Google has contributed $17.5k to SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith | Hacker News Reader

Google has contributed $17.5k to SOPA sponsor Lamar Smith

transparencydata.com

158 pointsthedigger51 comments

Google is too big, and supports too many things, to not in have in some way contributed money to just about everything. Relax and put down thy pitchfork, SOPA hurts them in many ways and they do not want it. If we want to make it a big PR fiasco like like we did for Go Daddy, whom i think the internet was just looking for an excuse to hurt, then we can but why? Bad target, not worth the effort, no efficacy. Right not, on this topic, Google is on our side for a change because SOPA scares them.

*edit s/to/too (and s/too/to) once I saw it, it drove me mad.

How much money is $17.5 compared to how much Google gives other lawmakers? How much is it in comparison to what the lawmakers get from other people?

On my first reaction that doesn't sound like very much, could be wrong though.

Reminds me of the old strategy of hiring all the divorce lawyers in town so your wife can't find a good one.

> and supports too many things, too not in have in some way contributed money to just about everything

It's not uncommon for large companies to contribute to candidates across the board - even (or especially) to the two presidential candidates (both Dem and GOP). In a world (or country) where corporations and money have a large impact on policy, it'd be foolish for them not to. (You can say that this reflects poorly on the US political system, but it's not Google's job to change that).

On a separate note, I know that some candidates set up 501(c) 3s and -4s before they officially start running, and Google matches charitable contributions from its employees. Does anybody know if those types of funds (or funds donated through another organization) are included in these totals? It may not be the case, but on the off-chance it is, then this would just be a byproduct of the employees' own contributions.

I love how Google always gets a free pass. People say Jobs is a cult, but this isn't much different.

This isn't so much of a case of Google getting a "free pass" as it is a simply a coincidence that they have provided campaign contributions to a politician who happens to support SOPA. I am willing to bet they have made more contributions to other supporters as well.

Did you actually look at the distribution table? The donations occurred on 11 separate occasions in amounts no larger than $2,000 over the past 5+ years.

This is a non-event, and IMHO does not belong on the top of HN.

It's not a free pass. They explicitly do not support SOPA, this is the same as being told you're a co-conspirator in a crime committed by a homeless man because you gave him $1 when he was sitting in the street.

I’m sorry but in this case is like if that guy had a sign that said “Angry: need money to buy bullets”.

If you're thinking of Google and SOPA, not it's not, because bullets and guns didn't exist when the dollar was given.

You're thinking of the CIA and bin Laden I assume...

It's not so much as a "free pass" as it is "watch and wait". There's not nearly enough information to suggest anything at the moment.

I'm trying hard to avoid Politics and partisan side-choosing.

Giving small amounts of funding to all politicians is better than picking a side and giving large amounts to that side; it helps even out spending wins. Funding pro-SOPA politicians at least gives you an edge when you talk to them: "We hate SOPA, we like you, we even gave you some cash,but this SOPA thing is awful. Please, let us explain why."

While I'm here: I'd be really really interested to see a pop-economics analysis of votes and spending; a bit like "Moneyball" but for politics.

To all: no, I don’t think Google supports SOPA – what you explain here might be reasonable, there are other reasonable positions in other threads.

I am noticing the fact that people here are taking the “watch and wait” approach, trying to explain that an explicit donation doesn’t necessarily mean support, or finding all the possible ways this could be seen as defensive, while other companies have been profusely grilled just for not explicitly taking a stance against it.

You don't love it. Why do people keep saying that "I love how..." when they don't really do. It's arrogant and stupid.

17.5k is like finding 2 quarters in your couch cushions in the world of politics. Relax.

Exactly. The question is how much more Google and friends need to give to this guy to get him to change his position.

Of course; is all a conspiracy and Google is the secret original creator of SOPA... or you think this is evil because they understood how the congre$$ works?

A better overview of donations to Lamar Smith http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N0000...

and a list of who Google gave money this cycle http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00428623...

Lamar Smith received the most money according to that list.

Actually it is logical for Google to contribute funds to SOPA sponsors, if influence is indeed being wielded through dollars then this is one of the best options to counteract such legislation in the shorter term.

