Tag: Scrutiny

Categories
Politics

Company donations to GOP beneath scrutiny

Corporate donations to GOP under scrutiny

Several large corporations in Georgia have criticized the state’s controversial new election restrictions signed by GOP Governor Brian Kemp last week.

However, some of these companies are silent about whether they will continue to make donations to Kemp and other Georgia Republicans who support the law.

CNBC reached out to six companies to ask if they would continue to make corporate donations to Georgian politicians who support the new law. Three answered. One of them, Coca-Cola, pointed to its decision to stop all political donations after the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill.

The new law creates some hurdles for postal voting and includes greater legislative control over the conduct of elections. Companies like Delta attacked the law because it was too restrictive.

Various interest groups have said the bill specifically affects black voters, who were instrumental in the Democrats’ surprise victories in two US Senate elections earlier this year and last year’s presidential election.

There is even talk of an idea supported by President Joe Biden to move this year’s Major League Baseball All Star Game out of Atlanta.

Kemp and other Georgia Republicans have defended the law and dismissed corporate concerns.

Delta, headquartered in Atlanta, spoke out against the law in a memo from CEO Ed Bastian on Wednesday. The company has historically supported Kemp and several sponsors of the law through its Political Action Committee. As of 2018, the PAC has given over $ 25,000 to Kemp and several GOP lawmakers.

A Delta spokeswoman wouldn’t say whether the company would stop donating to Kemp and the other supporters of the law.

“With regard to DeltaPAC and our political contributions, we have solid procedures in place for reviewing candidates prior to each submission to ensure they are in line with both Delta’s position on aerospace and business priority issues and our values,” said Lisa Hanna, the Delta spokesperson. said in an email. “Past contributions do not mean that DeltaPAC will contribute to a candidate in the future.”

The Delta representative also said that “due to the COVID-19 pandemic, no individual donations have been made to Georgia State House or Senate candidates since prior to 2020”.

Critics are calling for companies like Delta to be more accountable.

“Today you have to balance your political spending with your rhetoric,” said Bruce Freed, president of the bipartisan Center for Political Accountability, which tracks corporate money in politics. “You have passed the point of no return, it’s no longer just for access or free,” he noted, referring to previous calls to boycott some Georgia-based companies.

“They are now realizing that there is such a deep reaction from consumers and the general public that it affects not only their reputation but also their bottom line,” explained Freed, explaining how companies are now viewing the public response to their corporate donations.

For Coca-Cola, it was about sticking to a policy it introduced after the deadly pro-Trump uprising at the Capitol. James Quincey, CEO of Coca-Cola, called Georgia law “unacceptable” in an interview with CNBC on Wednesday. In a statement on Thursday, Quincey added that the company’s “focus is now on supporting federal legislation protecting access to voting and addressing the repression of voters across the country.”

“We suspended all political donations in January, and this hiatus continues,” said Ann Moore, a Coca-Cola spokeswoman. Moore said the suspension of the company’s contributions affects state-level candidates, not just federal candidates.

As of 2018, Coca-Cola has donated more than $ 25,000 to sponsors of the Georgia Voting Restrictions Act. That total includes over $ 10,000 for Kemp’s gubernatorial campaigns between 2018 and 2020.

“We haven’t set a schedule, but we’re still thinking about how to use these resources,” said Moore when asked if the beverage giant had any plans to resume the posts.

Home Depot, also headquartered in Atlanta, recently said in response to Georgia’s electoral law that it would work to ensure its employees across the country have the resources and information to vote.

However, the company wouldn’t say whether it would continue to support lawmakers who support the law.

“Our employee-funded PAC supports candidates on both sides of the aisle advocating for business and retail-friendly positions that create jobs and economic growth,” said Sara Gorman, a Home Depot spokeswoman. “As always, future donations will be assessed based on a number of factors.”

Home Depot has given Kemp and the lawmakers who sponsored the bill at least $ 30,000.

AT&T is based in Texas but gave more than $ 70,000 to Kemp’s campaign and Georgia Bill sponsors. A video on Twitter shows the Black Voters Matter group protesting outside AT&T headquarters on Monday.

