Why are Republicans in Congress targeting Google? Two reasons — CNet

There is an article at CNet with a decidedly negative tone toward the Republican opposition to the Google-Doubleclick merger.

What’s odd is that these are the same Republicans who have spent their political careers extolling the virtues of mergers when telecommunications giants are vying to acquire one another. To say these Republicans like telecommunications mergers is an understatement akin to saying the U.S. occupation of Iraq may have encountered some setbacks over the past few years.

[…]

Like many of these Republicans, Barton is paid most handsomely in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry (he supports taxpayers subsidizing the creation of new refineries for petrochemical companies). But telecommunications companies and their employees are up there as well, writing him checks for more than $1 million over the years.

Ok so we are to understand that Republicans are flip-flopping when it comes to mergers, unlike the virtuous and wonderful Democrats.

That’s the first reason some Republicans in Congress dislike Google, or at least are willing to publicly savage it: The search company has been fighting against AT&T, Verizon Communications, and Comcast over Net neutrality regulations for the last few years. Now that the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing the Google-DoubleClick deal, it’s time for some payback.

The second reason is more speculative but worth noting. And it’s that Republicans know that Google is run by Democrats.

In other words, Republicans are fighting this major merger because of a political issue and the fact that Google is run by Democrats. And you can certainly trust the author when it is said Google is run by Democrats.

It’s true. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt has written checks for $163,000 to Democratic campaign committees. Google board member John Doerr has given more than $507,000 to Democratic committees (and that’s not even counting individual politicians). Google board member Ram Shriram gave to only one presidential candidate this year: Barack Obama. Google board member Shirley Tilghman gave money only to Democratic causes, including Emily’s List. And so on.

[…]

Google’s policy staff reflects this partisan split. Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s director of global public policy and government affairs, was once a House Democratic aide. So was Johanna Shelton, a Google policy counsel. Google’s Washington spokesman was Sen. Joe Lieberman’s press secretary. Alan Davidson, Google’s senior policy counsel, worked in the White House Office of Policy Development in the Clinton administration. John Burchett, Google’s state policy counsel, was chief of staff to Jennifer Granholm, the Democratic governor of Michigan. (The lone exception is Pablo Chavez, a Google policy counsel, who worked for Sen. John McCain. And Google’s outside lobbyists are more evenly split between the major political parties.)

Here is the kicker, though:

This shouldn’t matter. But politicians are petty and parochial. So it probably does.

Oh it matters; so apparently when Republicans, who receive money from the oil and gas and telecom companies, which are probably run by Republicans, vote to allow mergers, it’s evil. (And, I should point out, by negative implication, when Democrats vote against these same mergers because they don’t receive money, it’s virtuous apparently.) On the other hand, when the money is switched, and the Republicans vote against the merger and the Democrats vote for it, it’s only the Republicans that are flip-flopping?

Seems like politics as usual to me; if one doesn’t want to become a political target, one shouldn’t get involved in politics.