Google's FEC filing for political donations made in June (#pride month!) is up. We start off strong with $5,000 to ferocious abortion opponent and self-described "David Duke without the baggage" Steve Scalise, who once spoke at a white supremacist rally, he claims, by accident
Here's a $2,500 donation to Ben Sasse's leadership PAC, which in 2018 gave exclusively to Republican senators. If you love Senate obstruction on DACA, the Equality Act, election security... well, so does Google!
Google gave $5,000 to 'One Georgia PAC', which in 2018 gave $324,600 to Senate Republicans exclusively, and the Lone Star Liberty Fund, which gave only to House Republicans.
Google gave $5,000 to Oorah! PAC, which donated $156,583 to Republican Senate candidates, and $19,500 to Republican House candidates in 2018. Google's shrewdly using some indirection here. But Pinboard dereferences pointers!
In a similar vein, this $5,000 donation from Google to the Lone Star Liberty Fund, John Ratcliffe's leadership PAC, which is a third of its 2018 budget. It all goes to Republican House candidates.
Google gave $1,500 on June 26 to Rep. Darin LaHood, who was one of 19 state senators in the Illinois state legislature to vote against a ban on gay conversion therapy in 2015. Happy #pride!
Roger Marshall in 2017: "Just like Jesus said, ‘The poor will always be with us,’… There is a group of people that just don’t want health care and aren’t going to take care of themselves. Just, like, homeless people. …morally, spiritually, socially…don’t want health care.”
Did Google give to Marshall? No, of course not, that would be unseemly! They gave $5,000 on June 26 to Point PAC, whose only funding recipient in 2018 was Roger Marshall.
Here's Google's $5,000 donation to Texas Republicans United PAC, which in 2018 gave a broad slate of House republicans and one Senate candidate, Martha McSally, another strong opponent of LGBT rights
Tim Walberg, speaking before Family Research Council (designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) has called Americans “slaves” to “sexual perversion.” Google gave this anti-LGBT activist $500 on June 26
Google gave $2,000 to Heartland Values PAC, John Thune's leadership PAC, on June 26. This entity gave $215,000 entirely to Republican candidates for Federal office in 2018.
Also on June 26, Google gave $2,500 to Mike Lee, who you may remember is one of the two senators who put a hold on aid to dying 9/11 first responders this week. Lee is also a ferocious opponent of same-sex marriage, in keeping with the #pride theme.
Google gave $5,000 to Eye of the Tiger PAC, Steve Scalise's leadership PAC, which made $1.1M in donations to Republican candidates last year. Eye of the Tiger PAC is notably one of the only remaining PACs that gives to Steve King, the overtly white supremacist Congressman.
Google gave $2,500 to Ken Buck (disclosure: I fundraised in 2018 for Buck's opponent, as well as Steve King's), who has said "I think birth has an influence over [being gay], like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice." So did Google.
And finally, Google made a $2,500 donation to Alamo PAC, John Cornyn's leadership PAC, which gave $345,000 in 2018 exclusively to Republican candidates. Cornyn is also the Senator who (with Ted Cruz) nominated a Federal justice who said trans kids are "part of Satan's plan"
Some remarks about these donations. First, they are wholly unnecessary. Google runs an enormous D.C. lobbying organization and throwing a few thousand dollars at candidates changes nothing. Apple and IBM prove you don't need a PAC to thrive as a giant U.S. tech company.
Second, they are funded entirely by voluntary employee contributions. That means you can talk to your co-workers about where their money is going. The July filing contains a full list of contributors who are given no say in how their money is spent. docquery.fec.gov/pdf/569/201907…
Third, notice what a slap in the face this is to Google's LGBT employees. In the middle of ostentatious Pride celebrations, despite all the controversy over homophobia on YouTube, and @NoPrideForGoog, they decided to give publicly to some of the most homophobic people in Congress
Even if it were essential to Google's survival to give a bigot like Steve Scalise money, the election is over a year away! They could have easily waited as a gesture of respect to not give during #pride. But not only are the donations unnecessary, their timing is another insult
I learned in talking to Microsoft that their CEO and President do not review political donations by the PAC. The decision is made by D.C. flunkies without further review. I would be very curious if that is the case at Google. Does @sundarpichai know where Google's money goes?
