Facebook is looking to get a firmer grip on Washington by bankrolling its own Polticical Action Committee, which will back politicians it wants to be friends with. Facebook told political blog The Hill that the committee "will give our employees a way to make their voice heard in the political process by supporting candidates …
"the value of innovation to our economy"
More ways to keep computer users from doing actual work may be an innovation, but there's a negation missing in the above sentence.
"Political Action Committees are a peculiarity of the US political system..."
Not at all...
Every government is targeted by various "outside committees" of one kind or another.
It just depends on where you draw the line between "Political Action Committee" and "Corrupt Organisation with Improper Government Influence."
For the US, PACs are both a blessing and a curse:
-- -- They're a blessing because they allow companies to engage in legislative dialogue in an effort to protect themselves from job-killing over-regulation and government red tape.
-- -- They're a curse because they allow companies to engage in legislative dialogue in an effort to free themselves from appropriate regulation and proper oversight.
At least the American's get to see it all in the open and can make a judgment knowing that, rather than it being kept a dirty secret like over here.
As an American
I find Political Action Committee's nausiating. For example, the PAC run by the financial industry either heavily influenced or supplied verbage to a lot of legislation that our moron government has passed into law.
The fact that FaceBook wants to Borg us into their way of thinking makes me want to drop off the grid entirely, although, my wife, being a rather ardent FB user, may have a slight problem with that.
I could rant on and on about the evils of PAC's, but I'll stop there.
Meet their new Lobbyist
"politicians 'who share our goals'"
What an utterly fucking ugly and grotesque concept.
I think I've threw up in my mouthparts a little.
@ Craggy & AC 08:07
Now you know how a lot of us feel, over here. It'd actually be quite humorous if it weren't so contemptious and nausiating.
why dont they just give the office to the highest bidder?
Why don't the skeptics just admit the election goes to the candidate with the most money and hold an auction instead.
The bids could be used to reduce the deficit. They wouldn't ha ve to watch all those an.lying advert, and, they wouldn't need to feel guilty about not voting for people they did not like if respect.
Land of the Free?
Land of the Bought and Sold more like