back to article Google had Obama's ear during antitrust probe

According to emails released under the US Freedom of Information Act, Google briefed the White House amid an antitrust investigation into itself, breaking a 40-year precedent of the President's office staying well away from competition issues. Google lobbyist Johanna Shelton and the web giant's antitrust lawyer Matthew Bye met …

  1. zb

    Wow, Google have a hot line to the White House. Who would ever have thought that?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Megaphone

      Well, money talks.

      And Progressive money talks to Progressive office holders real loud. Sometimes they can't seem to hear anything else.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Don't act as if the exact same thing isn't true for conservative money and conservative office holders. Both parties are rife with corruption, but based on Citizens United we will need a constitutional amendment to get corporate, union and dark money out of elections.

        1. Preston Munchensonton

          Both parties are rife with corruption, but based on Citizens United we will need a constitutional amendment to get corporate, union and dark money out of elections.

          Hardly. That money has always been present, but had far more laundering required to make it "legal". The real problem is that so much of the economy flows through the hands of central bureaucrats, not that people can influence politicians. No one would be interested if the politicians didn't have the ability to make or break a business (or union).

        2. asdf

          transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

          >but based on Citizens United we will need a constitutional amendment to get corporate, union and dark money out of elections.

          You are not going to get money out of elections. Honestly we should focus much more on making it transparent whose giving what to whom (you lose the right to privacy once you starting trying to influence public policy). Getting rid of the dark money is the key.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

            You can't get all the money out of elections, but you can get the dark money out as a first step, then the corporate and union money out as a second step. If a union member or corporate shareholder wants to contribute to candidates, it should be their choice, not something that is decided for them in the boardroom or union hall. The corporation or union can put out their list of candidates they believe will be best for the shareholders/members, but it should be up to the individual to decide whether and how much to contribute.

            Personally I think it would be nice to limit the size of contributions individuals can make, to reduce the outsized influence that billionaires like the Kochs and Soros have. But that's a fight for another day; I feel a lot more strongly about dark money and money contributed by non-persons.

            1. Eddy Ito

              Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

              I don't know why gift tax laws don't apply to "donations". Go ahead and gift money all you want but pay the required 40% tax. As always, the first few bucks each year are free so long as you're under the lifetime limit.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

            If you restrict money in politics it increases the power of the media to control elections, and currently the US media are 90% Democrats.

            If you require full transparency in donations, you enable public intimidation tactics that tend to come mostly from the Democrats' younger, more radicalized base.

            Both of these things benefit the Democrats preferentially, which is why they are are always demanding such 'fairness' be implemented at once. Yet when you merely want voters to have to prove who they are (to insure against voter fraud), the Democrats scream about 'disparate impact' as if that were a legitimate concept.

            1. brainbone

              Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

              "If you require full transparency in donations, you enable public intimidation"

              One man's "public intimidation" is another's free speech. (Unless we're talking about physical threats, which we're not.) Corporations that invest in elections should be ready for the consequences if they support a candidate that their customers don't appreciate. There should be no anonymity in political donations -- only anonymity in your vote.

              "Yet when you merely want voters to have to prove who they are (to insure against voter fraud)"

              Bullshit. It's well documented that these are not to "to insure against voter fraud" but to disenfranchise minority voters. Please tell me where this rampant voter fraud is? Yes, that's right: "Redistricting".

              So, let's see... We have dark money that has a proven negative effect on the quality of elected officials and policy. Then there's a claim of "voter fraud" having zero credible evidence to show it's actually a problem (unless allowing those with lower income to vote is a problem for you), but plenty of evidence showing that these voter IDs laws have placed an undue burden on those with lower income, reducing voter turnout for that group. Knowing this, you're all for dark money and voter ID laws?

              1. Eddy Ito

                Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

                I've seen voter fraud first hand in California. One lady I know collects mail in ballots from several people in exchange for a few bucks they sign it and hand it over to her and she fills them all out and mails them in. Sure, they get their drug, liquor, or even milk money for their kids but that doesn't make it legal. I don't turn her in because she always marks them for the green party so it's mostly harmless and besides, it's Cali, we already know who's going to win every election in the state.

                1. Strahd Ivarius Silver badge

                  Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

                  None of the proposals for curbing alleged voter fraud target absentee ballots, mostly casts by white people...

