The tech giant has been accused of meddling in the 2020 election, and its employees have been given many more influential positions within the Biden-Hojinli team. Critics say this could signal an imminent return to the friendly stance the Obama administration has taken toward Silicon Valley.
A key to the problem is how these companies will use their funds or conduct vetting before the election. A report by the Thomas More Society’s The Amistad Project says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gave election officials $500 million before the election for purposes that have been suspected of violating election laws. Much of the money allegedly went to a progressive nonprofit organization that exerted undue influence on voters in an effort to get Biden elected.
Scott Watnik, a member of Wilk Auslander LLP’s litigation department and co-chair of the firm’s cybersecurity practice, said this raises “serious legal questions.
“What seems to be happening here is that Zuckerberg’s money is funding a public function that is being performed by public elected officials with taxpayer funding.” Watnick said, “Under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, every state needs to treat everyone equally when it comes to election infrastructure.”
“It’s no secret that when it comes to election infrastructure, funds are not spent equitably,” he added, “and in fact quite the opposite, they are allocated to specific, demographically left-leaning areas, which also happens among swing states. “
Another concern, critics say, is that dozens of “alumni” (alumni, meaning former employees) of the tech giant have joined the Biden transition team or have been given influential positions in his administration.
Christian Tom, who was named deputy director of digital strategy in the White House Office of Digital Strategy under Biden-He Jinli on Dec. 28, is also the digital director of the Biden Inaugural Committee, according to a statement. Prior to working on Biden’s team, Christian Tom held revenue-related positions at Twitter, Google and YouTube.
Facebook “alumni” have also held a number of key positions in the Biden administration.
Jessica Hertz, the former head of Facebook, was the chief legal counsel for the Biden transition team. Jeff Zients, who was named Biden’s prevention coordination officer, served on Facebook’s board of directors in 2018.
Austin Lin, a former Facebook program manager, is a member of the Executive Office of the President’s institutional review team, in addition to Erskine Bowles, a former Facebook board member, who is already advising the transition administration.
The Biden transition team is appointing more tech company executives than tech review experts to its agency review team. Unidentified sources told Reuters that tech giants such as Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft are working to install employees into government agencies in senior positions.
Similarly, two Amazon executives made it to the agency review panel of Biden’s State Department, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Sources also told Reuters that former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt “has been making personnel recommendations for appointments to the Defense Department as the company tries to pursue military contracts and defense jobs.
Currently, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are conducting antitrust investigations into companies such as Facebook and Google. These companies have a compelling interest in their attempts to influence the Biden administration.
Tech companies’ involvement in Biden’s team threatens to trigger revolving door mechanism
Andrew Selepak, a professor of social media at the University of Florida, said the fact that tech execs are major sponsors of Democratic campaigns, according to FCC records, has Republicans concerned that there may be a “revolving door” between tech giants and the Biden team.
Note: The term “revolving door” refers to the mechanism by which individuals switch roles between the public and private sectors to cross-purpose their profits. For example, when government hires industry executives to gain experience in the private sector, they may try to use their political influence to lobby for business groups or develop policies that facilitate their profitability. Conversely, when government officials leave office, they may enter the private sector and use their ties to government to benefit the groups they represent.
These tech giants have a strong political stance, which in turn has a huge impact on product design, services and users.
Says Selepak, “There is a huge disparity in political ideology among these large tech companies, which limits the thinking and views of those who design, manage technology (and which we all use) and have a huge influence on how they influence users.”
“During the 2020 campaign, tech companies routinely flagged users’ posts as false information, deleted accounts, shut down pages, and limited news and user influence.” These restrictions and limitations, he said, “go against the idea that social media companies should be seen as a platform, not a publisher, in the marketplace.”
On Dec. 9, YouTube announced that it would remove content related to “widespread fraud or error” in this year’s presidential election. Experts say the scope of this removal will be unprecedented.
Earlier, Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee said big tech companies must be questioned and held accountable for actions they take based on political bias. For example: Facebook and Twitter restricted and censored the New York Post’s Hunter Biden story, ahead of the Nov. 3 election.
Selepak also noted that the Obama administration has long embraced big tech companies.
“Once in office, dozens of Google employees worked in the Obama administration, and this is the first time we’ve seen this relationship between a tech giant and the White House.”
Selepak said consumers want the government to investigate the companies for any potential abuses and the impact they have on society.
He said, “There is a legitimate concern that if these tech giants get too involved in any government, these investigations will not happen and could have a huge impact on users and the country.”
Experts say a Biden presidency has the potential to directly impact any ongoing, pending or future antitrust cases against Big Tech. Meanwhile, Sen. Kamala Harris (D-N.Y.) has come under careful scrutiny because of her close ties to tech industry leaders.
However, some believe that Biden will not cut the tech giants any slack. Antitrust scholar John E. Lopatka, a professor of law at Penn State Dickinson School of Law, previously told the Epoch Times that an aggressive, or interventionist, antitrust enforcement policy “fits perfectly with Democratic political ideology, and therefore any Democratic administration would be inclined to adopt such a policy “.
According to a list compiled by Protocol on Nov. 10, Biden’s transition team includes tech industry leaders from several different major companies, leading tech philanthropists and tech advocates.
Blair Brandt, the Florida chairman of the Trump (R-Texas) campaign fundraising committee and a Republican strategist, said he believes the Justice Department under the Biden administration will not aggressively push for antitrust lawsuits against big tech companies, noting that most related lawsuits have been filed by Republican state attorneys general.
“Republican mega-donors and billionaires, investing in President Trump’s campaign,” Brandt said, “and Democratic mega-donors and billionaires, investing in the election process itself. What does that tell you?”
Brandt said the real risk is in the legislation. A Democratic-majority House, and Biden’s White House, he said, “would not be interested in overturning Section 230, which in many ways has gotten them to where they are today.”
Trump and the Justice Department have urged Congress to revoke the legal protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). Under that section of the law, publishers are held liable for any content they publish, but online social media platforms are protected.
“Trump’s toughest opponents … aren’t even Democrats, but their Silicon Valley allies in big tech companies who are constantly censoring his social media platforms.” He said.
Recent Comments