Following Tech's Money Trail In Washington 61
Posted
by
timothy
from the can't-beat-em-seek-rent-through-'em dept.
from the can't-beat-em-seek-rent-through-'em dept.
snydeq writes "Having outlayed $111 million to gain political influence in 2009, the tech industry is clearly learning how to play the lobbying game, writes InfoWorld's Bill Snyder. And while longtime lobbying stalwart General Motors nearly outspent the tech industry on its own, the rise of lobbying among tech giants, especially those under antitrust scrutiny, is staggering. Google, which has been drawing interest from the feds over its online advertising business, has increased its efforts twelve-fold in the past four years. And while Google frames its sudden increased interest in Washington as a matter of growth inspiring greater civic responsibility, the company may find itself sucked further into Washington, now that it is party to an international spat involving both the US and Chinese governments. Among those that top the list of tech lobbyists, Oracle, Intel, and Microsoft all have come under scrutiny in the past year, with Intel accused of monopolistic practices and Oracle requiring sign off on its merger with Sun."
Just what we need in DC... (Score:4, Interesting)
...more influence bought by money.
MS Lobbyists (Score:5, Interesting)
During the lunch, I got into a conversation with the MS lobbyist and asked him if he thought it would be worth it to upgrade from XP to Vista on my laptop, to which he replied "do you still have the XP disks that came with the computer?" "No," I said, "I got the laptop as part of the compensation from my last contract and it didn't come with the disks." "Well, then," he replied "I'd just leave well enough alone since you won't be able to go back when things go wrong."
Frankly, it was one of the most sensible things that I'd heard anyone say then entire time I was in D.C.
Paging Wesley Mouch... Mr. Mouch... (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't take long for an industry to develop (or simply realize) the reality that it is cheaper to lobby the government to ban your competitors than it is to out-compete them (or become commoditized). Even the good guys have to pay, because even if they are not seeking government protection, their competitors are.
If you allow the government any control over economic activity, for totally virtuous reasons, you'll end up here. Eventually it becomes more profitable to regulate (i.e. to destroy) than to produce. At which time a cultural reboot is necessary.
Re:Just what we need in DC... (Score:4, Interesting)
Restrict government to its constitutional duties, and suddenly these corporations have no reason to care what's going on in DC.
And that's where you'd get most of the argument coming from. What would qualify as a constitutional duty? As the world changes, should those duties change as well? Should they be explicitly demarcated, or loosely interpreted?
You've presented what seems like a simple, direct, excellent answer, but it's still as much of a minefield as anything else. But I'm Canadian, what do I care? You guys are just our largest trading partners, so I've no interest in your well-being as a nation. ;)
Re:Just what we need in DC... (Score:3, Interesting)
You guys are just our largest trading partners, so I've no interest in your well-being as a nation.
You do realize that US interests own almost 45% of Canada right? (seriously)