                  More on the subject here:

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/opinion/the-courts-begin-to-call-out-lawmakers.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_ty_20160818&nl=opinion-today&nl_art=11&nlid=32313219&ref=headline&te=1

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  @Eddy Ito - voter fraud

                  But that type of voter fraud isn't prevented by showing ID at the polls. It is WAY easier and pretty much risk free to commit fraud with absentee ballots - either voting at more that one location if you have multiple addresses (i.e. a winter home, college, nursing home etc.) or using other people's ballots (with or without their knowledge)

                  Walking up to a polling place and claiming to be someone else would be far more risky - most such places have cameras now so there would be a record of it, plus you wouldn't know for sure if the poll worker knew the person you were claiming to be. Not saying that type of in-person fraud doesn't exist, but given how much easier and less risky it is to use absentee ballots those who are concerned with reducing fraud should be devoting their effort there.

                  Plus don't forget the easier source of fraud - computerized voting machines that leave no paper trail for auditing. All sorts of issues from localized fraud in individual precincts to nationwide fraud affecting all voters who use a particular company's machines. Who cares if voters are who they say they are if everyone's votes are deliberately being miscounted by those in charge?

                  1. Eddy Ito

                    Re: @Eddy Ito - voter fraud

                    But this isn't absentee ballots as such, in Cali we're asked whether we prefer to vote by mail when we register to vote. Literally anyone can ask to vote by mail and so many do that it isn't actually difficult to walk in and out of a regular polling place in a few minutes. On top of that the ballot is perhaps the worst I've seen in several decades of voting in over a half dozen states. Plus anyone can set up a polling station practically anywhere by simply filling out a bit of paperwork, there's no requirement for cameras or anything really, it's pretty much a joke.

              2. Kumar2012

                Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

                " Corporations that invest in elections should be ready for the consequences if they support a candidate that their customers don't appreciate." -- Hah nice try, but everyone knows this is not how it works, it is a small vocal and often times violent minority that always show up (i.e. the radical left)

                "Please tell me where this rampant voter fraud is? Yes, that's right: "Redistricting". --- please tell me any other civilized country that doesn't require proof of ID to vote, the USA is a joke in this respect and there have been numerous cases of voter fraud caught over the years from dead people to illegals, to people voting multiple times. Besides how can you even prove the majority of voter fraud cases when you can't ask for ID.

                All that aside voter ID laws did nothing to reduce minority turn out, its just another fact less whine by Democrats who like their voter fraud.

                http://www.worldtribune.com/voter-id-and-voter-fraud-available-data-contradicts-the-democrat-narrative/

                The only one with zero credibility seems to be you who can't back up your claims of this mythical 'zero vote fraud' when it has been clearly documented over and over every election cycle. Just an example from the article:

                “More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples [from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study] indicated that they were registered to vote,” the authors found. “Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.” -- yes no voter fraud at all...

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

              @Big John - enjoy losing not only another POTUS election (will make 6 of last 7 by popular vote) but the Senate as well (GOP defending almost 3x more seats with Trump boat anchor). At least through gerrymandering the GOP will have the do nothing House until 2020 but considering that will not be an off election year when mostly old white people vote (like 2010) I wouldn't count on keep that next decade either. Though I am guessing the postmortem on this election won't be ignored as quickly as the last POTUS election by those on the right.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

                Don't go getting excited about a democratic victory, the democratic party has a lot of the same problems the republican party has - they almost nominated a socialist! Now probably he could have won against Trump, but if the republicans had nominated someone sane like Bush or Kasich, Sanders would have been eaten alive as they tied him to socialist failures around the world in ads.

                The question I have is whether, assuming Trump loses, will the republicans decide "we need to broaden our base and avoid permanently becoming the party of old white men by becoming more inclusive of minorities and taking less extreme positions social issues like gay marriage and sex ed" or decide "the problem was we didn't nominate a true conservative like Ted Cruz". They might have to nominate a Ted Cruz and go down in flames like 1964 before they realize the majority of the country doesn't want a true blue conservative any more than they want a socialist. A mistake like nominating a Ted Cruz in 2020 might be the only way Clinton wins a second term!

                It remains to be seen if Sanders was a one off, or if progressives will continue trying to push the party further left. If they do, I guess they didn't learn their lesson after nominating guys like McGovern and Mondale. Sort of like republicans might have to learn the Goldwater lesson all over again with Cruz. The only way an extremist like Sanders or Cruz can win a general election is if the opposition is running an extremist of their own, and the voters are left with two unpalatable choices (sorta like this year) The lack of participation in party primaries outside the ideologues is the source of that problem, but there's no really a good fix.

                In an ideal world a lot of people would flee the republicans and form a strong libertarian party (and those incoming masses would dilute the ideologically pure libertarians with their crazy ideas like privatizing roads) and a lot of people would flee the democrats and form a strong green party. A four party system would be nice, but the two parties have stacked the deck so high against that I don't think it is feasible.

