"Google’s D.C. ties worry some consumer advocates; As it lobbies agenda, ads aid campaigns" by Jeremy Herb, Globe Correspondent | March 10, 2010
WASHINGTON - Some consumer advocates worry that Google’s growing business in campaign advertising will give it an unfair advantage in Washington, where it also is pursuing a broad lobbying agenda.
Offering sophisticated election consulting services along with market dominance, Google helps candidates decide which ads generate the most attention, can make their ads appear when their opponents’ names are searched, and targets individual voters based on their searches and keywords embedded in their e-mail. Scott Brown raised $1.3 million in a single day during his campaign using a Googlepowered “money bomb’’ that focused on likely supporters.
Related: Who Bought Brown's Election?
Nothing about Ron Paul's money bombs that trail-blazed the way, 'eh, MSM?
But while Google is pitching innovative campaign strategies to politicians, it also is lobbying Congress on everything from Internet privacy to Chinese trade. It spent $4 million last year on lobbyists, more than double what it spent two years earlier.
Thus far, the appearance of conflicts of interest remains theoretical.
Oh, like the 9/11 "conspiracy theorists," huh?
Translation:
THERE IS A CONFLICT of INTEREST, and thus those "conspiracy theorists" must be on to something.
And not everyone is concerned about Google’s growing political clientele, viewing it as a natural evolution of campaign business online. Google says it keeps its campaign advertising and Washington lobbying divisions completely separate.
Oh, I'm satisfied now.
But some consumer advocates and scholars assert that Google’s emergence as a mandatory tool for successful election campaigns will inevitably make members of Congress less willing to butt heads with the company over big policy issues.
Let's face it, Congress avoids that all the time and not just with Google.
That is why nothing really gets done down there except the agreed-upon agenda and stoo-pid s*** like naming post offices and honoring candy bars.
“Politicians are going to think twice about swatting Google when they are going to need that search engine in their next campaign,’’ said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a consumer advocacy group. “Google is sitting on the Fort Knox of digital information. It’s the go-to company for any kind of Internet advertising campaign, including politics.’’
Yeah, well, all that glitters is not gold.
Google says there is no link between its campaign work for members of Congress and its lobbying activities. Google’s elections advertising plays a positive role in democracy by connecting online searchers with political information, said Peter Greenberger, head of the elections and issue advocacy team.
“Democracy can be messy and noisy, but we provide a platform where anyone can have a voice,’’ said Greenberger. “We believe wholeheartedly in the value of information and providing access to information.’’
Then I trust my blog will continue to be left alone?
**************************
Google is a regular focus of ire from consumer privacy groups, not just because it has grown so adept at profiling its users based on their Internet searches, but also because of its sheer size and market dominance.
That's why I always use Google for my searches.
Overload the f***ers with mispelled and inane surches all the time.
“Google is such a huge player, it’s like having one television network period,’’ said Lillie Coney associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Have any of you guys taken a look at the state of AmeriKa's MSM these days?
We already got that, one big Zionist megaphone and prism.
Also see: The Facebook False-Flag and Twitter Terrorist Attacks
David King, a Harvard University political science lecturer specializing in Congress, said Google, while perhaps well intentioned, is risking credibility by appearing as though it’s trying to secure friends in Washington.
“I don’t think they’re in the business to do evil, but with this move, they’re certainly setting themselves up to be portrayed that way,’’ King said.
But Steven Weber, a political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley who studies technology, said that Google has “bigger fish to fry commercially’’ and that it would not do anything that would risk a backlash over gaining political favors.
“It would be madness for them to exploit this in a way that would give someone any opportunity to take them down on this issue,’’ he said.
And Mike Surrusco, research director at the government watchdog Common Cause, said he didn’t see any problem with Google offering political help to candidates, because they offer their services to everyone, regardless of political party.
Google’s involvement in political campaigns began in 2007 under Greenberger, a former aide in the Clinton White House.
Sounds like they secured one at least.
In the 2008 presidential race, Google, which worked with all of the major candidates, was an especially key cog in the Obama online machine. With Google, for instance, when users searched for “Obama is a Muslim,’’ an ad would appear saying “Obama is a Christian’’ and linking to the campaign site, Greenberger said.
Nothing about Ron Paul, 'eh?
Not like he wants to regulate you guys or anything.
Just don't like his ideas, MSM?
In the aftermath of Brown’s victory, analysts have largely praised the senator’s online campaign for outmaneuvering Martha Coakley, who did not purchase ads with Google until the final leg of the race.
How do you lose a 31-point lead in a month?
But Democratic strategists, who were once considered the leaders in online campaigning after Obama’s win, say they won’t be caught off-guard in the midterms....
Yeah, except when what you are peddling is a plate of s***....