AT&T CEO John Stankey told CNBC in a statement:

“We understand that electoral laws are complicated, not our company’s expertise and ultimately the responsibility of elected officials. However, as a company, we have a responsibility to get involved. This is why we work with other companies through groups like the company around the table in support of efforts to improve each person’s ability to choose. “

“That way, the right knowledge and expertise can be used to make a difference on this fundamental and critical issue,” added Stankey.

UPS and Southern Company Gas, two Georgia-based companies that have donated through their PAC to either various sponsors of the bill or to Kemp’s campaign, did not respond to a request for comment.

UPS previously said it believes “electoral laws and statutes should make it easier, not harder, for Americans to exercise their voting rights.” The invoice was not addressed directly.

After the January 6 uprising, UPS announced that it would suspend all PAC contributions for the time being.

Read the full statement from John Stankey, CEO of AT&T, below:

“We believe that the right to vote is sacred, and we support electoral laws that make it easier for more Americans to vote in free, fair, and safe elections.

We understand that electoral laws are complicated, not our company’s expertise and ultimately the responsibility of elected officials. But as a company, we have a responsibility to get involved. That’s why we partner with other companies through groups like the Business Roundtable to support efforts to improve each person’s electoral skills. In this way, the right knowledge and expertise can be used to make a difference on this fundamental and critical issue.

We are an active member of the BRT and fully support its policy statement on the right to vote. Easily accessible and secure voting is not only a valuable right and responsibility, but also the best way to ensure that everyone’s voice is heard. “

Categories
World News

AstraZeneca Vaccine Beneath Extra Scrutiny After Denmark Demise

AstraZeneca Vaccine Under More Scrutiny After Denmark Death

Denmark reported on Saturday that after receiving the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine, two people suffered cerebral haemorrhage, one of whom died. The Danish Medicines Agency said it was looking to see if the disease was a possible side effect.

A spokesman for the capital region of Denmark confirmed the death, and the Danish news agency Ritzau reported that the other person, a civil servant in her thirties, was seriously ill.

Millions of people in dozens of countries have received the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine with few reports of side effects. However, the European Medicines Agency, the continent’s top medicines agency, carried out a review after several countries stopped using the vaccine. On Thursday, the agency said it thought the vaccine was safe, although it would continue to look out for links to blood disorders. It was determined that any threat would be very minor and that the gunfire would prevent far more deaths than they could cause.

Recent blood clots and abnormal bleeding in a small number of vaccine recipients in European countries raised safety issues and resulted in suspensions. This resulted in a disruptive pause in vaccination campaigns this week, although some European countries entered a third wave of infections.

“At the moment we are investigating whether this is exactly the same clinical picture with multiple blood clots, low platelet counts and bleeding,” said Tanja Erichsen, director of the Danish Medicines Agency, in a radio interview with the Danish national broadcaster DR.

“We prioritize reports of suspected serious side effects like these and investigate them thoroughly to determine whether there is a possible link to the vaccine,” Ms. Erichsen said on Twitter on Saturday. “We are in the process of dealing with the two specific cases.”

This is the second death in Denmark after a person received the AstraZeneca vaccine. Norway is investigating the deaths of two people who received the vaccine.

Denmark has suspended the use of AstraZeneca until Thursday, despite assurances from the European Medicines Agency. Other Scandinavian countries and Finland have made similar decisions. However, some European countries, including France and Germany, have resumed recording.

Part of the continued caution is due to preliminary results from medical experts in Norway and Germany, which suggest a possible link between the vaccine and the extremely rare blood disorders. The German experts said the sinus or cerebral vein thrombosis, which Germans suffered 13 days after receiving the vaccine, was caused by an immune system reaction they believe may be related to the shot. They did not publish detailed data, but planned to present their results to The Lancet.

AstraZeneca didn’t immediately comment on the claims on Friday.

Dr. James Bussel, an expert in platelet disorders and professor emeritus at Weill Cornell Medicine, said the occurrence of abnormal clotting and low platelets in people under the age of 50 was unusual. He found that researchers in Europe had identified antibodies produced by the immune system – possibly in a highly unusual response to the vaccine – that may have activated platelets and triggered a cascade of abnormal clotting and bleeding.

Researchers in Germany and Norway will continue their research. In Germany, where the vaccine is being re-administered, doctors are now warning anyone who receives an AstraZeneca shot to see a doctor immediately if they have a headache, dizziness, or blurred vision more than three days later. They said the problems could very likely be addressed if identified in time.