          3. DonL

            Re: transparency unlike unworkable limits is way to go

            "Honestly we should focus much more on making it transparent whose giving what to whom (you lose the right to privacy once you starting trying to influence public policy)."

            In The Netherlands all gifts to political parties above € 4500 have to be made public to prevent conflicts of interest.

            Also having only 2 political parties is unhealthy, we have many parties to choose from even in a small country as The Netherlands.

    2. Oblamo BinLyen

      They'll have to add rooms to the White House if HilLIARe gets in, or else the Lincoln bedroom will be getting a heck of a lot of use.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      True... and hasn't the gov kind of lost all credibility on these issues after doing nothing about Microsoft. If Microsoft in the 90s warranted no, meaningful, action, Google certainly doesn't warrant that action today. Google has never had that sort of market dominance.... Microsoft is violating the terms of their original settlement now by shoving Edge on everyone. Crazy "bundling" happening in Windows 10. Focus on that issue, which is way more annoying than Google winning because they are better at stuff.

      1. Tom -1

        I can't imagine what world the AC who says Microoft is shiving edge on everyone is living on. Edge isn't the default browser for any of my Windows 10 logins - although I do use it occasionally. It is trivial to pick a default browser during the upgrade process.

    4. Whitter
      Joke

      House of Cards / Tusk

      Art imitating life eh? Who knew?!

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TRUMP

    Wonder if The Donald will stand for this kind of Schmidt?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: TRUMP

      No, he won't be Putin up with it.

  3. J.Smith

    Revolving doors

    It's how corruption and business are done, everyone's a winner. Unless you're a member of the public, then it sucks to be you.

    1. Dadmin
      Megaphone

      Re: Revolving doors

      Exactly! This is the same fucking tune, played by a different band. Just replace Obama with Bush, and Google with Haliburton/Blackwater/etc. It's how the game is played. Don't bitch about finding out in a more elegant and open manner, let's promise to all vote for the ending of this bribery bullshit for influence and stop calling it "lobbying" and put a fucking stop to it. It won't happen overnight. No shit, sherlock, but get with the program, get a fucking clue, and let's stop letting corporations, however much you want to suck their dicks, run the country and set policy. And let's put in place a system that does not approve its' own ethics policies and their own pay increases (that never ever decrease, even when they fail to do any fucking work)

      The people are onto the bullshit. This will end when the money is cut off from the pigs who crave it, in both major parties. HAHA! Thought I was going to favor one? You're a fucking dope, if you did.

      We need a LobbyExit strategy, and we need to get the hicks on board. But that's easy. Look at the hillbillies rooting for their own economic demise over there in Blighty UK-town. What a fucking mess. Trick them, just like that, but in a direction that improves our country, not kicks it in the balls and says "good job, mate." Fucking hillbillies are just shit-people. Sorry to say, but they are.

  4. Gene Cash Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Meh

    In this case, Google's interests align with mine. I'm in favor of net neutrality, I'm glad they beat Oracle on Java, and I don't think they're a monopoly any more than Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else is, in the tech industry.

    I'm also glad Wheeler's beat the telcos with a very large stick. They deserve it. If anyone should be called a monopoly, it's Comcast & AT&T in the broadband space. AT&T has already been found to be one once, and has agglomerated back into another one.

    1. Nunyabiznes

      Re: Meh

      And your attitude is exactly why the problem exists. I'm sick and tired of any side getting a pass because "the end justifies the means". Either it is good for the goose and gander or not at all.

      This kind of dealing got a heck of a lot of mileage in the press during the latter parts of Bush II's term and it should get the same now.

    2. Preston Munchensonton
      Thumb Down

      Re: Meh

      In this case, Google's interests align with mine.

      I doubt you're as hell-bent on world domination, but I suppose that's possible.

      I'm in favor of net neutrality...

      Then you don't understand how much it will continue the consolidation process among ISPs. Big telcos love regulation for this reason. It's far easier to let the government destroy small, disruptive market participants than to out innovate them when you're a behemoth.

      ...I'm glad they beat Oracle on Java...

      This gets my meh. I was hoping that the earth would open up and swallow them both. No one really won, either way.

      ...and I don't think they're a monopoly any more than Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else is, in the tech industry.

      This is absolutely true. Instead, they are one of several oligopolists that use regulation to their advantage against smaller, lesser competitors.

      I'm also glad Wheeler's beat the telcos with a very large stick. They deserve it. If anyone should be called a monopoly, it's Comcast & AT&T in the broadband space. AT&T has already been found to be one once, and has agglomerated back into another one.

