans in the House, and have started to successfully evict them from the Senate. The state GOP twitter accounts for Arizona, Oregon, and Hawaii have continued to peddle conspiracy theories, post-January 6. Arizona GOP have censured three Republicans for insufficient fealty to Trump: the widow of Sen. John McCain, former Sen. Jeff Flake, and the current governor. Senators Toomey, Portman, and Burr, all Republicans, are not running for re-election. It's not due to partisanship between Republicans and Democrats, but within the Republican party. They are all moderate Trump supporters, but that's not good enough now. Senators report a significant pressure campaign, very angry Republican constituents insisting upon a Trump acquittal no matter what, even including death threats. The pressure campaign is probably working, as evidenced by jurors claiming
Trump himself attacked Republicans, who wouldn't help him overturn the election, far worse than Democrats who were never part of the fold in the first place. The impeachment trial and conviction vote will demonstrate the degree to which the Republican party is really the Trump party, perhaps most especially the party of Trumpian primary voters.
Nobody cares about the popular vote. The electoral college incentivizes Republicans to campaign in states that don’t necessarily yield a ton of popular votes, and disincentizes them from campaigning in states like California that have a lot of votes. The President popular vote simply doesn’t reflect what the results would be if people were actually trying to win the popular vote.
Republicans routinely win the House popular vote, where these incentives to go after smaller states don’t exist, and there is an incentive to campaign in the red counties of blue states. Republicans won the House popular vote 8 times since 1992. Democrats won the House popular vote 6 times.
In particular, Republicans won the House popular vote in both 2000 and 2016. Do you think Bush and Trump couldn’t have matched the popular vote share of congressional Republicans if they had an incentive to campaign in every red House district in California?
Folks love to speculate about alternative election systems where we used a direct popular vote. But if we’re imagining a counter-factual scenario with a different election system, why that one? Direct election of the executive is unusual. Nearly every developed country chooses the executive based on who gets the majority in the legislature. Under that system, we would have had even more Republican executives (16 years) and less Democratic executives (12 years) since 1992.
Those aren't independent variables, though. Those elections are on the same ballot. In fact the republican house vote in 2016 was about 3M votes less than Clinton got. So... no, Trump wouldn't have been able to win the popular vote in that election merely by getting all the votes republicans got in the house. Because he already got them. Lots of voters voted for Trump in those competetive house districts who didn't cast a vote for a representative at all.
I know that argument sounds good, but it doesn't work numerically.
* The Republican presidential candidate won in 2016 despite losing the popular vote by a huge margin
* There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election
* The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms, and the protests were peaceful, while the people who complained about a 'stolen' election in 2020 were pushing for a violent overthrow of the democratic process, and there was subsequently an attempt to violently overthrow the democratic process.
I say all this as someone who is a cynic at heart, and I do my best to avoid hyperbolic media from either extreme on the political spectrum (and opinion pieces altogether), and to pay for and consume media that challenges my biases: Not everything is equal. Sometimes one of the options is worse than the other.
The 2 point margin between Trump and Clinton was less than the margin between Bush and Kerry in 2004. Neither candidate cleared 50%. Clinton “won” the popular vote with a lower total percentage than Kerry lost the popular vote in 2004.
Also, these counter-factual are irrelevant. The popular vote doesn’t matter because nobody is trying to win the popular vote. That’s why Clinton didn’t campaign in Wisconsin (where Obama had racked up a huge margin in 2008 and 2012.) And that’s why Trump didn’t campaign in California. Changing the voting system would change how people campaign, so the popular vote tells you nothing. Also, if we moved to a “modern” voting system, we would use a run-off, like other countries have. Trump still might have won without the large libertarian vote eliminated.
> * There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election, while there was no evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2020 election
Not in 2017 there wasn’t.
> * The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms
So were many of the people objecting to the 2020 election. With a Democratic House the objections were futile. They were symbolic.
I sincerely don't understand why "won" is in quotation marks – I think you meant to say "the popular vote isn't something that can be won since we have the electoral college" – and if that's the case, let me clarify that what I mean is that she received a significantly higher number of votes than Trump did.
> The 2 point margin between Trump and Clinton was less than the margin between Bush and Kerry in 2004.
I don't understand the point you're making here.
>> There was ample evidence of the malfeasance being complained about in the 2016 election > Not in 2017 there wasn’t.
Russian hacking was discussed prominently during the presidential debates in 2016, so I have to disagree with you on that point.
>> The people who complained of a 'stolen' election in 2016 were pushing for reforms > So were many of the people objecting to the 2020 election
That may be true, but I haven't yet heard a good-faith argument for reforms (or in fact any argument for reforms) from people objecting to the 2020 election, nor any sense of what those reforms would be aside from things that could also be described as voter suppression and demands to reverse the outcome of the presidential, but not the down-ballot, elections. Maybe my sources are bad.
Yes. It's like "winning" the first 100m of a 400m race. If the runners were in a 100m race, they would run differently.
> I don't understand the point you're making here.
The point is that there was a significant third-party vote in 2016, so it's not like Clinton had a particularly large vote share overall. The same vote share "lost" the popular vote in 2004, where third parties were less significant.
