Ex-Googler Obama Appointee Gets Buzz'ed 195
theodp writes "Hillicon Valley reports that Rep. Darrell Issa of the House Oversight Committee is pressing White House Deputy CTO Andrew McLaughlin to explain his relationship with Google, where McLaughlin was employed as Google's chief lobbyist. 'The American people have a right to expect that White House employees are working to advance the public interest and not the interests of the lobby shops who formerly employed them,' Issa noted in the letter. 'The use of a Gmail account to communicate with lobbyists and evade transparency laws is at odds with President Obama's promises to limit the influence of lobbyists.' Concerns emerged after screenshots of McLaughlin's Google Buzz account emerged showing that a number of the search giant's top employees subscribed to the deputy Web chief's updates."
No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many former lobbyists have been exempted from the no lobbyist rule now?
Yawn (Score:4, Insightful)
> ... is at odds with President Obama's promises
Reality is at odds with (many of) President Obama's promises.
Details at 11.
Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil! (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe the automatic opt-in of Buzz isn't so evil after all!
--Kim
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
You know its funny how outraged people get over appointments. Guess what. Each party has its set of 'experts'. Many have been around for 20-60 years in various positions in the government and private industry. When their party is out of favor they get cushy jobs at some company and wait for the tide to come back around.
These dudes are professional politicians.
When the republican party is back in favor (and it will be) they will trot out their group of experts to fill all those positions. Just as the Democrats have done in the past year or two.
What do people honestly think these guys do while they are not in some sort of official office? They are helping some company weave its way thru the corridors of power. They are helping write up bills that they can give to their buddies in congress to get passed.
I think it is funny that people are actually shocked that this is going on. The American government is about favors. Not about actually helping anyone... That gigantic healthcare bill that just passed? You dont think it was 1200 pages just because it was that hard to do? No. I would be large portions of it is little 'I will vote for it if you put my pet project in' type things. The reason you didnt see any republicans voting for it was because the Democrats didnt want to owe any favors to them, not because they were actually listening to their constituents. Just as the republicans did in 2001 with the tax bill.
Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil! (Score:3, Insightful)
You would not find him making such comments about a Bush appointee.
He wouldn't have to; a Dem would do it.
Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Personal account? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad thing is people don't expect this at all. They hope for it, but they certainly (mostly) know better than to expect it. Obama's brand of change is no different than the brand of change pushed by any politician who's ever promised "change." The only difference is more people are willingly allowing the proverbial wool to be pulled over their eyes.
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:4, Insightful)
Without a doubt, it would be very difficult to put someone into a position like CIO without the person having had much in the way of experience with large and successful companies. If they selected someone that was not of that sort, they would be asking some other very serious questions like "what makes you qualified for this position?"
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is funny that people are actually shocked that this is going on.
I'm not at all shocked.
I am fucking pissed though, and you should be too.
Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be fair. The Bush administration got raked over the coals (rightly so) for using private webmail accounts to keep a lot of internal discussions off of public records. That's a big no-no. The Obama administration doing it is no more right than any other administration doing it. Keep the personal email for personal use. But it shouldn't be used for government business. Chances of him not using it at all for business related to his position within the Obama administration: Probably greater than 50% is what I'm guessing. If he's got nothing to hide, he should let a private auditor go over his gmail account to ensure that nothing government business related is on the gmail account, and if there is anything there government business related, he should disclose this and make those emails part of the White House document chain.
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on man, that guy driving the Toyota was as likely as not lying about it. In any case Toyota doesn't seem to be a significant donor. Neither is Google, which may be part of the problem. Microsoft, on the other hand, is, along with Raytheon.
There is absolutely no reason that a company should be allowed to donate to a politician's political campaign or the government. Taxes are one thing but donations make obvious strings
Re:Yawn (Score:1, Insightful)
I think it is funny that people are actually shocked that this is going on.
Maybe people expected something better than they got under the last administration. Maybe they didn't like billions of tax-payer dollars being funnelled into companies associated with folks in the administration? Maybe that's why they voted for "Change"?
OK, this is several orders of magnitude less corrupt than the Cheney/Halliburton relationship, but what's wrong with a little disclosure? What's wrong with consciously disassociating yourself from ex-colleagues where such association might reasonably raise concern of undue influence? At least for the time you hold high office?
It's the jaded attitude of people like you that have allowed politics to descend into the quagmire it is in today. Raise your expectations!
Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda! (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary, doing that in a public, official way IS making such an accusation. Reporting it in this way is a means of making the current administration look corrupt. The entire thing is most likely going to come to naught (but hey, if it turns out the guy is dirty, great), but any time it can be stuck into the back of people's minds that "Obama is corrupt", there are many people who will attempt to do so. If there is nothing to it, nobody will ever hear about it again anyway.
This is not new, nor is it unique to Obama. For some reason people seem much more eager to jump on any potential issue, no matter how trivial, with him than most, but the principle is the same.
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm afraid that argument was lost when "they" decided corporations are people [wikipedia.org], and more recently created a ruling that allows corporations to run for office. [current.com] I happen to agree with you, but there it is.
There's actually a corporate policy that prevents me from naming my employer publicly (LOL) but they shamelessly and regularly plug their PAC via company e-mail trying to raise donations. But frankly what's in the best interest of any large corporate is rarely in the best interest of the consumer; most corporations simply want to suppress the competition and dominate their respective markets to maximize profitability... economics 101 but the consumer pays when these corporations "win" and dominate their markets.
We live in interesting times when an entity is required by the document that creates it to conduct itself amorally, and by that I mean that ponderous bromide "maximize shareholder profits" which is used to justify all kinds of corporate misbehavior that would never be tolerated in individuals.
