« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Google and Democrats deny that Google is helping Democrats

Yes, I'm doubling down.

Google loves Obama Obama loves Google copy

A couple weeks ago, I warned conservatives about Google’s entanglement with the Left, and the possibility that Google could provide data intelligence to Democrats. Not the usual consumer data that everybody uses, but a level of real-time behavioral data far beyond what Republicans could ever achieve using available consumer data. That concern was dismissed as a conspiracy theory by some people.

The question isn’t whether Google collaborates with Democrats, but how Google collaborates with Democrats.

We know that Obama campaign manager Jim Messina received personal mentoring on both technology approaches and management style from Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, his friend since the 2008 campaign.  We know that Google employees overwhelmingly contributed to Democrats in the last cycle (and aggregate individual employee contributions outnumbered the company’s PAC contributions). We know that Google vice president and “chief Internet evangelist” Vint Cerf received a presidential appointment to the National Science Board following last year’s election.

Is it paranoid to believe that Google is deeply invested in helping Democrats? No.

Still, I decided to take a deeper look at the connections between Google and the Obama campaign.

Jim Messina called on Google’s Eric Schmidt, Apple’s Steve Jobs, and Hollywood’s Steven Spielberg for their advice on building an organization. Schmidt gave Messina what turned out to be an invaluable piece of advice:

Messina said Google Chairman Eric Schmidt gave him simple advice: “You do not want political people, you want smart people who you are going to draw what you want and they’re going to go build it.” So Messina went out and hired someone to head the data department who had never worked on a campaign before.

What better pool of talent to draw from than Schmidt’s own company? Schmidt himself certainly wasn’t shy about being deeply involved with the campaign. He even helped himself to the first slice of a cake, purchased by Obama campaign Dev Ops Director Scott VanDenPlas, emblazoned with “Don’t F*ck This Up.” Schmidt later told Bloomberg Businessweek that the Obama campaign was the “best-run campaign ever.”

Google’s Schmidt also personally visited OFA’s Chicago HQ, where he spent time with OFA Chief Technology Officer Harper Reed and OFA Engineer Mark Trammell – Schmidt is the guy with the official OFA lanyard with photo in the mom jeans sitting on the table in the photo below, Reed is in the background by the smiley face, and Trammell is on the far right with the Santa Claus Starter Kit™ beard:

Scmidt

Michael Slaby, OFA’s Chief Integration and Innovation Officer, was a panelist (PDF) at left wing (of course) activism conferences at Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA, which should not be surprising since he was also the chief technology strategist for Eric Schmidt’s venture capital fund, TomorrowVentures LLC. Call me crazy, but I’m guessing their paths have crossed a time or two, and that their conversations have probably had quite a bit to do with politics and policy.

Obama’s impressive data team also boasts a large number of high-profile connections to Google, starting at the top with Rayid Ghani, OFA Chief Scientist. Not only has Ghani keynoted an address at Google Research Labs, according to his online CV (PDF), but he also spoke this month at his grad school alma mater Carnegie Mellon University in a lecture series sponsored by – you guessed it – Google. Ghani’s former department at Carnegie Mellon boasts seven alumni on Google’s payroll on their website.

Ghani’s role on the Obama campaign was to direct Project Dreamcatcher, which used “text analytics to gauge voter sentiment” about issues and speeches. I wonder how he came up with that idea? Could it have been in talking with Katharina Probst, Senior Software Engineer and Tech Lead at Google, who, according to her own site, is “working on new features for Gmail and Gmail Ads?” (Google is currently facing some heat over how it exploits Gmail user data for advertisers – but they would never exploit user data to help the Obama campaign, right?)

Probst and Ghani not only went to undergrad at the University of the South and grad school at Carnegie Mellon University together, but they have also co-authored two refereed journal articles together and presented four conference papers together. Something tells me their paths have crossed a time or two, including while Ghani was on the campaign.

Many Google employees personally volunteered for Ghani’s team – the question for conservatives is what exactly did they do? I bet Ethan Roeder, OFA Director of Data could tell us. Before joining the Obama campaign, Roeder was the Director of Data, Technology, and Election Administration at the Voting Information Project (PDF), a “Collaboration between Google, Pew Center on the States,” and the New Organizing Institute, according to Roeder’s LinkedIn profile.