Edit : If I were trying to disrupt SOPA, then one of the most effective ways to do so would be to raise a large conditional donation for Lamar Smith predicated upon him withdrawing support from SOPA as well as raising his voice against such measures. After all no argument will be more persuasive in redefining his view of the internet than a large a large check in his name.

Given how this impacts the future of the internet this might be the best investment anyone can possibly make.

This directly contradicts the GoDaddy saga. Edit: And by this I mean that we (including Google) should be pursuing more or less the same measures that proved effective with GoDaddy, i.e, pressure through boycott. It is not clear whether Google intends to pressure Smith to withdraw support, and in any case it's the wrong path if one considers the amounts Smith gets from the companies that want SOPA passed.

Difference being: GoDaddy very blatantly and explictly supported SOPA (until doing so stopped making business sense). All Google's done here is give money to this member of Congress (which could have been with the intent of for or against); they haven't stated an explicit position (EDIT: they took out an ad against it; though not on their own). We have nothing to judge them on besides these receipts, so I can't rightly condemn or praise them without a more explicit position.

GoDaddy explicitly stated that they support the SOPA legislation. Google (and others) took out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal denouncing it. It's not the same thing.

Not at all! Lamar Smith's opinion on these issues is influenced by the people who pay to get face time with him and his staff. I hope that Google is getting what they pay for.

If our democracy can be sold to the highest bidder, it's better for us if the winning bid is made by someone who shares our values. As a recent post said, "It's not ok for the Internet to understand how Congress works."

These things are such red herrings. My wife used to be a lobbyist, so there are a few things I've learned that never seem to make the news:

- Most corporate donations aren't about support, they're about hedging bets with candidates. Many corporations will make donations to both Democrat and Republican candidates at national and state levels.

- Most (if not all) politicians aren't single-issue people. There's more going on than SOPA, such as the economy, wars, etc.

- Most lobbying is ineffectual on behalf of the corporation.

Back in the late nineties, during the DOJ trial with Microsoft, a few news outlets made a big deal about the millions of dollars that Microsoft had made in campaign contributions to various candidates and politicians. The anti-MS crowd, Sun chief among them, made a huge deal out of it (as they did with anything they could latch onto from an anti-MS stance). On further review of campaign contributions, it was discovered that Microsoft's political contributions paled in comparison to those of Oracle, IBM, Sun, Intel, and several others with large government contracts. Shocker!

There is a lot made in the press about the undue influence of corporations within American politics. While there are certainly those that exploit that influence (the military industrial complex and the oil industry come to mind), for most corporations it is a loss leader. In spite of the media's presentation, most corporations participate just enough to not be considered antagonistic toward politicians. The interpretation of exuberance in support is rarely reality.

Google unambiguously opposes SOPA. They have been one of the leaders in rallying opposition. Following is their testimony to the house judiciary committee (Lamar Smith is the chairman)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73002393/Google-SOPA-Oral-Testimon... http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Oyama%2011162011.pdf

The idea that Google is supporting SOPA is nonsense.

I had an idea, but I don't know who to pitch it to or if it's good or bad or has already been done.

It's unfortunate, but our political process is coin operated--this is even more clear since we decided corporations were people and moneys political speech. Someone, perhaps someone here, needs to make an app that lets you see a company's political positions on the fly. If they have physical products, scanning the barcodes could let you know what the company lobbies for and who they support. Said app could do other things, like informing the company how their political meddling influenced your purchase (for or against) and/or recommending an alternative product or service from a company/provider with monetary speech you find more palatable.

People have been repeating this line that corporations have become people and money has become political speech, but that's not what's happened.

Corporations are organizations of people. Money is a tool which can be used for many purposes. Money is sometimes used by organizations of people to engage in speech. That's it. Nothing's changed.

If Google wants to use money to influence opinion in Washington, they should only pay the "undecided" politicians. Paying money to the original sponsors of SOPA will do nothing for their cause.

I wonder if money paid to people like this is an attempt to get time with them and change their mind or alter the bill.

>Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has said the bill would "criminalize" the Internet, and warns it would create a Web censorship regime similar to ones used in authoritarian countries like China.

>Smith says his bill does not apply to lawful websites, and opponents like Google are "spreading lies" about the legislation

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/200133-g...

Lamar Smith has basically been calling the politically active chairman of his $17.5K donor a liar for the last two weeks or so.