Google is full of people who love the company. You believe in it, and you see it as a force for good. I respect that. But the company's political giving to fund bigotry has to stop. It goes against everything Google claims to be, and it could end tomorrow with no harm to Google
Look, Google management is not personally evil, but they are paralyzed by their fear of attacks from the right wing, who have very successfully played the refs here. The alt-right gets invited over for coffee and donuts.
But this is an area where regular employees can win. Your colleagues at Microsoft are having success at de-funding the PAC. Twitter's PAC is down to just *two* donors. I look through the donor list and I see some of the giants of the Internet. These are not their values, or yours
(Er, sorry, I Twitter in Polish. That screenshot of Rubin above is from July 18—yesterday)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There's a disconnect between critiques of Telegram and its practical use that have made me uneasy about joining technical pile-ons around how it's not really encrypted messaging. Let me use the example of Telegram use in the Hong Kong protests
I arrived in Hong Kong with each hair standing individually on end because everyone was using Telegram, which of course stores every group chat server-side like Moxie says. It took me a while to understand why it was so popular despite this shortcoming
One reason was the ability to have three scales of chat in one app—really enormous (tens of thousands) of groups where you didn't have to share your identity, regular group chat, and one-on-one chats with people
I'm not on a campaign of hate against the Biden Administration. I voted for the guy. But I did so on the understanding that he would bring competence and seriousness to a government that had been a clown car, and I am genuinely appalled at how little changed around fighting covid
This same agency, the one holding back public testing in the US, doesn't have a commissioner right now because the Biden administration neglected to file paperwork on time. Who does that in the middle of a pandemic? Why can't we have serious leadership? thehill.com/homenews/admin…
Biden's press secretary made a sarcastic joke about this exact idea at a press conference 13 days ago, implying the cost (a result of the President's own policy) would be prohibitive. The tests will start to arrive after the omicron wave has crested.
Paying a fortune to pharmaceutical companies who profiteer from FDA dysfunction in order to deliver an insufficient number of tests through a broken postal service too late to matter will be a real full body workout for the American government.
Policy brought to you by the makers of the USNS Comfort, the farce projection hospital ship that can fail to deliver health care at any point on the globe
According to The Hill, the Democrats' new plan is to drive a wedge between Manchin and his voters by making this popular senator from an R+23 state vote against a whole series of Democratic bills.
If Biden really wants to get Manchin in trouble with WV voters, he should recall the Senate from vacation, have Manchin write a 1.8T spending bill of his choice, and pass it immediately. This would have the added benefit of being the only sane strategy, and good for the country
Alternatively, the party can continue a campaign of character assassination and personal humiliation against a man whose vote they need to pass any law, or appoint any Supreme Court justice, in the brief time remaining to them in power.
I find these highly public attacks from within the party inexplicable. Manchin is someone who pretty capably represents the interests of an extremely conservative state, and I can think of 50 senators who it makes sense to attack before you start eating your own like this.
Democrats who do well in Trump districts are the only hope the party has for winning in rural America, and we need more of them, because rural America is the only path to a Senate majority. So maybe tone down the civil war and fight the pandemic or something.
It's not Manchin's fault that Sara Gideon got fewer votes than Trump in a blue state that Biden carried, or that the DSCC chose to run a complete nonentity in Iowa. Stacy Abrams saved the Democrats' hide, and the response has been to attack people who actually know how to win.
Is there interest in a good faith technical explanation of this? I feel like a lot of those exist, but if smart people like Jay Rosen are not getting their minds around it then there is something amiss. What's the missing piece? I like to write and would gladly take a swing.
A recurring problem in blockchain exposition is that people from outside tech see the trillions of dollars and growing mountain of cryptocurrency projects and reasonably assume some useful substantive core must exist under the hype, while those of us in tech know the awful truth.
In its current form cryptoworld makes contact with some legitimately interesting theoretical areas (like zero-knowledge proofs), but the part where it connects to real applications is missing, except for a casino. It's like if PT Barnum and Bugsy Siegel had invented string theory