On my first reaction that doesn't sound like very much, could be wrong though.

It's not uncommon for large companies to contribute to candidates across the board - even (or especially) to the two presidential candidates (both Dem and GOP). In a world (or country) where corporations and money have a large impact on policy, it'd be foolish for them not to. (You can say that this reflects poorly on the US political system, but it's not Google's job to change that).

On a separate note, I know that some candidates set up 501(c) 3s and -4s before they officially start running, and Google matches charitable contributions from its employees. Does anybody know if those types of funds (or funds donated through another organization) are included in these totals? It may not be the case, but on the off-chance it is, then this would just be a byproduct of the employees' own contributions.

Did you actually look at the distribution table? The donations occurred on 11 separate occasions in amounts no larger than $2,000 over the past 5+ years.

This is a non-event, and IMHO does not belong on the top of HN.

You're thinking of the CIA and bin Laden I assume...

I'm trying hard to avoid Politics and partisan side-choosing.

Giving small amounts of funding to all politicians is better than picking a side and giving large amounts to that side; it helps even out spending wins. Funding pro-SOPA politicians at least gives you an edge when you talk to them: "We hate SOPA, we like you, we even gave you some cash,but this SOPA thing is awful. Please, let us explain why."

While I'm here: I'd be really really interested to see a pop-economics analysis of votes and spending; a bit like "Moneyball" but for politics.

I am noticing the fact that people here are taking the “watch and wait” approach, trying to explain that an explicit donation doesn’t necessarily mean support, or finding all the possible ways this could be seen as defensive, while other companies have been profusely grilled just for not explicitly taking a stance against it.