The sad fact is that corporations are already deeply involved in this bill - where do you think it came from in the first place?

I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but corporations are the leading driving force behind almost all of USA's politics. I can count on one hand the number of Representatives and Senators combined that have NOT been bought and paid for by giant corporations. The same goes for non-trivial pieces of legislation passing through either the House or Senate with corporate sponsorship.

Just a minor correction:

It is pretty widely accepted hypothesis that politicians do not "corrupt" when they are elected to office but that corporations support politicians which favor their positions. Politicians that have money have legitimacy. Legitimate candidates get elected.

Couple that with the fact that corporations often donate to 50+ candidates (on both sides of the aisle) and not only do they have a pre-polling vote (through money) but they also get to play in many elections.

It's the house vs. the people and the house always wins.

If you can produce evidence that a corporation has donated to even one candidate, much less 50, the FEC would love to speak to you; it's illegal for corporations to donate to candidates.

There are many ways for a corporation to provide value to a candidate besides a cash donation. Some of these ways can translate readily into cash. For example, insider trading by congresspeople, which apparently is legal. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7388130n http://www.cnbc.com/id/45249857

Ever heard of a PAC?

Not only have I heard of PACs, but I've given to my employer's PAC, which than donated money to the campaigns of 50+ candidates.

I don't know if you've participated in the system, but it's not fair to equate that with a corporation donating its own money to a political campaign.

I'm aware that corporations are involved in politics; you misunderstand me. I mean to say, I find the idea of Google advertising something political so explicitly on their front page a little bit discomforting. The same applies to Wikipedia's decision to go with the "nuclear option", a blackout. It feels like it opens all sorts of doors with nasty implications. But that's just me.

I hate to break it to you, but there is no Santa Claus, corporations are heavily involved in politics, and Google using their logo for political advocacy does not open up the gates to a new era of corporate political activism.

If anything, internet corporations are showing up late to the game.

I think the point is: Suppose google blackout for a day, since they have never done this before afaik it will give them insight into how crucial their service is (or isn't) to the population in general.

If they saw that modern society could not function without them then they could then effectively hold legislators over a barrel and say "pass law X or we turn it off", these laws might not always be things we would like.

Of course if they pulled that enough times I'm sure another engine would come along and replace them.

This is a problem I have with centralized software and data that is proprietary to one company, I imagine Google and Facebook could legally do some pretty nasty things if they wanted to.