About 10 years ago, Tim Wu, the Columbia Law professor who coined the term network neutrality, made this prescient comment: “To love Google, you have to be a little bit of a monarchist, you have to have faith in the way people traditionally felt about the king.”
Wu was right. And now, Google has established a pattern of lobbying and threatening to acquire power. It has reached a dangerous point common to many monarchs: The moment where it no longer wants to allow dissent.
When Google was founded in 1998, it famously committed itself to the motto: “Don’t be evil.” It appears that Google may have lost sight of what being evil means, in the way that most monarchs do: Once you reach a pinnacle of power, you start to believe that any threats to your authority are themselves villainous and that you are entitled to shut down dissent. As Lord Acton famously said, “Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.” Those with too much power cannot help but be evil. Google, the company dedicated to free expression, has chosen to silence opposition, apparently without any sense of irony.
In recent years, Google has become greedy about owning not just search capacities, video and maps, but also the shape of public discourse. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, Google has recruited and cultivated law professors who support its views. And as the New York Times recently reported, it has become invested in building curriculum for our public schools, and has created political strategy to get schools to adopt its products.
It is time to call out Google for what it is: a monopolist in search, video, maps and browser, and a thin-skinned tyrant when it comes to ideas.
Google is forming into a government of itself, and it seems incapable of even seeing its own overreach. We, as citizens, must respond in two ways. First, support the brave researchers and journalists who stand up to overreaching power; and second, support traditional antimonopoly laws that will allow us to have great, innovative companies — but not allow them to govern us.
– From Zephyr Teachout’s powerful arcticle: Google Is Coming After Critics in Academia and Journalism. It’s Time to Stop Them.
The mask has finally come off Google’s face, and what lurks underneath looks pretty evil.
2017 has represented a coming out party of sorts for Google and the control-freaks who run it. The company’s response to the James Damore controversy made it crystal clear that executives at Google are far more interested in shoving their particular worldview down the throats of the public, versus encouraging vibrant and lively debate. This is not a good look for the dominant search engine.
The creeping evilness of Google has been obvious for quite some time, but this troubling reality has only recently started getting the attention it deserves. The worst authoritarian impulses exhibited at the company appear to emanate from Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt, whose actions consistently seem to come from a very dark and unconscious place.
Today’s piece focuses on the breaking news that an important initiative known as Open Markets, housed within the think tank New America Foundation, has been booted from the think tank after major donor Google complained about its anti-monopoly stance. Open Markets was led by a man named Barry Lynn, who all of you should become familiar with.
The Huffington Post profiled him last year. Here’s some of what we learned:
There’s a solid economic rationale behind Washington’s new big thing. Monopolies and oligopolies are distorting the markets for everything from pet food to cable service. There’s a reason why cable companies have such persistently lousy customer-service ratings. They know you have few (if any) alternatives. Today, two-thirds of the 900 industries tracked by The Economist feature heavier concentration at the top than they did in 1997. The global economy is in the middle of a merger wave big enough to make 2015 the biggest year in history for corporate consolidation.
Most political junkies have never heard of the man chiefly responsible for the current Beltway antitrust revival: Barry C. Lynn. A former business journalist, Lynn has spent more than a decade carving out his own fiefdom at a calm, centrist Washington think tank called the New America Foundation. In the process, he has changed the way D.C. elites think about corporate power.
“Barry is the hub,” says Zephyr Teachout, a fiery progressive who recently clinched the Democratic nomination for a competitive House seat in New York. “He is at the center of a growing new ― I hesitate to call it a movement ― but a group of people who recognize that we have a problem with monopolies not only in our economy, but in our democracy.”
Many Southerners who relocate to the nation’s capital try to temper their accents for the elite crowd that dominates the District’s social scene. Lynn, a South Florida native, never shed his drawl. He pronounces “sonofabitch” as a single word, which he uses to describe both corrupt politicians and big corporations. He is a blunt man in a town that rewards caginess and flexibility. But like King, Lynn’s critique of monopolies does not reflect a disdain for business itself.
Lynn left Global Business for The New America Foundation in 2001 and began work on his first book, End of the Line: The Rise and Coming Fall of the Global Corporation, which argues that globalization and merger mania had injected a new fragility into international politics. Disruptive events ― earthquakes, coups, famines, or at worst, war ― could now wreak havoc on U.S. products that had once been safely manufactured domestically. Production of anything from light bulbs to computers all could shut down without warning.
