Maybe they don't much care who gets elected; in that case there'd be no reason to buy a candidate.
Maybe they'd make a lot of money if people paid Google to influence an election in some direction. Or if not money, then regulatory or legislative relief.
I think Google is very interested in who might win. If for no other reason that for future planning of products and services. Some candidates may be more favourable than others regarding certain issues.
Whether it's their influence or cash, either way would be buying the candidate. Providing under the table services for preferential treat by authorities is also well-engrained in most countries.
I doubt they would notice any change in or towards the company and or culture regardless of any change that did happen. Therefore they wouldn't potentially have any reason to change, other than pure bias. The problem with changing though is that it needs to go through so many people to finally actually get to the production system, surely there would be some whistle blower around to get a nice PR on this one should it ever happen?
5 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 21.8 ms ] thread[0]http://www.pnas.org/content/112/33/E4512.abstract
Maybe they'd make a lot of money if people paid Google to influence an election in some direction. Or if not money, then regulatory or legislative relief.
Whether it's their influence or cash, either way would be buying the candidate. Providing under the table services for preferential treat by authorities is also well-engrained in most countries.
Sad, but factual.