Symptom of the Disease: Google, the White House and a $1.8 million fundraiser

Do you have an issue with Google driving around the world capturing personal information? While many countries are holding Google to a high standard and taking them to court, claiming private information was stolen, Google management raised $1.8 million for Democrats at one dinner … and four days later…

… the United States Federal Trade Commission closed their investigation into Google’s collection of consumer data through its Street View cars. Hat tip to Ken Boehm at Big Government.

  • “Google’s Marissa Mayer is hosting President Obama for a Democratic party fundraiser tonight. Tickets are $30,000-a-head….” – San Francisco Chronicle, October 21, 2010
  • “The Federal Trade Commission [has] closed its investigation into Google’s collection of consumer data through its Street View cars….”  San Francisco Chronicle, October 27, 2010
  • “After analyzing the unencrypted WiFi payload data captured by its Street View cars, Google now admits that the system captured entire e-mails, URLs and even user passwords.” – ZDNet, October 23, 2010

Nothing to see here folks. And do you know what? Maybe their really is nothing to see here. That said, the $30,000 a plate fundraiser – which in no doubt included a plate with about $3 of food – breeds the perception that money in Washington, D.C. flows like water over Niagara Falls and the Washington elites are just that … pompous elites.

Those of us who could not conceive of attending a $30,000-a-head fundraiser are scratching their heads, wondering why anyone would be willing to hob-nob with a few political elites, if for only about 20 minutes. Really now, $30,000 to get your picture taken with President Obama?

Even parents of tweens cringe at the thought of spending $60 to send their offspring to a Justin Bieber concert. Isn’t he from Canada?

The reason this occurs is simple and completely legal, yet their really is something here to discuss. When you spend that kind of money at a political fundraiser you expect future access. You expect to be heard. You expect to be able to remind the Democrat party – or yes the Republican Party – that you contributed $30,000 (or whatever). You expect members of congress to accept appointments you make so you can discuss issues.

With that said, would I suggest eliminating the ability for people or groups of people to contribute to a party? Maybe limit contributions to $100 per person? Hell no, that is not the solution and quite honestly it destroys free speech.

The answer is in the United States Constitution folks. By beginning to remove all powers the federal government has usurped from the states since the 1930s, you’ll immediately solve a significant part of the problem.

Certainly, lobbyists and corporate leaders will continue to hold fundraisers at their homes with the expressed goal of access to state political leaders, and you know what? I’m perfectly fine with that. I’d much rather fight corruption, statists, progressives, liberals and socialists at the local level where I can better keep an eye on them.

We are the United States of America after all are we not?

4 replies
  1. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I agree: it is much easier to hold a local pol accountable rather than some hack that lives in D.C. and exists to do nothing but the bidding of their party.


    Do they let you take tar and feathers on airplanes and trains?  😉

  2. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    Didn't Barney Frank say that "the Capitalists are overwhelming us"

    "What's this us $*&^".  I don't see him rearranging his budget every time the price of gas goes up.

    I doubt Barney ever told George Soros that he made too much, or that his money wouldn't buy any favors.

  3. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    I am sure it will be the same for Google.

    What is one to do?   Hmm – Once upon a a time in America there were co owners of a store.  When 9/11 happened they celebrated.  One of their suppliers witnessed this while making a delivery.  He was upset, went to his truck and called Corporate.  The callers agreed on a plan of action.  He went back in the store, stated that his firm was ceasing business with them and took out all of his product.  Another supplier came by while this fellow was doing this.  They spoke. The second suppllier made a call and proceeded to so the same thing.  Word spread and soon all of the suppliers had reclaimed their stock.  No fuss from the suppliers, just a simple decision and a bit of passive agressive action.

Comments are closed.