“While Apple’s success has earned rock-star status in Silicon Valley, its low-wattage approach in Washington is becoming more glaring to policymakers. Despite its increasing influence over consumers’ use of technology — most recently with the iPad and iPhone 4 — Apple has kept a particularly low profile inside the Beltway,” Hart reports. “‘It’s unfortunate because they are a major player in this area, and we are going to continue to have a long, in-depth conversation,’ on these topics, said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who presided over theprivacy hearing, referring to Apple’s empty seat at the witness table.”
MacDailyNews Take: Wonder if they’re really concerned about the lack of Apple’s presence or presents?
Hart continues, “It is one of the few major technology companies not to have a political action committee. While CEO Steve Jobs supported the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, he hasn’t been especially active in political fundraising or races. Gore now sits on Apple’s board of directors.
“Compared with other tech giants, Apple’s lobbying expenditures are small,” Hart reports. “In 2009, Apple spent only $1.5 million to lobby the federal government, less than Amazon, Yahoo and IBM. In 2009, Google, for example, spent $4 million, Microsoft $7 million and AT&T $15 million… In the first quarter of this year, Apple spent $560,000 on lobbying, according to disclosure reports. During the same period, Google spent $1.4 million and Microsoft spent $1.7 million. ‘They’ve been very focused on their own innovation, and they don’t have a history of coming to town to get their competitors regulated,’ said Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology. ‘But they’re expanding into so many areas that they’re going to find themselves in other companies’ cross hairs, so they probably should be ready to play defense.'”
MacDailyNews Take: Lack of presents, as suspected.
“‘They don’t have the arrogance of Google, nor does Steve Jobs think he’s in the Obama cabinet like Eric Schmidt does,’ one tech industry lobbyist said,” Hart reports. “To handle discussions on the Hill, Apple hired Franklin Square Group, a technology-focused lobbying firm started by Josh Ackil, former White House aide in the Clinton administration and tech adviser to former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle. Paul Margie of Wiltshire & Grannis does much of the company’s work at the FCC. Apple has visited the FCC only four times in the past three years, according to agency records.”
Hart reports, “Apple may be forced to change that strategy as it pushes into new markets.”
There’s much more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Alternate headline: “Washington insiders concerned about their palms’ lack of Apple grease.”
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “JB” for the heads up.]
Amizin1: “Liberals prize justice and human dignity above all.”
I will concur… you are an amazing one…
You say ‘Liberals prize justice and human dignity above all’ and then in your last paragraph from the same post you decry, ‘tea baggers are making any headway’.
So much for Liberals prizing that “human dignity” cockamamy bull you try to pass off as Liberal core values!
“It [Apple] is one of the few major technology companies not to have a political action committee”.
And please keep it this way!
People judge you by the company you keep – respect yourself.
“Apple has kept a particularly low profile inside the Beltway” – and that’s a bad thing how?
Those who care to look into the issue will find a positive correlation between government involvement and political lobbying. The more government meddles – through regulation, favoritism, and largess – the more businesses lobby either to protect what they have or to get a bigger piece of the pie.
I’m a politician and this might affect some possible future TV time (cry, cry, sob, sob). Apple, I’m ashamed of you.
Term limits please and no special perks. It’s a privilege to serve not a right.
When I see these kind of people on TV, I like to do the old trick of picturing them in their underwear. Scary I know, but puts them in the right perspective.
@Kirkp
Awesome!!!!!
And MDN’s take is right on the mark.
This sounds like the beginning of a new version of an old book: “Apple Shrugged”. Let’s hope not.
IDIOCRACY
I don’t know if term limits would get at the problem. You’d just have ineffective rubes passing thru a revolving door owned by established kingpin lobbyists. The movie suggests public funding of elections would have kept at least one of the movie’s politician clean. Elected officials supposedly have to beg every week or so for money. That voracious need seems like the problem.
I don’t know if term limits would get at the problem. You’d just have ineffective rubes passing thru a revolving door owned by established kingpin lobbyists. The movie suggests public funding of elections would have kept at least one of the movie’s politician clean. Elected officials supposedly have to beg every week or so for money. That voracious need seems like the problem.
