Has Google captured the Obama administration?

I am in Snoqualmie, Washington, outside Seattle, talking about intellectual property and hanging out with the same GOP-centric establishment crowds I always hang with on the West Coast.

One interesting comment came up in a discussion of whether, when and how to start lobbying the next administration against weakening patent rights: 

“The Clinton donor map and the Obama donor map are similar but not the same. The Clinton map skews south and east, with the hope that the next administration will be less Silicon Valley dominated than this one.” 

This is interesting on three levels. First, the belief that the Obama Administration is in Google’s pocket. Second, the belief that Hillary will not be in Google’s pocket. Third, that donor maps are determinative of political positions, at least on small-bore issues like patent reform.

Are these things true?

(These are Meg Whitman’s peeps. Only one Trump supporter among them.)

Comments

[shah8]

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.

[Logan]

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.

[Phil]

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

[Phil]

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.