      You think the telcos were beaten? A real monopoly is in a precarious position, where new market entrants can attempt to chip away at their position. Instead, the FCC literally protects these behemoths through the many, many barriers to entry required to compete.

    3. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Meh

      at&t probably is in a formally competitive market almost everywhere it does business. It is either the phone company (e. g., in most of Ohio) or a late comer trying with less than perfect success to compete with the local cable franchise for both data and telephone service. Cox, where I used to live in Ohio, had an exclusive local franchise (which at&t tried to break up) that provided faster data service at every speed they both offered (at&t was unable to compete at the highest available rates).

      Comcast, for the present, is the incumbent in my area southeast of Salt Lake City, but has a competitor (CenturyLink), which definitely is less expensive, at an advertised price of $20 a month for up to 12 Mb/s; Comcast's rate starts at $30 for up to 10 megabits, and may be losing a few customers over this. But Comcast also offers other capacities up to 250 megabits at $70 a month, which I typically measure. My "up to 150 Mb/s" service often yields better than that and typically measures around 130 Mb/s at the inside of the router attached to the modem. For all the whining about Comcast's poor service, here, I can say only that the service has not been quite as reliable as Cox's was in Ohio, but the unscheduled down time over three years certainly has been under 0.05%.

      So Comcast, here at least, is not quite a monopoly, but we certainly are looking forward to the benefits of competition from Google, which has started its build out not too far away.

  5. NoneSuch Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    And if you think...

    ...this will get better under Trump or Hillary you need severe psychotropic drug treatment.

    1. Youngone Silver badge

      Re: And if you think...

      Of course it won't get any better under Hilary or anyone else for that matter.

      That's because the US political system is working exactly as designed. Big money pays to get the laws they want, (and in some cases even write).

      The actual elections are just window dressing to give the various incumbents a sheen of legitimacy.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Pint

      Re: And if you think...

      Get worse if anything. Can I still get the severe psychotropic drugs treatment?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How is 67% a monopoly? MS has more than that share of Windows on PC and Office, no monopoly... or at least no one they were going to do anything about. Google has won, largely in MS's arena with MS throwing stuff at them the whole way, because they are good at things.

    1. bazza Silver badge

      Google have won? Um, well we'll see about that. With so many legal difficulties around the world not yet settled it's too early to say they've "won".

      Microsoft's arena is desktop, office and enterprise servers. Last I looked the bulk of the world was still running Windows, Office and still a healthy number of domain controllers. They're also doing well with Azure and Office365, which are arguably should have been Google's arena. The Surface line of tablet/laptops is also selling pretty well, not bad for the supposedly "dead" concept of a non web-app WIMP user interface. I haven't looked recently but Xbox is still a thing. Sure MS screwed up in mobile, they're doing their level best to irritate their desktop users with Windows 10 and its horribleness and they're in severe danger of losing out in server land as ARM based servers begin to materialise. But MS are far from having lost, and are making money largely by making things they can persuade people to directly part with money for.

      Google on the other hand still make all their money through advertising and have grown very fat on the back of that. However in doing so they've engaged in some questionable practises, and the problem they have right now is that various governmental bodies all over the world are now asking the questions, even in the USA.

      Plus because they're very aggressive in minimising their tax bills they can't fall back on the old "go easy on us, look at how much tax we pay" plea. Consequently there's not many governments out there eager to give them a break.

      The best way to a politician's heart is through healthy tax contributions, but instead Google have relied on lobbying in countries where that works, and have forgotten that in some places it doesn't work at all. For instance, it's hard to influence a stuffy EU official when that official hasn't been elected in the first place. They're basically paid to be bloody minded, not popular.

      And whilst the (entirely unjustified) stereotypical view of a French official may be one of a person who'll do anything in return for an excellent lunch, the inquisitorial judicial system there is actually pretty good. Google are on the wrong end of some charges related to tax avoidance in France, and they won't be able to talk their way out of that one if the court decides that the evidence weighs against them. Being found guilty there would also set a precedent around the whole of Europe.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So how does this work.... Microsoft had about 90% Windows share when they were investigated (and had just smashed Netscape out of business) with no real viable alternatives on the market (a deeply wounded Apple with no apps). Google's market share seems to be unknown, in reality, but comScore has them at about 65-67% of the search market with plenty of viable alternatives that you could switch to right now if you were so inclined (you're probably not inclined, but because Google is better than all their competitors, not because you don't have other choices). Why are they even asking Google questions if they did nothing of note about Microsoft in the late 90s?

  8. Andromeda451

    Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton

    are about to see what blowback looks like. Transparency, not so much.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like