Timothy P. Carney: White House, Google violate lobbying pledge
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
June 25, 2010
(Ap File Photo) (AP file photo)
Maybe a $150 billion company with 21,000 employees and 20 percent profit margins doesn't count as big business or a special interest if it talks about "changing the world from the bottom up, not from the top down," as President Obama put it.
Maybe a millionaire who spends his days leaning on policymakers to benefit his company isn't a lobbyist if he calls himself an "Internet evangelist."
Or maybe Google's cozy relationship with the White House -- exposed more clearly by e-mails recently made public through the Freedom of Information Act -- is just one more instance of the administration's actions contradicting Obama's reformer rhetoric about battling the special interests and freeing Washington from lobbyist influence.
Consumer Watchdog, a liberal nonprofit, used FOIA to obtain e-mails between White House Deputy Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin and his former colleagues at Google. McLaughlin was Google's head of global public policy and government affairs, up until he joined the White House.
Despite the job title, McLaughlin wasn't a registered lobbyist. Still, ethics rules created by an Obama executive order prohibit McLaughlin from "participat[ing] in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to" Google. But the e-mails show McLaughlin has been involved with formulating policy that directly affects Google, regularly trading e-mails with Google's "evangelist," and lobbyist.
The topic of net neutrality -- where the Obama administration and Google share a pro-regulation position that would profit Google -- appears repeatedly in McLaughlin-Google e-mails.
When one news report suggested the White House was backing away from the pro-Google regulations, Google Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist Vint Cerf wrote a worried note to McLaughlin, asking, "Has there been so much flack from the Hill that you guys feel a need to back away?"
McLaughlin reassured his former colleague, "Don't be silly. No one's backed away from anything."
Later, when McLaughlin took heat in the media for publicly comparing AT&T -- Google's rival in the net neutrality debate -- to the communist Chinese government, Google lobbyist Alan Davidson sent McLaughlin a heads up that a reporter had called Google about it. Davidson assured McLaughlin that he would get the Open Internet Coalition -- a pro-net-neutrality lobby headed by Google -- to "have your back."
"Thanks," McLaughlin wrote back. Davidson followed up the next day, taking credit for killing the story.
McLaughlin knew he was barred from dealing with Google, the e-mails show. When Cerf passed him an e-mail about Google Earth and an issue regarding a border dispute in Cambodia, McLaughlin responded, "in my current position, I'm recused from anything having to do with Google."
When I asked the White House about McLaughlin's e-mails, Rick Weiss, a spokesman at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, responded that McLaughlin's "e-mails to Vint did not run afoul of the pledge since Vint is a federal advisory committee member with whom Andrew is allowed to communicate on matters of relevance to that committee."
But Cerf was using a Google.com e-mail address and writing about regulations Google was aggressively backing.
And only when I followed up with a question about the e-mails with lobbyist Davidson did Weiss admit "they did violate the President's Ethics Pledge," and note that McLaughlin had been reprimanded.
But what else is McLaughlin working on that directly affects his former colleagues with whom he is in regular contact? It's hard to imagine many tech issues that don't directly affect Google, and so it's hard to imagine very many issues McLaughlin could work on that don't clash with Obama's ethics rules.
McLaughlin's role is only one strand in the web of Google-Obama connections.
Google trailed only Goldman Sachs and Microsoft as a source of funds for Obama in 2008, providing $803,000 -- 40 times what Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain raised from the company. Google chief executive Eric Schmidt was a fundraiser and adviser for Obama's campaign.
Obama speaks a lot about battling the special interests. But, evidently, his friends don't count.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
Foreign Aid - Is it worth it??
How much foreign aid does the us government give away?
In: History Politics and Society
the US spends more than other countries in total dollars, as a percentage of its total annual budget it give 25 billion dollars away a year! Mostly to countries who dont need it, and or hate the USA.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
the OECD calculated that in 2008 the US spent about 25 billion dollars in foreign aid, Germany spending the next largest amount at about 13 billion.
most OECD countries pledged to spend 0.7% of its GNI on foreign aid, but most countries (including the US) fall far short of that figure.
in 2008 the US spent a little under 0.2% of its GNI on foreign aid, the lowest figure out of the OECD countries. the most generous countries (and the only ones who contributed more than the required 0.7%) were Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
OECD member countries also often inflate their (already low) contribution numbers by including emergency aid in their foreign aid donations. so for example, the US might give millions of dollars of food, water and medical aid to countries in the Pacific islands hit by tsunamis, and then use that as an excuse to renege on its original, still un-met, obligations to give aid for road construction and so forth.
While some US Americans feel that the United States gives away too much money to international causes, $25 billion dollars is a very small percentage of the 2009 estimated federal government income of $2.7 trillion dollars.
Worth it - It hasn't done much in the way of "Good Will" It has promoted a a world wide feeling of entitlement and GRAFT - I suggest we cut the entire amount until our economy is stable. Then maybe we'll get some respect along with our hard earned gifts to the world.
In: History Politics and Society
the US spends more than other countries in total dollars, as a percentage of its total annual budget it give 25 billion dollars away a year! Mostly to countries who dont need it, and or hate the USA.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs
the OECD calculated that in 2008 the US spent about 25 billion dollars in foreign aid, Germany spending the next largest amount at about 13 billion.
most OECD countries pledged to spend 0.7% of its GNI on foreign aid, but most countries (including the US) fall far short of that figure.
in 2008 the US spent a little under 0.2% of its GNI on foreign aid, the lowest figure out of the OECD countries. the most generous countries (and the only ones who contributed more than the required 0.7%) were Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
OECD member countries also often inflate their (already low) contribution numbers by including emergency aid in their foreign aid donations. so for example, the US might give millions of dollars of food, water and medical aid to countries in the Pacific islands hit by tsunamis, and then use that as an excuse to renege on its original, still un-met, obligations to give aid for road construction and so forth.
While some US Americans feel that the United States gives away too much money to international causes, $25 billion dollars is a very small percentage of the 2009 estimated federal government income of $2.7 trillion dollars.
Worth it - It hasn't done much in the way of "Good Will" It has promoted a a world wide feeling of entitlement and GRAFT - I suggest we cut the entire amount until our economy is stable. Then maybe we'll get some respect along with our hard earned gifts to the world.
Friday, July 9, 2010
A Socialist in the White House -
55 Percent of Likely Voters Find ‘Socialist’ an Accurate Label of Obama?
July 09, 2010 9:13 AM By Jim Geraghty
The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.”
On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.
When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
PERMALINK 07/09/10 09:13 AM
Comments 56 | E-mail | Archive
Share
Log In to Post a Comment
July 09, 2010 9:13 AM By Jim Geraghty
The latest poll by Democracy Corps, the firm of James Carville and Stan Greenberg, has Republicans leading on the generic ballot among likely voters, 48 percent to 42 percent.
Deep in the poll, they ask, “Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all.”
On “too liberal,” 35 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 21 percent say “well,” 21 percent say “not too well,” and 17 percent say “not well at all.” In other words, 56 percent of likely voters consider Obama too liberal.
When asked about “a socialist,” 33 percent of likely voters say it describes Obama “very well,” 22 percent say “well,” 15 percent say “not too well,” and 25 percent say “not well at all.”
In other words, 55 percent of likely voters think “socialist” is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama.
PERMALINK 07/09/10 09:13 AM
Comments 56 | E-mail | Archive
Share
Log In to Post a Comment
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)