I just want to point out that it is illegal in the U.S. for federal candidates to take money from organizations, such as corporations like Alphabet, Inc.

When you see campaign contributions listed "from" Alphabet, that money is actually all coming from individuals.

Employees of Alphabet who give more than $200 are required to list their employer on the donation form. The campaigns then submit that data to the FEC, which makes it public, which is where OpenSecrets gets it. So even if the Google janitor gives $250 to Clinton, OpenSecrets will list that as coming "from" Alphabet.

OpenSecrets also shows money that went to candidates from political action committees (PACs). But any money that passes through a PAC to a candidate must originate from an individual as well. The corporation can only pay administrative fees, like providing an office and Internet connection.

The reason that donors are required to list their employer on the donation form is because of how much influence that employer has on the employee/donor.

You may note that I said to avoid voting for candidates with a LARGE amount of contribution from Google. Because this isn't about $250, but, for instance, about the $58,000 Googlers have given to Ro Khanna, which pretty much ensures Ro would never vote against Google's interests if elected.

> But, in order for politicians to play the game they need large donors like Google. So, if they don't take money from Google they'll just take it from someone else with an agenda.

This is funny considering you think "donations" from Google don't have an agenda.

Lets call it what they are without double speak - a fucking bribe.

Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea. Unsurprisingly, when Congress moves to increase the salary of Congress, the bill tends to pass with flying colors. ;)

Therefore, your best bet is to get regulations against Google by electing people paid by someone else, then later get regulations against that someone else by electing people paid by someone entirely different. It's a juggling act of corruption!

> Realistically, you will never get a majority of US legislators to agree that giving US legislators money is a bad idea.

While the electorate is bickering over distractions like this cycle you are correct. However, limiting special interest influence strikes me as a non-partisan issue, so if the citizens spoke up I think they'd have sufficient influence.. But, then maybe I'm being an idealist. Regardless, your short term solution works.

The problem is, it's a non-partisan issue in that almost all our representatives, regardless of political party, are totally comfortable with it. ;) And the reason we're uncomfortable with special interest influence is... that it absolutely freaking works. The power money has on election results is so strong, that almost anyone who isn't accepting it probably isn't getting elected. So the likelihood of gaining a majority of Congresspeople who would move against it is pretty much impossible.