It was a frightening vision with implications for economic policy and national security alike. It was also ideologically inconvenient for the techno-utopian zeitgeist of its day. Lynn’s book landed on shelves about the same time as Thomas Friedman’s better-known tome, The World Is Flat, which declared globalization a triumph of innovation and hard work for anyone willing to do the hard work of innovating.
Today, Lynn’s predictions of market disruption and political unrest appear to have been ahead of their time. Early globalization champions, including Martin Wolf and Lawrence Summers, are rethinking their judgments of a decade ago. But Lynn turned several influential heads when his book was published. Thomas Frank, bestselling author of What’s The Matter With Kansas?, became a Lynn enthusiast. So did food writer Michael Pollan.
“He was writing about an issue that nobody was paying attention to, and he was doing it with a very strong sense of history,” Pollan says. “Barry understood antitrust going back to the trust-busters a century ago, and how our understanding of the issue shrank during the Reagan administration … The food movement is not very sophisticated on those issues.”
Lynn’s history nerd-dom is eccentric in a town that hyperventilates over every hour of the cable news cycle. Ask about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and Lynn will oblige you a polite sentence or two. Ask him about former Supreme Court Justices Louis Brandeis or William Howard Taft, and you’ll need to reschedule your dinner plans.
“He once asked me to read about Roman law for a piece on common carriage,” says Lina Khan, referencing a plank of net neutrality policy not typically associated with the Code of Justinian.
After he published his second book in 2010, Lynn began bringing on his own staff within New America. Khan was one of his first hires. Teachout, a Fordham University Law School professor, was another. Teachout eventually ran for office and published a book of her own on the history of corruption in America. Another of Lynn’s associates, Christopher Leonard, published a book on meat industry monopolies around the same time. These works shared a common theme: Monopolistic businesses create social problems beyond consumer price-gouging, from buying off politicians to degrading the quality of our food.
Analyzing the political power of companies with overwhelming market positions used to be a normal part of antitrust thinking. But over the decades, a narrower conception focused on consumer prices has taken hold in Washington. Even if anti-competitive behavior can be proved, according to this thinking, it’s not a problem unless it raises prices for consumers. Under this view, it’s not necessarily an antitrust problem, if, say, Amazon used its market position to force publishers into charging lower prices for books. If the result is lower prices, everything is fine. It would only become a problem if Amazon used its market power to raise prices.
That’s not how Lynn sees it. When the Authors Guild, the American Booksellers Association, the Association of Authors’ Representatives and Authors United went after Amazon in 2015 for requiring publishers to accept lower e-book prices, Lynn penned a 24-page position paper to the Department of Justice on their behalf. It wasn’t just a question of immediate consumer impact. Amazon’s market position was so dominant, he argued, that the company could restrict or cut off access to books from publishers it wanted to punish for rejecting its pricing requirements. It could “exercise control over the marketplace of ideas in ways that threaten not merely open markets but free speech.”
Monopolies, according to Lynn, are fundamentally political enterprises — not just players in a market.
As the Amazon conflict demonstrates, some of Lynn’s chief targets are tech giants. That makes him an odd fit for New America, which was founded in 1999 as Silicon Valley’s think tank in search of a “radical center,” as The New York Times put it. Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt is still on New America’s board of directors, yet Lynn consistently puts the company under the microscope.
When Warren blasted tech monopolies this summer, she was speaking at a conference that Lynn had organized. When Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) asked about “platform” monopolies at a Senate hearing in March, he was echoing Lynn’s objections to digital kingpins, including Amazon, Apple and Google.
But Lynn’s apostasy gets results. The Obama administration conferred with him on an anti-monopoly executive order this spring, and he helped work antitrust language into the 2016 Democratic Party platform. He can’t claim the same kind of direct credit for the Republican Party’s partial conversion to the antitrust cause. But his work is changing the way Washington thinks about corporate power, and that shift is having bipartisan repercussions.
Barry Lynn and his Open Markets initiative have been a thorn in the side of tech-monopoly plutocrats for a while, and Google apparently decided that it finally had enough.
