Those are references to Microsoft PAC which is funded by small donations from thousands of employees. Folks sometimes donate small amounts because they can go to events where interesting speakers are invited like Michael Lewis, Phil Knight, Will Smith, Chelsea Clinton, Arianna Huffington etc. As an employee, you do not have a say in capital allocation. In fact the PAC donates to both sides. The only agenda historically is what is in Microsoft’s corporate interests from taxation policies to h1bs etc. Representatives didn’t always fall cleanly into either camp. For example, while McConnell might be a climate denier he might have supported a favorable taxation policy, rural broadband policy or h1b policy. Perhaps Schumer supported favorable h1b policies but not corporate tax policies so he would be allocated capital proportionally.
Such corporate-managed PACs should be made illegal.
I may not be able to come up with the perfect solution myself, but I'm sure there is a way to maintain regular people's ability to organize and even donate politically without having greedy corporate interests take over such entities. Politicians should work to find that solution and ban everything else.
There is just so much wrong with the U.S. electoral system, it's hard to even know where to start. Money in politics, the FPTP system (which also helped the pro-Brexit party in UK win the most seats again, despite the majority of votes going to anti-Brexit parties), electoral college, antiquated caucus system in primaries, all the technical obstacles that two parties have set against independents and third-parties to ensure they never have a real shot and that the real status-quo is maintained (permanent war, helping their wealthy friends, spying on everyone, keeping citizens in the dark about the real issues, etc).
The quoted article says they donated a total of $22K dollars to misc representatives. If I'm not mistaken, that wasn't even the company, but the PAC making those small donations. I'd even go as far as to say those donations seems insignificant relative to this $1B investment.
Feels a bit like you might be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Does this surprise you? What should they do when a politician is an aligned with them 90%? Do you only support or vote for local and federal politicians that share your values on every single issue?
Does not surprise me. Just wanted to clarify that the Microsoft donates to X line is a lot more nuanced than the monolithic portrayal by OP
So employees donate money to a fund that they then don’t have a say in and for reasons that might be as unrelated as wanting to get good seats for a talk by Phil Knight.
This independent org then donates across party lines to issues that the manager believes are aligned with corporate interests that may also conflict with other corporate interests such as green initiatives and LGBTQ issues since a republican senator might be for rural broadband access but not gay marriage.
There was also an internal movement to try and starve the PAC by not donating to it.
And TBC, throwing a wrench in this even more, from a pure money perspective we’re talking about tens - hundreds of thousands vs. 1 billion.
Really, my point is that, like any large organization, a manichean view of things is not sufficiently nuanced and does a disservice to the complexity intrinsic with large groups of people.
The also just secured a $10 Billion contract with the US military, which is one of the largest emitters of carbon on the planet.
Americans have been reticent to downsize the military for the benefit of everyone else on the planet, but we might just get around to it for our own benefit in reducing emissions.
blahblah12|6 years ago
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2020&strI...
47% Dem 53% Rep split.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00227546&c...
It was a very bizarre and independent function. After employee frustration, they suspended the PAC
https://www.geekwire.com/2019/internal-email-microsoft-suspe...
AdamTReineke|6 years ago
mtgx|6 years ago
I may not be able to come up with the perfect solution myself, but I'm sure there is a way to maintain regular people's ability to organize and even donate politically without having greedy corporate interests take over such entities. Politicians should work to find that solution and ban everything else.
There is just so much wrong with the U.S. electoral system, it's hard to even know where to start. Money in politics, the FPTP system (which also helped the pro-Brexit party in UK win the most seats again, despite the majority of votes going to anti-Brexit parties), electoral college, antiquated caucus system in primaries, all the technical obstacles that two parties have set against independents and third-parties to ensure they never have a real shot and that the real status-quo is maintained (permanent war, helping their wealthy friends, spying on everyone, keeping citizens in the dark about the real issues, etc).
bufbupa|6 years ago
Feels a bit like you might be throwing out the baby with the bath water.
criddell|6 years ago
blahblah12|6 years ago
So employees donate money to a fund that they then don’t have a say in and for reasons that might be as unrelated as wanting to get good seats for a talk by Phil Knight.
This independent org then donates across party lines to issues that the manager believes are aligned with corporate interests that may also conflict with other corporate interests such as green initiatives and LGBTQ issues since a republican senator might be for rural broadband access but not gay marriage.
There was also an internal movement to try and starve the PAC by not donating to it.
And TBC, throwing a wrench in this even more, from a pure money perspective we’re talking about tens - hundreds of thousands vs. 1 billion.
Really, my point is that, like any large organization, a manichean view of things is not sufficiently nuanced and does a disservice to the complexity intrinsic with large groups of people.
mr-ron|6 years ago
98codes|6 years ago
freeone3000|6 years ago
TazeTSchnitzel|6 years ago
joshypants|6 years ago
Americans have been reticent to downsize the military for the benefit of everyone else on the planet, but we might just get around to it for our own benefit in reducing emissions.