Google and the Obama campaign

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now let me see.

Google states that an Obama ad, which has appeared via Google, was not sold to the Obama campaign, but was “an experiment” by Google.

When asked for details about the ad, Google representatives gave contradictory statements.
Google, whose chairman and former CEO Eric Schmidt was an informal adviser and supporter of Obama and sits on the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, has been accused in the past of favoring the White House.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57084.html

This is by no means the first time Google has been involved in supporting Obama, and attacking his critics.  Nor is the first time they engage in double-talk about such activities.
  
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/google-and-the-anti-obama-bloggers/

Also:

Owen Thomas — It's Google's presidency. We're just watching it. Six Google executives, including CEO Eric Schmidt and cofounder Larry Page, have donated $25,000 apiece to fund President Barack Obama's swearing-in party.

http://gawker.com/5119039/google-execs-pay-150000-for-obama-bash


Turning to federal election law, it appears that:

The definition of “contribution” under federal law 2 USC 431( and Title 11, Chapter I, Part 100, Section 100.52 subsection (d)CFR,  includes donated goods and services (one of the Google representatives called the ad a ‘good’).

Also, Title 11, Chapter I, Part 114, Section 114.2, subsection (a) CFR seems to prohibit corporations from making a contribution to any political candidate for federal office.

Oh, and Google was incorporated on September 4, 1998.

http://www.google.com/about/corporate/company/

Hmm.

[stegosaurus]

Doesn't the Citizens United ruling make this somewhat irrelevant, or am I missing something?

[Paul Kemp]

Doesn't the Citizens United ruling make this somewhat irrelevant, or am I missing something?

Facts aren't Carl's best friend. It's best to ignore him.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Doesn't the Citizens United ruling make this somewhat irrelevant, or am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.

First, reporting of the expenditures is still required.

Second, contributions are not prohibited, but can be limited.

[stegosaurus]

Doesn't the Citizens United ruling make this somewhat irrelevant, or am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing something.

First, reporting of the expenditures is still required.

Second, contributions are not prohibited, but can be limited.

It says pretty clearly that this was not an expenditure by the Obama campaign.