I don’t know if term limits would get at the problem. You’d just have ineffective rubes passing thru a revolving door owned by established kingpin lobbyists. The movie suggests public funding of elections would have kept at least one of the movie’s politician clean. Elected officials supposedly have to beg every week or so for money. That voracious need seems like the problem.
I don’t know if term limits would get at the problem. You’d just have ineffective rubes passing thru a revolving door owned by established kingpin lobbyists. The movie suggests public funding of elections would have kept at least one of the movie’s politician clean. Elected officials supposedly have to beg every week or so for money. That voracious need seems like the problem.
I don’t know if term limits would get at the problem. You’d just have ineffective rubes passing thru a revolving door owned by established kingpin lobbyists. The movie suggests public funding of elections would have kept at least one of the movie’s politician clean. Elected officials supposedly have to beg every week or so for money. That voracious need seems like the problem.
I don’t know if term limits would get at the problem. You’d just have ineffective rubes passing thru a revolving door owned by established kingpin lobbyists. The movie suggests public funding of elections would have kept at least one of the movie’s politician clean. Elected officials supposedly have to beg every week or so for money. That voracious need seems like the problem.
I don’t know if term limits would get at the problem. You’d just have ineffective rubes passing thru a revolving door owned by established kingpin lobbyists. The movie suggests public funding of elections would have kept at least one of the movie’s politician clean. Elected officials supposedly have to beg every week or so for money. That voracious need seems like the problem.
What if there was this huge, powerful company that gave nothing to political campaigns. Talk about threatening government as we know it! Probably some form of sedition.
Apple probably recognizes a dog and pony show when they see one and just decided not to play. The government has done more to undermine privacy on the internet than any group of companies that could be called on to blather (and contribute) to Congress.
Or maybe Apple just took a lesson from the Bush White House. Congressional hearings? Hell no, we won’t go!
Bush’s Investment banks tanked the economy. Is Congress investigating Bush’s investment banks?
No? Maybe it’s because they are too big to investigate. Apple is just small and sexy enough to investigate. It’s a bite-sized morsel that even a stupid congressman can handle.
congress can’t get its own shit together, they should keep their noses out of areas they belong in
Gotta love government hustling of successful companies who don’t contribute enough to politicians and the DNC.
@Mark. Politicians have to because campaigns costs can run into the billions.
@Kent…paint everyone with the same brush do we? Love to generalize do we?
Kudos to the bulk of the people on here that crapped on congressmen or politicians in general without saying liberal this or conservative that. You have renewed my faith in the intelligence of the human race.
The average Congressional campaign costs $1M-$2M, the average Senate campaign costs $3M-$5M. In any given election year there are 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats being voted on. Using the upper end of costs, that would mean $870M on the House and $165M on the Senate. Total $1.035B.
What if there was suddenly and Apple party in the US political landscape, backed by a company with 40x the money to run a candidate in every race?
Re. Congress; Even the most honest of men can be fooled by highly paid skilled lobbyists who inundate them with lies and innuendo. If all you get is one side of the story 24 hours a day, then what do you expect?
It is a dysfunctional system. The current system that allows Lobbyists the freedom they have is obviously in need of revision.
The concept that a company which does not have the same obligations as a citizen is given all the rights of a citizen needs a complete re-think.
Here endeth the lesson!
It isn’t about left, center, or right. It is about corruption.
The Committee want to “get its beak wet”. They are all for privacy as long as they know what’s going on.
The Democrat Party is based on corruption. Chicago Daley Machine last 50 years. The pure Democrat machines in Detroit, DC, Cleveland, Philly, Newark, etc. The SEIU is pure thug politics 24/7/365. Labor unions are 100% Democrat and operate based on intimidation and now want to wipe out the secret ballot in their own elections. Democrats support corruption as a way to achieve their goal of increasing state power and reducing individual liberty. This is a generalization – and it is true.