> Russian hacking was discussed prominently during the presidential debates in 2016, so I have to disagree with you on that point.
Of email servers. Not election systems.
> That may be true, but I haven't yet heard a good-faith argument for reforms (or in fact any argument for reforms) from people objecting to the 2020 election, nor any sense of what those reforms would be aside from things that could also be described as voter suppression
The fact that Democrats can describe something as "voter suppression" doesn't mean anything. Many things Democrats object to, such as Voter ID laws or signature matching, are prevalent in European countries. In Switzerland, mail-in voting has strict signature matching requirements. In Pennsylvania, it was the subject of a civil rights lawsuit. Mail in voting is, in general, discouraged in most of Europe. France had it, then abandoned it in the 1970s, due to voter fraud.
Other countries don't run elections like we do: with a flurry of last-minute lawsuits trying to chip away at any sort of rules or deadlines. That's not a healthy way to run an election system.
Well, if on nothing else, we agree on that.
There’s a key difference: nobody credible said that the election itself was fraudulent. There were a few hucksters, of course (e.g. Jill Stein cashing in for the Green Party), but Clinton immediately conceded and the focus of all of the subsequent discussions were about things like propaganda campaigns and use of social media influence campaigns. There were no credible allegations of vote fraud and nothing like a multi-month campaign trying to trump up state support for overturning the election results.
And saying well election fraud and voter registration cheating isn't the same thing as voter fraud is a distinction without a difference.
The GOP took it further than the Clinton did in 2016. But the democrats pushed russia conspiracy theories for 3 years in order to de-legitimize Trump. Their hands are not clean.
She’s talked about real things - voter suppression, propaganda campaigns, some funded by foreign governments – but she’s never made the kind of lies we saw about fake votes or said that millions of legitimate votes should be thrown out because she didn’t like the results.
Now, you are trying to conflate talk of voter suppression with fraud but that’s not correct for two reasons: the first is simply that widespread fraud is imaginary in the modern era, but the second is the difference between following a legal process and subverting it. Trying to conflate the two so it’s easier to pretend your party didn’t do something unusual is just dishonest.
Democrats think its voter suppression to ban letting party functionaries go register and collect ballots with out any ID or signature matching. Republicans think its fraud to let party functionaries go register and collect ballots with out any ID or signature matching. You've just decided the former is fact and the later is wrong.
The insane conspiracy theories peddled by Trump associates like Guiliani, Woods, and Powell are far beyond what mainstream democrats said (but not really that different from what fringe democrats said about ROVIAN DIEBOLD MACHINES STEALING OHIO in 2004). While Kerry didn't push these theories, 31 house members and Barbera Boxer in the Senate voted to reject the Ohio votes based on the same sort of conspiracy theories.
And again in 2016, while not lead by Clinton, there was a concerted effort to flip electoral votes--the so called hamilton electors. At least one actually did change their vote.
I'll agree the GOP took it to a new level. But some democrats had previously taken it to new levels in prior elections.
The lies are different in the specifics but they’re lies calling into question the legitimacy of the results. Fact checkers have given Clinton multiple “pants on fire” ratings for these claims: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/19/hillary-cl...
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/06/hillary-cl...
Based on the studies we have seen, complaining about Voter ID laws, like Clinton did about Wisconsin, is akin to complaining about mail in voting security: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v...
> The results: Voter ID laws do not seem to decrease turnout, even when the data is broken down by race. This held when the data was analyzed in different ways, like evaluating only the effect of stricter laws that require an ID with a photo.
Voter ID laws are also broadly popular, among whites and non-whites: https://news.gallup.com/poll/194741/four-five-americans-supp...
(81% of whites and 77% of non-whites support both early voting and voter ID. Funnily enough, “voter suppressed” states like Georgia and Texas have both. Georgia also had automatic voter registration, which non-whites strongly support, thanks to Brian Kemp.)
I’m not comparing the impact of two situations! What Republicans did was shameful. Grandstanding and symbolically calling into question the legitimacy of the administration based on a big lie is worse than doing it based on a small lie. (Though, I think folks underestimate how many people with authority genuinely believe the election fraud lie, and also believed the Russia changed the votes lie. The vast majority of Americans don’t believe the official story about the Kennedy assassination! People are extremely prone to conspiracy theories.)
No, they knew (or at least the mature ones knew) it was doomed. But their voters did not. They went in there lying to their base that this was going to fix what they presented as a "fraudulent" election. And that's not OK.
Isn’t this the exact line the trumpers put out? I hate to be a both sides guy but seriously both sides sound ridiculous when they say stuff like this.
This is not correct.
Now, there is a key difference here as I mentioned: tens to hundreds of votes is a tiny margin, much smaller than anything we saw in 2020 for the presidential race. That’s the larger point: 2000 was a much, much tighter race and there was far more legitimacy to questioning a result which had more confusion in the election process and a margin of victory smaller by an order of magnitude or more.
> The results: The two major conclusions here are that Gore likely would have won a hand recount of the statewide overvotes and undervotes – which he never requested – while Bush likely would have won the hand recount of undervotes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, although by a smaller margin than the certified 537 vote difference.
