NLPC seeks to promote integrity in corporate governance, including honesty and fair play in relationships with shareholders, employees, business partners and customers. In doing so, NLPC places special emphasis on:
* Asserting that the social responsibility of the corporation is to defend and advance the interests of the people who own the company, the shareholders. True responsibility is fidelity to one’s own mission, not someone else’s, or someone else’s political agenda.
* Exposing the seeking of influence on public officials by corporations, which is the inevitable result of high levels of government spending and intervention in the marketplace.
* Combating practices that undermine the free enterprise system, including philanthropic giving to groups hostile to a free economy.
Documents given to The Daily Caller show the Internet gatekeeper maintains a manually controlled blacklist against conservative websites that determines how and where their content appears in search results. The censorship is intended to filter out of top results content that runs afoul of Google’s “good neighbor” and “misrepresentation” policies.
“The deceptive_news domain blacklist is going to be used by many search features to filter problematic sites that violate the good neighbor and misrepresentation policies,” the leaked document says, later adding:
The Left has tried to sway businesses’ behavior to comply with their public policy goals through shareholder activism, and used the cudgel of law enforcement and regulation to choke off funding for businesses it disfavors, but now signs are showing from elected conservatives that they’ve had enough.
Much in the way organized progressives have attacked Fox News’ advertisers to deter them from supporting programs they disagree with politically, so also have they pressured banks and other financial institutions to persuade them to stop lending money, or providing everyday money management services, to legal businesses they oppose – think gun dealers, payday lenders, and precious metals merchants.
Most of the time when conservatives and libertarians think of censorship by the large technology companies, the image that comes to mind is some leftwing millennial in a Silicon Valley cubicle who is blocking their article post from others’ view.
But the extermination of conservative thought from accessing the Internet is becoming more comprehensive.
The effort by the Left and the platforms they control (think Google and Apple, as well as Facebook and Twitter) has escalated from muting these voices, to cutting off their oxygen.
The $250-million lawsuit filed in Virginia by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) – against Twitter, a handful of fake accounts on the social media platform, and a libertarian political consultant – may not succeed in court, but it may not have to.
It may be just enough to (further) expose the company’s hypocrisy and bias in the ongoing battle against censorship of conservatives by the big tech companies, which also include Facebook, Google and Apple. And it may lead to other productive actions, legal or otherwise.
Nunes, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee the last four years, was subjected to a relentless smear campaign during the 2018 election cycle – much of it in the form of tweets. Political communications strategist Liz Mair is the named consultant in his complaint, as are accounts controlled by unknown individuals that go by the Twitter handles … Read More ➡ “Win or Lose, Nunes’s Lawsuit Could Still Be Effective Against Twitter’s Bias”
It has now been more than fifteen years since the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) first exposed the “cozy dealings” between Boeing and an Air Force procurement officer named Darleen Druyun. The dealings were connected to the replacement of the nation’s fleet of mid-air refueling tankers. The aircraft, now known as the KC-46 Pegasus, refuels bombers and fighter jets on long-range missions.
The scandal that followed saw Druyun go to prison along with then-Boeing CFO Michael Sears, and the resignation of then-CEO Phil Condit.
In the intervening years, the original plan for the Air Force to lease the tankers from Boeing was scrapped. Boeing then lost the contract to an Airbus/Northrop consortium, only to pry it back through the exercise of raw political influence by the Obama administration.
The revelation this week that Google made mega-payouts to two former executives accused of sexual harassment highlights the need for the adoption of a resolution by the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), which is a shareholder in parent company Alphabet Inc.
According to NLPC Chairman Peter Flaherty, “Alphabet’s management must end the stonewall. A necessary first step is to embrace our shareholder proposal on sexual harassment.”
According to disclosures related to a civil shareholder lawsuit that alleges Google consistently hid sexual harassment and discrimination claims by employees, former Android software creator Andy Rubin was paid $90 million upon his departure, and head of search Amit Singhal was offered $45 million when he left, although the amount was reduced to $15 million because he was hired by a competitor.
Now that Howard Schultz supposedly has disengaged himself from Starbucks and is considering a run for the presidency in 2020, the company fears his political pursuits will hurt their bottom line.
Well too bad.
After decades of liberal activism and supporting Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton, Schultz now says he may run as an independent. Some Democratic Party loyalists have gone ballistic, hurling invectives at Schultz and claiming that he will ensure the re-election of the president by splitting the anti-Trump vote.
And raising the stakes, Democratic Super PAC American Bridge 21st Century – backed by billionaire George Soros – recently targeted Starbucks, casting doubts on Schultz’s leadership. Among the charges: The company paid $46 million in settlements to employees over wage and compensation grievances. “[American Bridge] is clearly trying … Read More ➡ “Sorry Starbucks, You’re Stuck With Howard Schultz”
It is February 2019, and major corporate CEOs – who are in most cases reluctant to weigh in on controversial political issues lest they repel significant segments of their customer bases – have no hesitation advocating for the amnesty for DACA recipients, or “Dreamers.”
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, initiated by President Obama’s executive order in 2012, granted protections from deportation and work permits to illegal immigrants who entered the United States as children (including teenagers) and have been here five years. President Trump intended to rescind DACA in 2017 but delayed the decision to await a Congressional fix, which never happened, but now the status of the program remains as the efforts to phase it out are tied up in the courts.
The latest earnings report from Alphabet, Google’s parent company, demonstrates that the company is still a cash cow, but it does nothing to allay fears about the intrusive role “big data” plays in our lives. Nor does it provide respite from serious credibility problems facing the company’s leadership.
For instance, Google CEO Sundar Pichai may have lied to Congress. Pichai testified in December before the House Judiciary Committee, where members grilled him about transparency, data collection, and how Google filters search results. Moreover, several Republican congressmen wanted answers about political and ideological bias.
The plaintive Pichai was unequivocal. “We don’t manually intervene on any particular search result,” he claimed, because of the massive scale of trillions of searches each year. “It is not possible for an individual employee or groups of employees to manipulate our search results.”
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., has a habit of redoubling her efforts when her ideas fail. That’s especially true given that she now chairs the House Financial Services Committee. One of her top priorities is bullying banks into boosting mortgage lending to marginally qualified borrowers based on race or ethnicity. And her main vehicle for that now is a proposed subcommittee on diversity and inclusion. In a prepared statement on January 30, she declared, “I am proud to say that this will be the first Subcommittee of its kind in Congress.” One hopes it will be the last. For if she gets her way, the outcome, taken to its logical conclusion, may be a financial meltdown rivaling the one a decade ago.