The Blaze
Erik Telford
Google: The Halliburton of the Obama Administration
Feb. 21, 2013
Nestled among the lofty rhetoric of “hope and change,” Barack Obama made
a core promise during the 2008 campaign that he would put an end to the
corporate cronyism that has long pervaded the political system. “The days of
sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House,”
he _proclaimed_
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/obamas-mounting-hypocrisy/#ixzz2J0sGpCI3)
. What President Obama left out however, was
that the days of sweetheart deals for his cronies had only just begun–with
his chief corporate advocate, Google, quickly emerging as the Halliburton
of his administration.
Though the Internet giant recently faced serious federal antitrust charges
that might have broken up other companies, it emerged virtually unscathed
just two months after President Obama won re-election with significant
financial and creative assistance from Google and its executives.
Unquestionably the president’s most indispensable corporate ally, the terms of
Google’s
recent antitrust settlement are just the latest example of crony
capitalism benefiting the company under the Obama Administration.
An investigation by the FTC found Google to be engaged in activities
involving the illegal manipulation of search results to favor its own
products,
scraping content from other websites without any provision allowing those
with objections to opt-out, and imposing restrictions that prevent
portability of search advertising campaigns across AdWords and other
platforms.
Google is still facing a litany of cases at the state level–Texas,
California, Ohio, New York, and Oklahoma–as well as the European Union. Yet
Google
walked away from the federal case with a non-binding “handshake”
agreement in which it says it will make minor changes to some of its search
functions. Moreover, there is no way for the FTC or any other agency to
enforce
the terms of the agreement should Google decide not to comply.
Regardless of how people feel about antitrust laws, the hallmark of
corruption is to selectively enforce laws in a way that harms your opponents
and
accommodates your allies. In this case, an administration that has been
aggressive on antitrust enforcement when, for instance, spiking the AT&T and
T-Mobile merger, took no enforceable action against Google even after
finding wrongdoing.
It raises a major ethical conflict when the beneficiary of an agreement
with terms so favorable that their propriety is questioned, has such
incestuous ties to the very administration granting the dubious arrangement.
Google, and particularly its Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, have a
relationship with President Obama that is too close for comfort. Schmidt has
been a top-dollar donor to Obama since 2007, has consulted on his campaigns,
and currently serves as a member of the President’s Council of Advisers on
Science and Technology. According to press reports, he was offered the post
of Treasury Secretary in the second term–but ultimately declined. While
holding court as one of Obama’s most trusted and generous confidants, Schmidt
has continued to serve as one of Google’s most visible government relations
operatives.
Since 2008, there has been a steady flow of cash, personnel, and
technology from Google’s California headquarters to the White House. Google
employees have given the President over $1.5 million in combined donations. In
fact, they were his fourth-largest source of cash in 2008, and in
third-largest
in 2012. Google’s biggest contribution however was the specially-designed
technology, not yet available to the public, that allowed Obama to connect
with voters in ways his opponents could not.
The sad truth is that this settlement is just the latest, amid a long line
of examples, in what has emerged as the cornerstone of Google’s Obama-era
business model: break the law, or make the law, in a way that shackles
opponents, while boosting their own bottom line – without suffering any real
consequences.
While Google scratched Obama’s back, the favor has been returned in
spades. It has happened with “net neutrality” regulations and rigged spectrum
auctions being pushed through at the FCC, and in addition to this latest
settlement, the DOJ’s voluntary 2011 settlement with Google over additional
illegal advertising practices.
Some conservatives like Google, hate regulators, and therefore look
favorably on the company’s string of free passes. But Google opposes big
government only when it restricts Google, and the Obama administration has no
commitment to regulatory restraint. Google, like Halliburton, should play by
the
same rules as everyone else.
Erik Telford is the Vice President of Strategic Initiatives & Outreach at
the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