As the The New York Times noted in a blockbuster article published earlier today:
WASHINGTON — In the hours after European antitrust regulators levied a record $2.7 billion fine against Google in late June, an influential Washington think tank learned what can happen when a tech giant that shapes public policy debates with its enormous wealth is criticized.
The New America Foundation has received more than $21 million from Google; its parent company’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt; and his family’s foundation since the think tank’s founding in 1999. That money helped to establish New America as an elite voice in policy debates on the American left.
But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had been chairman of New America until 2016, communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar.
The statement disappeared from New America’s website, only to be reposted without explanation a few hours later. But word of Mr. Schmidt’s displeasure rippled through New America, which employs more than 200 people, including dozens of researchers, writers and scholars, most of whom work in sleek Washington offices where the main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab.” The episode left some people concerned that Google intended to discontinue funding, while others worried whether the think tank could truly be independent if it had to worry about offending its donors.
Those worries seemed to be substantiated a couple of days later, when Ms. Slaughter summoned the scholar who wrote the critical statement, Barry Lynn, to her office. He ran a New America initiative called Open Markets that has led a growing chorus of liberal criticism of the market dominance of telecom and tech giants, including Google, which is now part of a larger corporate entity known as Alphabet, for which Mr. Schmidt serves as executive chairman.
Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that “the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,” according to an email from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn. The email suggested that the entire Open Markets team — nearly 10 full-time employees and unpaid fellows — would be exiled from New America.
While she asserted in the email, which was reviewed by The New York Times, that the decision was “in no way based on the content of your work,” Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of “imperiling the institution as a whole.”
Mr. Lynn, in an interview, charged that Ms. Slaughter caved to pressure from Mr. Schmidt and Google, and, in so doing, set the desires of a donor over the think tank’s intellectual integrity.
“Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings,” Mr. Lynn said. “People are so afraid of Google now.”
It is difficult to overstate Mr. Lynn’s influence in raising concerns about the market dominance of Google, as well as of other tech companies such as Amazon and Facebook. His Open Markets initiative organized a 2016 conference at which a range of influential figures — including Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — warned of damaging effects from market consolidation in tech.
In the run-up to that conference, Ms. Slaughter and New America’s lead fund-raiser in emails to Mr. Lynn indicated that Google was concerned that its positions were not going to be represented, and that it was not given advanced notice of the event.
“We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points,” Ms. Slaughter wrote in an email to Mr. Lynn, urging him to “just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others.”
After initially eschewing Washington public policy debates, which were seen in Silicon Valley as pay-to-play politics, Google has developed an influence operation that is arguably more muscular and sophisticated than that of any other American company. It spent $9.5 million on lobbying through the first half of this year — more than almost any other company. It helped organize conferences at which key regulators overseeing investigations into the company were presented with pro-Google arguments, sometimes without disclosure of Google’s role.
Among the most effective — if little examined — tools in Google’s public policy toolbox has been its funding of nonprofit groups from across the political spectrum. This year, it has donated to 170 such groups, according to Google’s voluntary disclosures on Google’s website. While Google does not indicate how much cash was donated, the number of beneficiaries has grown exponentially since it started disclosing its donations in 2010, when it gave to 45 groups.
Some tech lobbyists, think tank officials and scholars argue that the efforts help explain why Google has mostly avoided damaging regulatory and enforcement decisions in the United States of the sort levied by the European Union in late June.
Google’s willingness to spread cash around the think tanks and advocacy groups focused on internet and telecommunications policy has effectively muted, if not silenced, criticism of the company over the past several years, said Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. His group, which does not accept any corporate funding, has played a leading role in calling out Google and other tech companies for alleged privacy violations. But Mr. Rotenberg said it is become increasingly difficult to find partners in that effort as more groups have accepted Google funding.
“There are simply fewer groups that are available to speak up about Google’s activities that threaten online privacy,” Mr. Rotenberg said. “The groups that should be speaking up aren’t.”
As a result of its actions in recent years, I believe Google represents a clear threat to democracy and freedom of expression in America. The good news is that Barry Lynn and his team at Open Markets will continue their work independently at a new group called Citizens Against Monopoly.
You can sign a letter of support for this new initiative and contribute to it financially (I have done both), by clicking the image below.
