« America, love it or leave it | Main | Alt-stupid »

August 04, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I don't really understand...

What does Google get for having Obama in their pocket?

In my reading, Obama has been backed by a certain set of Big Finance who sought new frontiers to invest in. Obama is effectively a more charismatic Dukakis in terms of vision and what industries benefit from them. You may as well say that Big Charter School has Obama in their pocket, but that's not really true. Obama is friends with/has supporters from a set of hedge fund people who have big ideas/big profits in mind for education.

The Clintons practice a more transactional, less rational, and more straightforwardly gain-focused brand of political consolidation. As such, I don't think there is any differentiation in terms of what regions compared to Obama. It's simply more nakedly pay to play and more of an effort at broad/looser (rather than Obama's narrow/tighter) loyalty. I do think there will be more of an effort to curry favor with long standing corporate concerns, and less interest in creating dynamic new industries--simply out of a change of who has the ear of the president, rather than any serious intentionality.

I'm curious about who has actually mapped out the donors vs. just gut instinct on who's giving. I'm sure Clinton is different but similar to Obama. I'm sure there are interesting differences and they may matter. I'm not sure I've seen something convincing, yet.

But it does seem that Clinton is far more alien to the education reform/charter school folks than Obama. If you care heavily about federal education policy that matters. If you care about eduction policy you realize the states matter far more.

shah8, perhaps Google was concerned about FTC antitrust action?

Certainly seems that Google's remarkable access was in play during the FTC's process...

http://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/white-house-kept-close-tabs-ftc-google-probe

Caveat to the above - the Google Transparency Project (article author) has apparently received funding from Oracle, and so cannot be considered objective.

But the FTC's antitrust action still does provide a justification for Google to court influence in the administration, and the fact that a competitor in the industry feels the need to fund an exposition of this influence may be reflective of a view that the administration is in Google's pocket.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)