Speaking of people at Google volunteering time and resources, I can’t imagine Catherine Bracy, OFA Community Outreach Lead, Product Manager, Tech4Obama Program Manager, and co-director of Obama’s San Francisco technology field office doesn’t have a direct line to some of the key decision makers at Google who would approve employee sabbaticals to work on campaigns. Bracy, according to her LinkedIn profile, was an administrative director at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, which receives millions in funding from Google.

Why does that matter?

Well, Bracy’s primary responsibilities at Berkman Center “included oversight of the center’s budgets and operations, fundraising, project management and event planning.” Ostensibly, she was involved in asking Google for the money it paid to support Berkman – what a great asset for a presidential campaign to have, huh? It was such a great asset, in fact, that Obama received over $719,000 in donations from Google employees, helping him on the path to an average 6:1 fundraising advantage over Romney from the Silicon Valley area.

Untitled

And that kind of money advantage is, in fact, the direct result of Bracy’s work for the campaign, if Mother Jones has anything to say about it:

Bracy reached out to heavyweights in the Bay Area’s digital world, from Craiglist to Google, before helping to launch the Obama campaign’s San Francisco technology field office last March.

And The Atlantic reported last year that Bracy and others were considered to be the “stars” of several closed-door fundraisers targeting the technology community:

In late January, Goff, Reed, and Bracy hosted a fundraiser at San Francisco’s Founders Den, a SoMa working space and private club. Thirty dollars got donors into a panel reception, and $500 gave them access to a “small roundtable discussion” starting an hour and a half earlier.

The Atlantic report also notes “The Obama campaign wasn’t interested in commenting on this sort of thing.” THERE’s a big shocker….

Bracy also brags on her LinkedIn profile that she personally was responsible for recruiting over 100 volunteers from the Silicon Valley community for the campaign, and oversaw the development of 14 products. That list of volunteers may (or may not have) included:

Or maybe OFA CTO Harper Reed, who was besties with Schmidt, hired those guys. I don’t know.

It’s no surprise that Bracy consulted for Google on the Google Political Innovation Summit immediately following the 2012 election, or that she is now the International Program Manager at Code for America that, surprise, surprise, received Google Foundation funding in 2012.

Look, I’m not alleging that Google is buying drones, getting its policy people appointed to senior White House positions and then collaborating on official White House policy with their former colleagues through private email (Gmail) accounts, rolling over for the majority of subpoenas (not warrants) the Department of Justice issues them for user data, that those Department of Justice subpoenas and user data disclosures torpedo the aspirations of GOP 2016 presidential hopefuls, or that they’re tracking your browsing habits and reading your Gmail to make a buck while helping their friends in power.

All I’m saying is that, maybe when people from Google, or from Salon.com, which just happen to be owned by Robert McKay, Chairman of the left wing donor activist group, Democracy Alliance (along with, unsurprisingly, another former Google employee),  deny that Google collaborates with Democrats, maybe we shouldn’t just take their word for it.

COMMENTS

  • ipolitics

    So the Democrats got a high-tech team of experts and the Republicans got a high-priced team of douchebags. What’s really surprising is that the election was as close as it was.

  • libertywombat

    This is what we should be doing with our own large donors. Democrats are always carping on about how we’re funded by Billionare donors. Well whom do Billionares tend to have around them? Smart managers. Smart tech guys. Smart strategy guys.

    Instead of going out to consultants with fancy names like “Leading Edge Cutting Strategy Vision Amalgamation Frontiers” we should be telling our big donors, “Thanks for the check Adelson, but could we also borrow your deputy chief of staff to help run our Florida office?”

    Instead of chasing Karl Rove down the rabbit hole of trying to replicate that one time he succesfully steered a candidate to victory, we should be saying, “Hey Bain Capital, thanks for your five million dollars but could we also borrow a few of your acctuarial experts to crunch demographics with our pollsters?”

    Most succesful American businesses (that aren’t staffed primarily by 22 year old brainwashed engineering students who believe in left wing causes because that’s how you sleep with co-eds at Cal-Tech) understand perfectly well which party wants to see them flourish and which wants to take their hard earned profits. Why aren’t we tapping into that bottomless well of American innovation and know-how?