That shouldn't be surprising, the passing of SOPA is much larger than a $17.5K donation.

I would be careful about vilifying Lamar Smith in the way we did with GoDaddy. Politicians have to create laws based on the problems that people point out to them, and it's unfair to expect them to be experts in any of them. So while I know very little about SOPA and Smith's role in it, I wouldn't automatically leap to saying that Smith is a bad guy, and I certainly wouldn't be vilifying Google for contributing to his campaign.

GoDaddy is different though - they have a long history of scummy actions, and this is merely the straw that broke the camel's back.

This could conceivably have had something to do with the Leahy-Smith patent reform statute, and be totally unrelated to SOPA... there were some anti-troll provisions in that law.

The inference of this thread and its title is straight out of a tabloid rag.

Witch hunt much?

Think that's something, how about Paul Graham contributing numerous times to Rick Perry.

http://transparencydata.com/contributions/#Y29udHJpYnV0b3JfZ...

Oh, okay, be picky, it's not the same Paul Graham :-)

obviously wasn't enough

Personally I find it strange that there even are donation as low as $17.5k. Are the millions hidden and the thousands only act as cover?

PAC contributions, see this chart:

http://i.bnet.com/blogs/google-contributions-chart2.jpg

still not a lot considering how large these companies are

There are limits to how much can be given. Most of the huge huge huge donations go to organizations such as the DNC and RNC where the limits are less strict.

Why?

If you contribute to both sides, you end up with a bought candidate regardless of who wins an election.

They've also contributed $43.7k to congresswoman Zoe Lofgren: http://transparencydata.com/contributions/#Y29udHJpYnV0b3JfZ...

And $20.4k to senator Ron Wyden: http://transparencydata.com/contributions/#Y29udHJpYnV0b3JfZ...

Both strongly opposing SOPA/PIPA.

So I wouldn't read too much into that arbitrary data point the OP chose to share with us.

Especially if you don't know exactly what position they were lobbing for when slipping the good congressman an envelope full of election cash. Even though the OP has been very economical with the facts, I'm willing to bet Google wasn't arguing in favor of SOPA.

For the young and innocent, this is how it works: Congressman X needs cash to keep his seat, and decides to do something to upset the balance of power in a given industry. Given industry freaks out. Potential winners and losers both flood his office with money, trying to accelerate or forestall the impending act. Congressman X profits handsomely.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

After playing this delightful game long enough to rack up a decent number of wins for any given industry, Mr. X can count on delayed payback in the form of a million dollar salary as a lobbyist for the same industries he used to "regulate".

Revolving Door 101.

Not just that, but these donations have all been made prior to SOPA becoming an issue so there's really no legitimate reason to make any connection here.

To draw an analogy, the CIA once supported Osama Bin Laden before September 11, 2001. We don't blame the CIA for what happened to us, do we?

> these donations have all been made prior to SOPA becoming an issue so there's really no legitimate reason to make any connection here.

What proves that bribing politicians is an endless game.

> To draw an analogy, the CIA once supported Osama Bin Laden before September 11, 2001. We don't blame the CIA for what happened to us, do we?

What do you mean with "blame"? Of course the CIA didn't plan 9/11, but was it smart to support such an assassin as Osama bin Laden? Was it smart to support Saddam Hussein? The list of mass killers supported but the CIA is endless. No wonder some of them end attacking us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

Dragging this point up could make Google uncomfortable donating to this person again, and through this perhaps make him to not support random bills of highly questionable nature next time around. It doesn't matter if it were just $1, it's the publicity that matters.

SOPA/PIPA could add costs for Google and thus interfere with their business and seeing that congressman Smith doesn't miss an opportunity to openly bash Google for opposing his plants: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/14195416946/lamar-...

I think it's safe to assume that he's not going to see a penny from them again, but Hollywood's contributions will more than make up for it anyway.

Come on. Google would love SOPA. It's right up their alley of 'do no evil'.

True. It would be legislation in support of their pagerank method where sites are penalized for copyright infringement. Yet SOPA is the beginning of the policing and sterilization of the internet, so it will one day look and feel like a big company intranet.

So what do we do? Boycott google?

You are assuming that they donated to support.

The alternative is that they figured out a whole new business model where you donate to your opponents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com