7 ms·

And yet, still makes political donations to those that deny climate change and work against Green interests https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/121788265051551

And yet, still makes political donations to those that deny climate change and work against Green interests https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1217882650515517440 https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1217882650515517440

mr-ron 7y ago
Microsoft the company makes donations? Or the employees of Microsoft?
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  The company
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Company. See https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reports-hub#primaryR5 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep...
- 98codes 7y ago
  Neither, the PAC. The PAC members consist of employees and stockholders.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    The company also exists of employees and shareholders. The PAC is administered by the corporation, has meetings on corporate grounds, is contributed to by the corporation, and has its contribution list published by the corporation. In anything other than a legal sense, the corporation runs the PAC.
blahblah12 7y ago
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. https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2020&strID=C00227546 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2020&strI... 47% Dem 53% Rep split. https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00227546&cycle=2020 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-suspends-pac-donations-temporarily-following-employee-uproar/ https://www.geekwire.com/2019/internal-email-microsoft-suspe...
- mtgx 7y ago
  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).
- AdamTReineke 7y ago
  The employee PAC was suspended temporarily. It's operating again AFAIK. (Disclaimer, ex MS.)
joshypants 7y ago
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.
bufbupa 7y ago
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.
criddell 7y ago
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?
- blahblah12 7y ago
  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.

mr-ron 7y ago

Microsoft the company makes donations? Or the employees of Microsoft?

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
The company
freeone3000 7y ago
Company. See https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/reports-hub#primaryR5 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/rep...
98codes 7y ago
Neither, the PAC. The PAC members consist of employees and stockholders.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  The company also exists of employees and shareholders. The PAC is administered by the corporation, has meetings on corporate grounds, is contributed to by the corporation, and has its contribution list published by the corporation. In anything other than a legal sense, the corporation runs the PAC.

blahblah12 7y ago

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. https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2020&strID=C00227546 https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2020&strI... 47% Dem 53% Rep split. https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00227546&cycle=2020 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-suspends-pac-donations-temporarily-following-employee-uproar/ https://www.geekwire.com/2019/internal-email-microsoft-suspe...

mtgx 7y ago
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).
AdamTReineke 7y ago
The employee PAC was suspended temporarily. It's operating again AFAIK. (Disclaimer, ex MS.)

joshypants 7y ago

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.

bufbupa 7y ago

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.

criddell 7y ago

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?

blahblah12 7y ago
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.