  • cheesycon

    I use Bing. I really do.

    Because It’s Not Google.

  • kodachrome

    That well you mention is actually pretty finite. There are really only so many truly talented experts with skills applicable to politics in this country. And most of those people are working for the other side.

    Bain Capital workers donated far more money to the Democrats than us. Even after the attack ads on Bain started airing, they still kept donating to the dems. It’s not just “22 year olds” in tech (most of whom are married and pushing 30 or 40 these days), it’s true nearly across the board until you get up to the most senior levels in business.

    And it’s absolutely killing this party.

  • midnightduck

    I am one of those Tech guys. I develop analytical software. I also live and work in Portland, OR. So as you can imagine most, but not all, the folks around me are liberals. Most do not flaunt their politics but after the election there were high-fives and chest bumps all around. It was like supporting your team winning the Superbowl. That is how I saw the election treated. Everyone laughed at the inept Republicans. The quote of the cycle was ” Good thing you weren’t working for Romney”. I do big data for a living and I am not the only conservative. Next time I will be there. We need people like me and folks I know.

  • libertywombat

    > That well you mention is actually pretty finite. There are really only so many truly talented experts with skills applicable to politics in this country.

    I respectfully disagree, because I feel like you’re limiting the definition of ‘skills applicable to politics in this country’ to what the consultancies would have us believe.

    I mean, the entire premise of the diary above is that the Obama campaign was able to raid Google Inc. for talented professionals who had insights into management, social networking and branding. None of the people the article talks about from Google are what you’d call “professional political operatives.”

    The success of the Obama campaign came in part because they proved willing to look outside the political consultants box to find people with the skills needed to hoodwink the electorate. A person doesn’t have to have worked on Hoover’s campaign to make a contribution, is my point.

  • http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state prokofy

    Excellent research, thank you. I noticed that picture of Schmidt with the campaign coders in Harper Reed’s feed back in November on G+ (where else!). It was clearly a victory dance. It’s not just the proximity of Google and other Big IT engineers to OFA, making a kind of Bolshevik-style machine to run things; it’s their ideas. It’s not just about taking power; it’s how they want to run society, which is not freely and openly.

    http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/11/harper-reed-and-the-soulessness-of-the-new-machine.html

    All that data they drilled — a lot of it from people’s social media accounts where they unwittingly spoke openly and didn’t really get a chance to opt out — was used to slice and dice demographics and then pitch carefully constructed narratives — like “the war on women” or “voter suppression” to appeal to this or that constituency. And now it is owned not by the Democratic Party, but by a privatized Democratic candidate campaign Obama for America, now converted to Organizing for Action. It really is awful how that happened.

    I’m glad you noted Andrew McLaughlin, who was formerly at the White House Office on Science and Technology. Now, he, too, has a nonprofit, Access, which he has started up and whose status is pending, in order to lobby all the single issues that basically involve a combination of Google’s business agenda and a copyleftist/technocommunist sort of thinking, i.e. “net neutrality”. Of course they deny they have Google working for them and deny they are sectarian.

    http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/02/the-backwardness-of-the-global-village.html

    I continue to maintain that while the ORCA and apps failure can’t be said to have cost Romney the election, and there were other more complex factors obviously, the digital collapse was an important factor, and it needs to be fixed. I continue to point out that by hiring Obama’s 2008 digital analytical director, and a company with Al Gore’s digital person, Romney was treating the problem of digital relations as something you outsource or just get “the best money can buy”. Although he had a Republican-oriented shop doing his apps, they failed, and they were managed by Targeting Victory, which was the consulting group from which Zach Moffat, Romney’s digital director came. I don’t believe their heart was in the job — it was too diffuse and too many egos and too many managers over too few coders. This has to be changed — Obama kept all his people inhouse and made sure they were fired up and totally behind him 200% — he didn’t have to ask twice. I don’t care if the Republicans have to breed them from birth, they have to find honest geeks who will not be cynical about their campaign and essentially sabotage them, passively or actively.

