What does this mean? A simple Google Image search tells the tale. "Obama Rallies" http://www.google.com/search?q=obam...1&hl=en&biw=1362&bih=526&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw "Palin Rallies" http://www.google.com/search?um=1&h...0l2l0l0l203l1187l1.7.1l9&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw
And this is what's wrong with our political system. Corporations should not be able to donate large sums of money to parties or politicians.
Where does Politico get its money? I don't like Politico. Why don't you use your unstated source to find out? The one you didn't give. You know, the source you forgot to give. Who owns Politico? Who owns your secret source? How about some complete disclosure, Papa?
where does yahoo and bing give their money to, as similar links to "Palin rallies" shows up on their sites as well.
off the top, it doesn't seem all that unlikely that a company from the pacific northwest would be heavily liberal-leaning. And there's a twinge in me when I think about restrictions put on people or companies based on things like this. I mean, if FromWA Enterprises wanted to donate $100 to the "Elect Former General Superstar Fiscal Conservative" campaign, I don't know that I'd want someone telling me I could only give him $100 if I gave "Elect Sex-Criminal Anti-Christ" campaign $100 as well. The problem I have is if General Superstar then gave FromWA Enterprises no-compete contracts for $5,000 hammers or something as a "Thank You", and I don't think that's happening here. (Maybe elsewhere, but that's another thread)
yes, of course money is a big problem in our system. To be able to raise the necessary capitol to run a competitive campaign, most politicians from both parties grovel for their dollars (and receive their marching orders) from the same wealthy sources. Those sources are often world wide corporations who's interests run counter to actual Americans. The question is how can you root the importance of $$$ out of our political system? Any politician who seeks to bring about this change via public financed elections, term limits, etc... will be going against all the power brokers who currently pull the strings. Those who have the power don't want to give it up. STOMP
I'm in favor of free speech. If Google chooses to give 99% of their money to President Obama, bully for them. All I ask is with that free speech comes transparency. Companies should let us know where they put their money so I can make the decision whether or not to support their good or service.
I fail to see the point of this thread. What exactly is your complaint? As for Politico, Bush Jr's favorite media friend, they completely mis-represent the content of the email, which never even mentions Obama or his campaign, to create a story out of nothing.
What does your title have to do with the article? It didn't see any reference to Goodle politcal donations in it. What are you trying to show by those search results? That Google likes Obama so they modified their search engine to show more results for him?
Because corporations exist as the result of public policy and public charter. Granting them free speech makes sense to me, but (just as they must publish other financial information) it makes perfect sense for political contributions (of the corporation, not of individuals from the corporation) to be mandatorily revealed. Ed O.
A valid concern is how much the political leanings of a corporation influences how that company operates. If Google can help shape public opinion (and it can, by adjusting its proprietary search mechanisms) then if it is influenced by political preferences it's something people should wonder about. Ed O.
I amended the search without correcting the statement. Yes, I am aware of how to search for images, seeing as I post as many images as anybody on this board.
Many companies are voluntarily releasing this info... but I still like it better when companies were limited in what they could donate. They had a lot of power before... now it will be crazy.
Exactly. Google and every other company should be able to give whatever they want, to whomever they want. But the employees of Google should also be informed of it, so they can decide if Google is a place they want to belong to.
What other information might be useful for employees or consumers? How about meetings between heads of companies discussing the fact that they're going to merge & dump a bunch of jobs? How about if they discuss killing an opposition leader in a 3rd world country so they don't get in the way of their drilling operations? How about if they are colluding with other companies within the same sector? How about if they're punishing or threatening certain partners for using an alternative company? How about if they're selling bogus investment products & laughing over the stupid people who buy them? So if they're not going to disclose these things, why should they disclose who they're giving money to? I think this hits on exactly why "free market" principles fail, because it assumes that information is easily available for consumers or employees to make informed choices or that those consumers even care to be informed or are smart enough to understand the information that is available. Frankly no one should be able to directly fund the campaign of a public official. They should get a set allotment from a general election fund, mandates by the FCC to allow for equal airtime & televised debates. There should be absolutely no "gift giving" or pampering by any entity towards a public official. Lobbying should be banned or restricted greatly... Etc..etc..etc.. There should also be a mandatory 3 - 5 political parties which receive funding.