Let’s make sure this story results in the the ultimate Streisand effect, thus bringing the crucial issue of anti-trust to the forefront of the American political conversation where it belongs.
Monopoly capitalism is not a “left” or “right” issue, it’s an issue nearly everyone can stand united on irrespective of where you lie on the political spectrum. Concentration is too high in too many industries, and this reality is starting to have negative repercussions on our basic freedoms. It’s long past time that we tackle this issue with the seriousness it deserves and start to push back aggressively as a people.
If you liked this article and enjoy my work, consider becoming a monthly Patron, or visit our Support Page to show your appreciation for independent content creators.
How Google Used AI To Take Over The Internet
Posted on August 11, 2017 by State of the Nation
GOOLAG: AI-Executed Censorship By Google Creating Internet Ghettoes
State of the Nation
MUST be taken over
The real problem is: Who can be trusted to properly run these global social network utilities guaranteeing free speech to all?
Google is totally OUT OF CONTROL. Their infamous search engine effectively controls the Internet. The rapidly emerging Goolag is the result of a worldwide censorship regime whose own employees now feel its wrath. Internet ghettoes are springing up wherever Google’s AI-administered censorship has lowered the boom.
GOOGLE: ‘We own the Internet and can censor anything we want to’
YouTube censors have become the 3rd millennium’s thought police à la The Matrix. YouTube is now taking down more videos than are being created. Alternative news websites on both the right and the left complain of countless videos that have inexplicably gone blank. YouTube Censorship Goes After Every Truth Teller (Video)
Facebook calls everything “fake news” that Mark Zuckerberg disagrees with. For real! The Soros-funded Facebook censors now label anything that is not MSM-approved as “fake news”. This massive social network utility is notorious for their AI-run algorithms which filter out the truth with brutal efficiency.
Twitter is known to ban people for simply … … … tweeting! Even the POTUS has wondered out loud what might happen if his Twitter account was closed. The Twitter platform is actually structured as an Orwellian tyranny that can shut down a truth-telling tweeter with the press of a button.
KEY POINT: Each of these social networking behemoths effectively functions as an informational utility and monopoly. As such, they should not be owned and operated by individuals and/or shareholders, particularly those of the same ilk. Because all of these government-corporate enterprises were originally created and funded by agencies of the U.S. Federal Government, they belong to the We the People. Not only that, but WTP want our fair share of the profits, interest and all!
It’s bad … real bad!
People don’t know how bad this situation really is.
At the current rate of locking down the Internet, there will soon be no Alt Media. Yeah, there will be all the usual alternative news websites, but they will be a shadow of their former selves.
The controllers at the top will not let the alternative side of the Internet ever exert their power and influence like they did during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Not no way; not no how. End of story. GOT IT!
Just in case you don’t get it—IT’S GAME OVER. They saw the power that our alternative media platforms gave us and they aim to shut them down. Clearly, Big Brother will do everything in its power to strip us of our voice…especially our collective cyber-voice.
Hopefully, all concerned have been sufficiently shocked by this grim reality. For only a true existential threat will sufficiently compel the Alt Media to get ready for the final battle of this epic info war.
Google, YouTube, Facebook were all conceived by DARPA, set up by the C.I.A.
Just in case you still don’t get it, please check out the following 2 links. Then you will understand what we’re really dealing with.
GOOGLE: Conceived, Funded and Directed By The CIA — Part I
GOOGLE: Conceived, Funded and Directed By The CIA — Part II
Obviously, TPTB planned on maintaining their global information matrix as a completely covert operation. But now that everyone knows the real deal, this extremely inconvenient truth cannot be contained. Hence, the controllers get more draconian by the day.
There is nothing more liberating than good information and accurate facts, true history and right knowledge. These are also the main weapons for the Alt Media in this escalating info war. The truth, however, about everything is under unrelenting assault… like never before.
That’s why the Central Intelligence Agency is in charge of coordinating Deep State’s reaction to the Alt Media’s once-growing influence. Information — all information — is considered intelligence, and therefore it must be effectively controlled by the U.S. Intelligence Community.
Given this quickly devolving state of affairs, there is only one solution. Each of the major social networks must be taken over post-haste before they reach their respective points of no return.