Counting over votes would have been utterly ridiculous. It would have election officials try to divine who someone intended to vote for where they punched holes for more than one candidate.
Gore’s whole recount strategy was Bayesian bullshit. Back then, 1-2% of all votes on these punchcard machines were uncountable. Hand recounts will turn up a bunch more votes, creating a poll of votes that can skew them to your advantage through selective recounts that take advantage of different base rates (favoring Bush or Gore) in different precincts. Gore’s original gambit was to request a recount only in counties that had heavily favored him to begin with. Obviously that would result in newly countable votes skewing in his favor at the base rate of the county. But even he never asked for a recount of over votes.
The whole 2000 recount was a shocking parade of innumeracy. The Florida precincts were doing things like including partial recounts in the results. We know from the 2020 election why this would be nutty. Imagine Georgia starting a statewide hand recount, stopping halfway through because they ran out of time, and updating the results with partial data that excluded a bunch of absentee votes, or Fulton county.
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20011217183836/http://www.norc.u...
These were limitations that existed in the equipment in the time. (The uncountable ballot rate in newer optical scanners is vastly lower.) It only became a “concern” because of Gore’s hand recount strategy. (And burning a ton of time pursing the selective recount, which the Florida Supreme Court put a stop to.)
The fact is that with a 1-2% error rate, you can’t reliably “measure” an election result that’s within a tenth of a percent. The whole attempt to recount spoiled ballots was gamesmanship on Gore’s part. (Permissible under Florida law, which was written by idiots, but gamesmanship nonetheless.)
This move is nothing but PR. Google will claim the moral high ground here then turn around and violate its users privacy or sell AI technology to despotic regimes.
It’s easy to claim the moral high ground when it costs you nothing to do so.
dont try feign similarity with over generalizations. Youre being dishonest and misleading.
All political discussions are the same.
This news is good but insufficient. For starters, "this cycle"? Really? Treason shouldn't be so quickly forgiven.
For any Googlers reading this: please don't contribute to NetPAC. Try the EFF instead.
If you listen to these voices in your party, you don't care about making America less divided and safer since it will always be unsafe for a subset of people.
they will use those donations to influence politics differently, is all. We will get a spinoff company whose job is education or social services, and that company will try to capture regulators and pay off the low end administrators they find in the education system.
So maybe we should make everyone take a course on critical thinking. OK, what course is that? Everyone I've ever seen is garbage. Which shouldn't be surprising coming from a population that discourages critical thinking.
0 - Methods of Inquiry: Applied Critical Thinking https://www.amazon.com/dp/0757530443
Being offered an education doesn't guarantee you get educated.
A strong education system is important, an education system bought and paid for by corporate interests directly is another step towards giving google power it will wield to everyone else's detriment.
[1] https://www.govpredict.com/blog/alphabets-political-contribu...
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1184427/presidential-ele...
(...OK, it looks like they will let you view it for free, but only if you sign up, aka let them sell your personal data.)
Doesn’t that show a huge lack of diversity?
_Age_ is likely also a factor. Google's employee base would be younger than many companies, but in general employees of most companies would be likely to vote more for the left in the US than the general population, because people above working age are more likely to vote for the right.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262#efmAC9AE0
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs...
It's another to continue to attack the democratic process after dozens of court cases have found an election to be fair and claims unsubstantiated.
What was widespread was the allegations of fraud. That's very different than findings of widespread fraud, of which there were not.
This is kinda milquetoast. It says nothing about Google's board's personal contributions. It also seems like they're only talking about direct contributions to candidates, and nothing about contributions to other (super)PACs that support them.
I may be wrong but I suspect they did not and are making this announcement as a way to pander and improve their social standing.
I'd like to announce that I also won't donate to member of congress who voted against the election results.
It's true that there's a certain amount of performative dancing (or "virtue signaling", if that matches your tribe's jargon better) going on here. Pulling back on giving at the very beginning of a congressional cycle, when little giving happens, isn't really doing much in a concrete sense.
But no, the impact is real as far as it goes. Google is not a "democratic" company in any real sense. Almost no large corporations look partisan in that way.
The indexer of all information couldn't see this coming. Hmm.
Of course this is all virtue signaling and not actually about making a positive impact on society.
"Crazy liberal" would be things like actual in-national-office politicians advocating for nationalizing all businesses, seizing the assets of the rich, etc.
Advocating for all people to have basic human rights guaranteed to them is not "crazy liberal," it's common sense and common decency.
Explain to me how this isn't bribery, plain and simple.
The issue in CU was whether or not corporations and unions could pay for ads about candidates within 60 days of an election of 30 days of a primary. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibited such things.
The Wikipedia article covers this adequately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
>The ruling had a major impact on campaign finance, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labor unions and fueling the rise of Super PACs. Later rulings by the Roberts Court, including McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), would strike down other campaign finance restrictions.
CU rolled out the red carpet for corporate interests to install their cronies into office, who then worked to further erode any protections against political bribery - which is exactly what Google is doing in this thread.
There were any number of ways you could have learned this, but one obvious way would be to compare the date of the CU decision with the date of the creation of Google NetPAC.