Categories
Business

Shopper focus is finest response to antitrust scrutiny

Consumer focus is best response to antitrust scrutiny

Alphabet and Google are facing multiple government antitrust cases, but the company believes continuing to serve consumers is a winning strategy.

David Paul Morris | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Alphabet and Google face increased government scrutiny, including an antitrust lawsuit filed in December, the third since October. It could take years to resolve the legal conflict with government regulators. According to Google’s head of marketing, an ongoing focus on the consumer is the best answer.

Google will continue to resonate with its users as the government scrutinizes big tech companies, said Lorraine Twohill, the company’s chief marketing officer, recently at CNBC’s CMO Exchange.

“We are by far the most helpful company in their lives and we must continue to do so,” Twohill said at the CNBC virtual event Thursday.

Twohill said user trust is a “core part” of Google’s DNA and consists of three components. This includes providing accurate and timely information as well as improving data protection and security measures to ensure user safety. Around 200 million users have already passed the platform’s privacy review, she said.

“If we continue to have a close relationship with our consumers and users by being helpful … that is the right answer for me right now,” said Twohill.

Then SVP speaks for global marketing at Google Lorraine Twohill on the stage of Creativity & Technology: Lorraine Twohill & David Droga in the discussion panel presented by Google during the Advertising Week 2015 AWXII on the Times Center Stage on September 30, 2015 in New York City.

Laura Cavanaugh | Getty Images

The government cases allege that the company used anti-competitive and exclusive contracts to ensure a continued monopoly on online search and to prevent competitors from accessing many of these sales search channels.

Earlier this month, the company called the case “a misleading attack” on the advertising technology business while addressing claims the company allegedly partnered with Facebook to set prices and minimize competition.

While government attorneys claim that the tech giant’s business practices are restricting consumers’ access to competing technologies, Google executives focus on the argument of delivering the services consumers want and improving them.

Google’s economic policy director Adam Cohen responded to the recent lawsuit in a blog post which the complaint read: “We shouldn’t have been working to improve searches and we should actually be less useful to you.”

Google isn’t the only big tech company under scrutiny. Facebook has gone through a number of government antitrust proceedings, including a lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission last month and a number of attorneys general from 48 territories and states alleging the tech beast used its power to order Eliminate competitor threats when acquiring platforms like WhatsApp and Instagram.

Amazon could potentially face increased government scrutiny under the Biden administration, while Apple’s App Store has also been a focus for potential regulatory action.

With the world’s largest tech companies facing antitrust scrutiny – sometimes intertwined, as in the case of the billions of dollars that Google pays Apple to use as the default search engine for iPhones – it is important not to put them all together, according to Twohill.

“It’s important not to put all of the big technologies in one bucket. We’re all very different, we think and work very differently,” she said.

Categories
Business

Fb and Twitter Face Worldwide Scrutiny After Trump Ban

Facebook and Twitter Face International Scrutiny After Trump Ban

LONDON – In Sri Lanka and Myanmar, Facebook continued to post warnings that they had contributed to the violence. In India, activists have called on the company to fight against positions held by politicians against Muslims. In Ethiopia, groups advocated the social network blocking hate speech after hundreds were killed in ethnic violence on social media.

“The offline problems that rocked the country are fully visible online,” wrote activists, civil society groups and journalists in Ethiopia in an open letter last year.

For years, Facebook and Twitter have rejected calls to remove hate speech or other comments from public figures and government officials that civil society groups and activists have said risk inciting violence. Companies stuck to guidelines, driven by American ideals of free speech, that give such numbers more leeway to use their platforms for communication.

But last week, Facebook and Twitter cut President Trump off their platforms for inciting a crowd to attack the U.S. Capitol. These decisions have angered human rights groups and activists who are now urging companies to apply their policies evenly, especially in smaller countries where platforms dominate communication.

“When I saw what the platforms were doing to Trump, I thought, ‘You should have done this before, and you should have done this consistently in other countries around the world,” said Javier Pallero, Policy Director at Access Now, one Human rights ombudsman group involved in the letter from Ethiopia: “All over the world we are at the mercy if they choose to act.”

