Google this: Why CEOs won't speak their minds

Earlier Thursday, Richard Whitt, Google's telecom and media counsel in Washington, posted a note on the company's official blog urging people to put pressure on the FCC to open up the unused "white spaces" radio spectrum.

The Federal Communications Commission is going to vote on rules governing these airwaves at its November 4 meeting. This is going to be quite a big deal. Commission Chairman Kevin Martin supports the idea, but it faces opposition from broadcasters, who are pushing for a delay. Mike Masnick of TechDiret summarizes the history here.

"Basically, the FCC handed out a ton of spectrum (for free, mind you) to TV broadcasters years ago. In order to prevent against interference, there's always been a requirement for some "buffer" space. However, as technology has improved, the need for this buffer space has decreased, and plenty of tech companies would be interested in making use of some of that basically unused spectrum by having it set aside as open spectrum. Earlier this year, some of those companies, led by Microsoft and Google, delivered a device to the FCC to test. Unfortunately, the device had some problems. However, the concept is sound -- and with some tweaking, it's quite reasonable that such a device could work without interfering with TV signals. But you wouldn't know that from broadcasters, who love to hoard their spectrum."

The fact that Whitt lobbied on behalf of his company's cause is hardly surprising. What's more interesting is that Google's executives are as comfortable as they are when it comes to drawing lines in the political sand.

Does this man Google?

(Credit: Obama for President Web site)

High-profile companies try to avoid controversy. Wading into public policy, there's always the risk of alienating customers or partners. That's why PR handlers at Google-scale organizations council their executives be be boring to the point of soporific when it comes to any subject remotely bordering on the political.

But that did not stop CEO Eric Schmidt from endorsing Barack Obama. Ditto for Vint Cerf the company's vice president and "Chief Internet Evangelist," who put a video on YouTube where he explained his decision to vote for Obama.

(Officially, Google doesn't have a horse in this race and companies are prohibited from making campaign contributions. You can find Obama contributors who listed their employer as Google on a list compiled by Opensecrets.org. But that doesn't reveal much other than that people have opinions. What a shocker. You can find much the same thing about Microsoft, Yahoo, or any other high-profile technology company, for that matter.)

The anti-Schmidt blowback in the online talkback forums was predictable. One reader with the handle "Gerry S" left this message:

"What kind of an idiot would support the likes of these people in any way? Attention stockholders, if this is the business mentality of certain business leaders, then you might want use their judgment to assess their leadership skills."

That's to be expected, but I found the decision by Schmidt and Cerf to go public quite refreshing. Last month, company co-founder Sergey Brin announced Google's opposition to Proposition 8, a California ballot measure that would prevent same-sex couples from marrying.

Even though the tech firmament is comprised of a lot of very smart people, they don't like to stick out their necks. With rare exception--aside from Steve Ballmer's "heck with Janet Reno" quip--the only technology leader who has consistently been willing to stake out public positions on policy questions is T.J. Rodgers of Cypress Semiconductor.

Or they discover their lungs after retiring.

Judy Estrin, one of tech's most successful entrepreneurs, recently authored a book, Closing the Innovation Gap: Reigniting the Spark of Creativity in a Global Economy. The book is a marvelous, albeit depressing read. Nothing was out of bounds--from the politicization of science and the neglect of the nation's research community to the need for new political leadership. But might Estrin just as easily have offered the same critique when she was still a working stiff? I'm not so sure. We're all so careful these days to tiptoe around the obvious that the frank talk most often takes place behind closed doors.

Too bad. With the nation facing both an economic recession as well as a vexing energy challenge, is now really the best time to be talking in hushed tones?

[MuleHeadJoe]

One little comment caught my notice ... it was something I've also heard from many different sources across many many years ... "companies are prohibited from making campaign contributions". There are so many loopholes in the law (if it even exists ... I'm not a lawyer, and refuse to take it on face value anymore) that corporations are funding almost all political campaigns nowadays. Every company I've worked for has donated money to political compaigns, even if not directly to presidential candidates themselves. One company I worked for had it's own in-house PAC created to lobby & fund politicians on issues dealing with their business. The PAC was created by the corporation, staffed by senior management of the corporation, used company resources to solicit donations from employees and to proselytize their political views to the point of including in broadcast email recommendations for how to vote in various races or on various propositions. How is that any different than just handing a wad of company cash to the CEO's preferred politicians or pet political schemes?

I don't mind CEO's (or anybody else for that matter) speaking their mind on any subject as long as they are not using their companies' resources to influence anybody else. I draw a clear distinction between company resources and personal resources. Using company email or distributing a paper memo via the company mailroom or in the office at all is using company resources. If he uses his company office, company phone, is on paid company time in any way shape or form, that is using company resources, not personal resources. And that is not only where I draw the line ... if my boss wants to dish politics, fine, but if he asks for me to vote a certain way or to contribute to some political subject of his choice, then that's gone way too far.

The difference between what is legal and what is ethical is often times a vast chasm, and I for one don't think I should have to put up with that kind of pressure from my employers.

CEO's speak yer mind, sure, but keep your politics out of the business.

[dctrofspin]

Speaking as a corporate PR professional who's spent the majority of his career in DC, I would also add that we don't put the boss "out there" on political choice because the consequences are too brutal. If you are a heavily regulated company and engaged in DC, once you declare your devotion to one party you better hope they don't lose power. Because once they do, simple payback is no longer the rule...it's now about vindictive payback. The partisanship in Washington is now at a level of brutality that only those who been through the grinder can really understand. When your company's fortunes are held in the political balance and the shareholders are being pinched by the testies and depending on a good political outcome, what CEO wants to report failure due to the the fact he was found to be on the wrong side of the personal political fence??

[ccolborn]

Hi, Charles.

>"We're all so careful these days to tiptoe around the obvious that the frank talk most often takes place behind closed doors.".

These days? How about, most days in the history of mankind. There is a reason why people have a fear of retribution. "Freedom of speech" does come with a price, in many cases.

[kamchoor]

How about:
+ techies stick to tech stuff.
+ actors stick acting.
+ politicians stick to serving the public with high(er) ethics.
+ journalist stick to reporting (not injecting colorful commentary as facts).

just a crazy idea....

Amazingly, all to often celebs and populists think that just because they've done well in their field, they are now in a position of run the world. No. They are not. They are people like you and I. If they were so great in politics, why don't they run for office?

Only a truly committed person runs for office. Others are simply blowing hot air and should be discounted like everyone else.

kam.

[NoVista]

Well, kamchoor

Maybe the crazy idea is that politicians have a clue more than the rest of us -- about anything. Or maybe the old phrase "of, by, and for the people" means we should ALL be politicians -- which means all of us should have informed opinions.