    And yes, I believe that there are conservative coders, and certainly more minorities and women in tech and community organizing that the Republicans could go out and recruit, even though the Nate-Silver demographics look grim for them. They should try anyway.

  • The_Gadfly

    Actually it isn’t surprising at all. The Dems need BOTH of those advantages to eek out narrow victories in a naturally conservative country. Take either of them away (or get an honest press) and the country goes back to natural roots. Once there we will fix everything they’ve broken and in less time than most people expect, possibly even far less time than they expect.

  • The_Gadfly

    Karl Rove and George Bush did to the Republican party what James Carville and Bill Clinton did to the Dems before Bush was elected. The difference is, the Dems seem to know how to take advantage of it now that Karl is done.

  • The_Gadfly

    Sadly, whether you like it or not you are still using Google even when you use Bing.

    http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google-search.html

    And it’s Google’s real monopoly in the search world that makes Ben’s article all the more disturbing.

  • jschmidt27

    mixing politics with business is a dangerous game. Google had better learn that a lot of business people are conservatives and may not like dealing with a bunch of liberals or supporting them with purchases of software. Google obviously thinks they are big enough, but even big companies make big mistakes. Backing Obama was one because he is not a leader and is not doing the country good.

  • jschmidt27

    A dishonest press was the big key to Obama’s win.

  • rightlane1111

    Hey…WHO WAS THE BRAIN BEHIND ROMNEY…CAN YOU SAY…KARL ROVE

  • rightlane1111

    Yes…they were a big contributor…BUT…this is what Obama did and Republicans did not. (1) they went to college campuses and put out the message and the mega (2)….THEY USED THE TECHNOLOGY OF TODAY…meaning i-pad, i-phones and whatever else they could. While Republicans were cold calling on hard lines…Dems were sending text messages on cell phones.

    Many people today do not even have a hard wired phone in their homes…too much money to pay for both so they use cell phones. MESSAGING…MESSAGING…MESSAGING. Repeat the SOS..and pretty soon people believe it.

    Wait until many student loans comes due…do you think we are up for another tax scenario?

  • adair

    … While Republicans were cold calling on hard lines …
    and sending 4- and 5-page letters by snail mail … and the urgent “surveys,” the results of which would be sent to every Congressperson and the President himself (gasp!)
    We just stopped responding to calls coming in from area code 202 or any of the variations of 800, 888, etc. We have a Jitterbug cell, so no internet there. We still watch C-span, and support conservatives running out of our state as well as the few within it.
    I walked 2 neighborhoods for local candidates and for Romney; but the local Republicans didn’t ask me to. I went to their headquarters and picked up the literature (as I’m sure many, many other voters did:)

  • remalimo

    When I was in High School there was a sign on the wall of my Supt. “Excuses only satisfy those who make them”. Technology was not the culprit that lost the race for Romney. The message, the messenger, and messaging. Until there is decision by the Nat rep. party leaders for an all inclusive every one (including the conservatives) has a unified message based on the individual voter then the Rep. never ever win except when the people are against the Dem. candidate. KISS (for the NRP “Keep it Simple Stupid”) A GOOD OFFENSE is a GOOD DEFENSE.

    The Rep’s was always playing defense. KISS (public ad) did you have any idea how you were contacted by BO delivering you a message to vote for him? Answer: The Dem’s are storing YOUR info. WHY? “One can only imagine! Have you ever wondered what if YOU loose your Second Amendment rights? Or maybe the loss of YOUR 1st Amendment rights? Have YOU ever lost your job due to someone not liking YOU and just decided to fire you? Ever dealt with the GOV. that is currently working on recording YOUR ever move? Well The REPUBLICAN is working to save YOUR rights. We just need your understanding that the Rep’s are out to save everyone’s rights not just the RULERS, the dividers, the redistributers, (spelled GOVERNMENT) or those that once they take most of the WEALTHY’S MONEY THRU TAXATION then they take the next in line, YOU. Ever heard of the IRS ??

  • rightlane1111

    Isn’t that a shame…and they wonder why they lost. Romney was running against a Communist…and the USA re-elected him. Sad…sad day. For those of you who don’t think my depiction of Obama is correct…look at who his parents were, look who influenced him and then tell me is a Centrist…I would love to hear that one.