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:5, Insightful)
Complaining about corporate donations is really just a complaint about lack of citizen participation. The fact is, in a democracy, if the citizens don't pay attention, the people who are paying attention will get what they want. This is what's happened in America.
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:5, Insightful)
And having seen that exact effect with FEMA, this really is a catch-22 situation. They have to hire someone qualified (with a proven track record) whose never worked for anyone before. That might be a problem.
I wonder if he cut off his friends on Facebook (Score:5, Insightful)
2) High-level Google officials will be interested to see what the CTO of the Executive Branch is up to, no matter who that CTO is.
3) This needs to be kept an eye on, but is not indicative of endemic corruption by any stretch. Get a grip, folks!
Re:Not everyone has a hidden agenda! (Score:5, Insightful)
"1) You seem to think that the current administration ISN'T corrupt.'
I've seen nothing to credibly indicate that it is particularly corrupt. Corruption is nearly universal to social constructs, including governments, businesses, clubs, schools, consortiums, and even informal groups of friends... it is, in some form, almost omnipresent. The question isn't whether or not the current administration is corrupt, it is to what extent it is corrupt, and to what extent it is more or less corrupt than others. In my opinion, there is insufficient credible evidence to conclude that it is notably more corrupt than other presidential administrations I can recall. This is not even remotely the same thing as concluding that there is no corruption.
"2) The political news media types jump on any potential issue, no matter how trivial, and no matter who it's about, because scandal brings ratings"
Yes, that was pretty much what I said... How am I fooling myself again?
Re:Maybe Google Buzz automatic opt-in isn't evil! (Score:4, Insightful)
No doubt, but from the description, there doesn't really seem to be any indication that he's done anything bad.
It reads more like grand-standing by some random Republican trying to smear by insinuation ("the Bush administration intentionally used private email accounts to bypass public accountability laws ... therefore if someone in the Obama administration merely has a private email account, they must be doing the same thing!").
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Personal account? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have a right to expect a pony for christmas (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only is this President putting out scripts just like the last President (and quite honestly, every President since before FDR), but a good chunk of the press not only prints it, but eats it up. I've never seen as much press love for a President as I've seen with the current one. The same people that are supposed to help hold the government accountable and keep them at least semi-honest are really just reporting what the talking heads are saying. You want to talk about the media questioning anything. First off, the media was all over Bush for most of the 8 years. The boy didn't do a thing without people questioning his motives, for better or worse. Some of it was well warranted questioning, and some of it was just smear campaigns run by the opposing party. This time around it's much different. Almost all of the reporting about Obama on virtually all of the news networks is basically how the mean Republicans are being mean to him and how he's just trying to be a nice man. Some things Obama is getting attacked on by the conservatives are justified, and then some is typical bias smear. But really, you don't see many people honestly and openly questioning anything this current government does, and the ones that are, mainly conservative news outlets, are getting smeared for trying to keep people at least semi-honest, regardless of their own motives (it's well documented that media outlets themselves are only semi-honest at best and have their own agendas, so let's not have that argument). I miss the days when the media was a watchdog against abusive government, and not a cheerleader for it. Those days are long gone, obviously.
Please don't try to pretend that somehow the media is being fair and aggressive in keeping the current administration honest, and also don't try to pretend that the media wasn't all over Bush pretty much from day one, but especially after the Iraq invasion. The man could've saved puppies from a burning tree, and the media would've tried to make him out to be a tyrant for it. The man fucked up plenty, and he did plenty that he was also made to appear to fuck up on and really didn't deserve flak for, but for all of the media reporting you'd have to be really kidding yourself to think that somehow the media gave him a pass on anything. I mean, seriously, please tell me you aren't that naive, are you?
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:3, Insightful)
Without a doubt, it would be very difficult to put someone into a position like CIO without the person having had much in the way of experience with large and successful companies. If they selected someone that was not of that sort, they would be asking some other very serious questions like "what makes you qualified for this position?"
This argument might have merit except that he was employed by Google as a lobbyist. He will be aware of new technologies, but only those developed by Google.
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:1, Insightful)
Hire someone from another country then. A Canadian or a Brit can do the same job with a pretty sure guarantee that they aren't in any American's pocket at least.
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:4, Insightful)
This argument might have merit except that he was employed by Google as a lobbyist. He will be aware of new technologies, but only those developed by Google.
Huh? Why? A good lobbyist better be aware of the stuff the competition is up to.
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:1, Insightful)
*Whoosh*?
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottom line is this: the people who don't pay attention are going to be manipulated by those who are. If we want a fair system, everyone has to pay attention. Those who don't, lose. (I'm not trying to say how I want it to be, I'm just describing how it is. Still, it's hard for me to have any sympathy for the average guy who gets ripped off for not paying attention).
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:3, Insightful)
> There is only one real solution. Don't give any part of government or politicians too much power over too large a portion of the nation.
Then they can just take the power they want through non-governmental channels. Where there are no chiefs, you need to have a very special environment indeed, or people will start making themselves into chiefs with tooth and nail.
Re:Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No lobbyists ...except mine. (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, he might just be in Canada's or Britain's pocket instead. The national CTO might be involved in some national security issues like cyberwarfare, right? Do you really want foreign nationals in sensitive appointed positions? (I say this as a child of an immigrant).
Also keep in mind that public service positions pay comparatively poorly. This guy doesn't want to be a life-long civil servant, he either wants to get out and retire after Obama leaves office, or he wants to return to the private sector where he can make some real money again.
I've got real issues with the intersection of money and politics. On the one hand I'm an ardent free-speech supporter. On the other, I think that "legal persons" have undue influence. It's a sticky situation, one that would work itself out with what I consider a fairer income distribution. The middle class needs to make more money (this includes civil servants) and the middle-upper and upper-upper classes need to make a lot less.