“Sometimes they act very late,” he added, “and sometimes they don’t act at all.”

David Kaye, a law professor and former United Nations observer on freedom of expression, said political figures in India, the Philippines, Brazil and elsewhere deserve a review of their online behavior. But he said the actions against Mr. Trump raise difficult questions about how the power of American internet companies is being used and whether their actions set a new precedent for more aggressive police speech around the world.

“The question for the future is whether this is a new type of standard that they want to adopt for executives around the world and whether they have the resources to do so.” Mr. Kaye said. “There will be a real increase in demand to do this elsewhere in the world.”

Facebook, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, is the world’s largest social network with more than 2.7 billion monthly users. More than 90 percent of them live outside the United States. The company declined to comment, but said the actions against Mr Trump are based on his violation of existing rules and do not constitute a new global policy.

“Our guidelines apply to everyone,” said Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, in a recent interview with Reuters. “The policy is that you cannot incite violence, you cannot be part of the incitement to violence.”

Capitol Riot Fallout

Updated

Jan. 17, 2021, 5:21 p.m. ET

Twitter, which has around 190 million users every day around the world, said its rules for world leaders are not new. When reviewing posts that could lead to violence, the context of the events is crucial.

“Offline damage from online speech is proven to be real and most importantly drives our policies and enforcement,” said Jack Dorsey, managing director of Twitter, in a post Wednesday. However, he said the decision “sets a precedent that I consider dangerous: the power an individual or a company has over part of the global public debate.”

There are signs that Facebook and Twitter have started to act more confidently. Following the attack on the Capitol, Twitter updated its policy to permanently ban the accounts of repeat offenders of its political content rules. Facebook has taken action against a number of accounts outside the United States, including the deletion of the account of a state-owned media company in Iran and the closure of government accounts in Uganda, where violence erupted before the elections. Facebook said the shutdowns had nothing to do with the Trump decision.

Many activists have recognized Facebook for its global influence and non-uniform application of rules. They said that in many countries there is a lack of cultural understanding to determine when posts could lead to violence. Too often, they said, Facebook and other social media companies don’t act even when they receive warnings.

In 2019, in Slovakia, Facebook did not cut down on posts by a member of parliament who was convicted by a court and robbed of his seat of government for incitement and racist remarks. In Cambodia, Human Rights Watch said the company was slow to respond to government officials participating in a social media campaign to tarnish a prominent Buddhist monk who campaigned for human rights. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte used Facebook to reach journalists and other critics.

After a wave of violence, Ethiopian activists said Facebook was being used to incite violence and promote discrimination.

“The truth is, despite good intentions, these companies do not guarantee uniform application or enforcement of their rules,” said Agustina Del Campo, director of the Center for Freedom of Expression Studies at the University of Palermo in Buenos Aires. “And often they lack context and understanding when they try.”

In many countries, it is believed that Facebook bases its actions on its business interests rather than human rights. In India, home of most of Facebook’s users, the company has been accused of not monitoring anti-Muslim content from political figures for fear of angering the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ruling party.

“The developments in our countries are not being seriously addressed,” said Mishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of the Software Freedom Law Center, a digital rights group in India. “Any abolition of content raises the question of freedom of expression, but inciting violence or using a platform for dangerous speech is not free speech, it is a question of democracy, law and order.”

But while many activists urged Facebook and Twitter to be more active in protecting human rights, they expressed their anger at the power companies have to control language and influence public opinion.

Some also warned that actions against Mr Trump would provoke a backlash, with political leaders in some countries taking steps to prevent social media companies from censoring the language.

Government officials in France and Germany raised alarm over the ban on Mr Trump’s accounts, questioning whether private corporations should be able to unilaterally silence a democratically elected leader. A draft law that is being examined for the European Union of 27 states would set new rules for the content moderation policy of the largest social networks.

Barbora Bukovská, senior director of law and politics at Article 19, a digital rights group, said the risk is particularly high in countries whose leaders have historically used social media to fuel divisions. She said the events in Washington sparked a bill in Poland by the ruling right-wing nationalist party that would punish social media companies for not removing explicitly illegal content, which could allow for greater targeting of LGBTQ people.

“These decisions about Trump were the right decisions, but there are broader questions that go beyond Trump,” said Ms. Bukovská.