There is an urgency to do this before the 2018 midterm elections. The Democratic Party (as well as the congressional RINOs) have hooked up with the Mainstream Media mavens, the Sultans of Silicon Valley, the Hollywood moguls, the East Coast intelligentsia and U.S. Intelligence Community to make sure the American patriot movement is neutralized.
All of the concerned interlocking IT and WWW systems are being restructured to ensure the CIA’s desired results. Deep State will not tolerate a fair election process. The agents of Deep State are working hard to make sure the newly retrofitted Internet machinery manufactures the necessary consent.
This is why a remedy must be found and applied asap. Once The Company (aka the C.I.A.) has completed their post Trump victory realignment process, it will be nearly impossible to reverse. TPTB will then administer the Internet as a overt worldwide tyranny.
Realistically, what can be done?
From our seat, we are at a classic “David and Goliath” moment.
Actually, David had far better odds then than the Alt Media has today.
Therefore, there is only one way out of this info traffic jam.
This is where the works of William Shakespeare and Holy Bible can be quite instructive.
Like the biblical “David and Goliath” story, the Shakespearean dramas often depicted overwhelming challenges facing the protagonist (i.e. Alt Media). Some of those insurmountable obstacles were so daunting and formidable that human effort was wholly inadequate to save the day.
During the most trying circumstances in both his comedies and tragedies, the famous bard made use of a special device that saved the day, even if partially so.
Deus ex machina
While deus ex machina is a mere literary device employed to successfully resolve an exceedingly difficult predicament, there are ways to bring about divine intervention in real time.
That time is NOW!
Hence, the mission confronting each and every truth-seeker is to perform their special role in this epoch-ending conflict. Of course, that means to play their integral part to the best of their abilities. However, this can only be done by aligning with the Higher Power.
Only through the agency of grace can this divine production come to a happy ending. Which is exactly why the odds have been stacked so much against the forces of light. That’s the way it always is. Because the people — We the People — are being challenged to get with the program.
The American people are essentially being compelled to get right with God so that God can help them get their country right. Only through an apocalyptic drama would the tensions come to breaking point so that a much-needed resolution could present itself.
Special Note: Very few understand that every major IT corporation and social network utility in U.S. history was the direct product of research and development conducted jointly by DARPA, CIA and other agencies so secret they have no names. The US government would leave nothing to chance, especially where it concerned intelligence generation and dissemination on a global scale. In light of the ensuing totalitarian state which the USSA has become, the national security state has turned the oppressive control apparatus on American citizens. Not only was the global digital infrastructure completely taken over, the social media have been weaponized with great consequence. WEAPONIZATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA: TAKEOVER OF GLOBAL DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE
The entire Mainstream Media must be either taken over or shut down. The C.I.A. must be terminated—forever, as it cannot be fixed. The U.S. Intelligence Community as a whole ought to be disestablished and then rethought as a force for the good, not enslavement.
The U.S. Congress has become such a den of traitors and foreign agents that it, too, must be dissolved. The recent vote on the unconstitutional bill that placed more illegal sanctions on Russia was a highly revealing litmus test. It demonstrated that most members of Congress would not hesitate to participate in sedition…in broad daylight.
What to build and put in place of these massive, monolithic and malevolent institutions is the question at hand. Perhaps there may have to be another 9/11-type event that will compel the US citizenry to take back their power from those who have stolen it. Then, they can stand in their own truth — speak truth to power — so that the American Republic can, once again, serve as a beacon to the world community of nations.
Bottom Line: The patriot movement must show some fang, sooner or later. Until the elected representatives and government officials are more afraid of the American people than they are of Deep State, nothing will change. Similarly, only when those MSM magnates and titans of social media become fearful of personal consequences will things change for the better. When their respective corporate bottom lines begin to suffer permanently due to countrywide boycotts of their advertisers, a sea change is but a moment way. Truly, the single best way to the demolish the Internet ghettoes and eliminate the Goolag is to starve the beast that created them.
State of the Nation
August 11, 2017
For anyone who doubts the capability of AI, and especially autonomous superintelligence, to execute the Internet’s censorship regime being administered by Google, the following essay conveys critical understanding. AUTONOMOUS SUPERINTELLIGENCE
 The Google Gulag
Google Is Committed To The Suppression Of Free Speech
People Are So Afraid Of Google Now”: Here’s Why
by Tyler Durden
August 30, 2017
Google, pardon Alphabet’s efforts to influence the American political discourse (not to mention presidential election outcome) stretch far beyond the company’s penchant for subtly disadvantaging independent and conservative thinkers on platforms like YouTube. By financially supporting left-leaning policy shops, Google’s parent company has helped raise a liberal army intent on hashing out policy minutiae to help bend US policy to their benefactors’ advantage.
But what happens when these supposedly “independent” think tanks publish something that displeases their corporate master? As one researcher at the left-leaning New America think tank learned, the punishment is swift a
Barry Lynn, formerly a top researcher at New America, learned that lesson the hard way after publishing a paper praising European Union antitrust regulators for fining Google nearly $3 billion for purportedly rigging its search algorithm to favor its own services over its rivals.
According to the New York Times, the New America Foundation has received more than $21 million in funding from Google, Alphabet Chairman Eric Schmidt and his family’s foundation since the think tank was first established in 1999. The money helped establish New America as an “elite voice” in policy debates on the American left.
“But not long after one of New America’s scholars posted a statement on the think tank’s website praising the European Union’s penalty against Google, Mr. Schmidt, who had been chairman of New America until 2016, communicated his displeasure with the statement to the group’s president, Anne-Marie Slaughter, according to the scholar.”
Slaughter, a close ally of the Clintons who’s best known for her 2012 Atlantic Cover Story “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All,” quickly caved.
The statement disappeared from new America’s website, only to be reposted without explanation a few hours later. But word of Mr. Schmidt’s displeasure quickly rippled through New America, which employs more than 200 people, including dozens of researchers, writers and scholars, most of whom work in sleek Washington officers where the main conference room is called the “Eric Schmidt Ideas Lab. The episode left some people concerned that Google intended to discontinue funding, while others worried whether the think tank could truly be independent if it had to worry about offending its donors.”
The answer to that last question, as employees of New America quickly learned, is, obviously, no, it can’t. A few days after the incident Slaughter summoned to Lynn to her office, where she summarily dismissed him – along with 10 of his underlings.
“Those worries seemed to be substantiated a couple of days later, when Ms. Slaughter summoned the scholar who wrote the critical statement, Barry Lynn, to her office. He ran a New America initiative called Open Markets that has led a growing chorus of liberal criticism of the market dominance of telecom and tech giants, including Google, which is now part of a large corporate entity known as Alphabet, for which Mr. Schmidt serves as executive charman.
Ms. Slaughter told Mr. Lynn that ‘the time has come for Open Markets and New America to part ways,’ according to emails from Ms. Slaughter to Mr. Lynn. The email suggested that the entire Open Markets team – nearly 10 full-time employees and unpaid fellows – would be exiled from New America.”
While she asserted in the email, which was reviewed by The New York Times, that the decision was ‘in no way based on the content of your work,’ Ms. Slaughter accused Mr. Lynn of ‘imperiling the institution as a whole.’”
Lynn, who eventually shared his story with the NYT, blasted Google’s aggressive tactics, which the company has denied through its communications machine.
And the punchline, which also serves as the title for this post: “Google is very aggressive in throwing its money around Washington and Brussels, and then pulling the strings.” said Lynn. “People are so afraid of Google now.”
In a series of statements published on Twitter, Slaughter and New America slammed the NYT’s story as “absolutely false.”
In a separate email sent last year, Slaughter castigated Lynn for organizing a conference where he intended to criticize tech companies’ hegemonic influence.
“We are in the process of trying to expand our relationship with Google on some absolutely key points,” Ms. Slaughter wrote in an email to Mr. Lynn, urging him to ‘just THINK about how you are imperiling funding for others.’”
Slaughter is now reportedly helping the Open Markets team secure financing for a new, separate nonprofit entity. However, no money will be forthcoming from Google.
Google spent more than $9.5 million on lobbying during the first half of 2017, more than almost any other company. It has helped organize conferences at which key regulators overseeing investigations into the company were presented with pro-Google arguments, sometimes without disclosure of Google’s role in funding NA, according to the NYT.
The company has also donated to more than 170 groups from across the political spectrum, according to voluntary disclosures on its website.