Apple searching for new public policy director to influence government
Apple is searching for a new director of public policy as it looks to both influence and react to government policies and regulations worldwide, according to an official job listing discovered by AppleInsider.
The person will be responsible for developing and guiding Apple's public policy agenda, the listing states, as well as keeping track of international legal and political developments in order to inform upper-tier Apple executives and provide them with options. Reaching in the other direction, the role also involves consulting with senior and mid-level managers to find out what the impact of government policies might be.
Perhaps more significantly the new director will be responsible for crafting letters, position papers, and testimony with the goal of persuading lawmakers and regulators to adopt policies friendly to Apple's business practices and profits. The successful candidate will in fact be expected to appear at public hearings, whether to give testimony or only provide advice.
A more specific duty involves implementing strategies that "ensure that participation in various international trade associations is maximized."
On its website, Apple says that it "engages in policy discussions" on matters like privacy, the environment, and intellectual property, with strategic guidance overseen by top-level Apple executives including CEO Tim Cook. The company has its own government affairs group, but also hires outside lobbyists to influence all levels of government.
The company adds that it doesn't run a PAC (political action committee) or donate money to specific candidates or parties, but that it does sometimes contribute to various initiatives and ballot measures. One of the most famous cases involved Apple financially backing the "No" campaign for Prop 8, a California ballot measure that sought to ban gay marriage. The measure passed regardless, but was later overturned in a series of court rulings that escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The person will be responsible for developing and guiding Apple's public policy agenda, the listing states, as well as keeping track of international legal and political developments in order to inform upper-tier Apple executives and provide them with options. Reaching in the other direction, the role also involves consulting with senior and mid-level managers to find out what the impact of government policies might be.
Perhaps more significantly the new director will be responsible for crafting letters, position papers, and testimony with the goal of persuading lawmakers and regulators to adopt policies friendly to Apple's business practices and profits. The successful candidate will in fact be expected to appear at public hearings, whether to give testimony or only provide advice.
A more specific duty involves implementing strategies that "ensure that participation in various international trade associations is maximized."
On its website, Apple says that it "engages in policy discussions" on matters like privacy, the environment, and intellectual property, with strategic guidance overseen by top-level Apple executives including CEO Tim Cook. The company has its own government affairs group, but also hires outside lobbyists to influence all levels of government.
The company adds that it doesn't run a PAC (political action committee) or donate money to specific candidates or parties, but that it does sometimes contribute to various initiatives and ballot measures. One of the most famous cases involved Apple financially backing the "No" campaign for Prop 8, a California ballot measure that sought to ban gay marriage. The measure passed regardless, but was later overturned in a series of court rulings that escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Comments
In other words, Apple is looking for someone to help create new loopholes like those it and a host of other giant corporations used to evade EU taxes%u2014taxes that struggling little corner groceries could not afford to evade.
In the 1990s, I heard dot-com entrepreneurs describe their scheme. Its essence was simple. When the risks were small and the profits large, a small clique would make all the investments and rake in all the sure money. Only when the risks became great, meaning the media hype would end and their idea have to actually generate profits, would their scheme go public. The public would get high risks and, at best, far lower profits. That's the essence of the dot-com bubble and not that removed from the sub-prime one.
I was tempted to tell those in that clique, "When the revolution comes and they're marching people like you to the wall, don't ask me to hide you." Some people don't deserve sympathy.
I feel much the same about Apple's executives. No level of profits will cause the company not to seek ways (like this public policy director) to avoid taxes that others will be forced to pay. Note that'd precisely what Apple wants. It wants "policies friendly to Apple's business practices and profits" and not to policies friend to business in general, large and small. At Apple, the "me" is all that counts. Apple's executives given every indication of being heartless, soulless lot rendered all the worse for regarding themselves has exceptional and superior.
That also explains their Confederate flag mess. They leapt hoping to give the appearance of being virtuous at little cost (a few apps not sold) and have ended up looking like bumbling fools.
That is hardly surprising. People who don't struggle daily with doing the right thing%u2014indeed, people who don't struggle with it at all%u2014often blunder when they try to feign ethics. You don't get good ethics reading the NYT, listening to NPR, and leaping into the latest hysteria.
In other words, Apple is looking for someone to help create new loopholes like those it and a host of other giant corporations used to evade EU taxes%u2014taxes that struggling little corner groceries could not afford to evade.
Everyone has one of these "VP, Government Affairs" types. Often, at least two, with one in DC and the other in Brussels. It would be stupid of Apple to compete with one hand tied behind its back (or expect the company to do so).
Quote: "Perhaps more significantly the new director will be responsible for crafting letters, position papers, and testimony with the goal of persuading lawmakers and regulators to adopt policies friendly to Apple's business practices and profits."
In other words, Apple is looking for someone to help create new loopholes like those it and a host of other giant corporations used to evade EU taxes%u2014taxes that struggling little corner groceries could not afford to evade.
In the 1990s, I heard dot-com entrepreneurs describe their scheme. Its essence was simple. When the risks were small and the profits large, a small clique would make all the investments and rake in all the sure money. Only when the risks became great, meaning the media hype would end and their idea have to actually generate profits, would their scheme go public. The public would get high risks and, at best, far lower profits. That's the essence of the dot-com bubble and not that removed from the sub-prime one.
I was tempted to tell those in that clique, "When the revolution comes and they're marching people like you to the wall, don't ask me to hide you." Some people don't deserve sympathy.
I feel much the same about Apple's executives. No level of profits will cause the company not to seek ways (like this public policy director) to avoid taxes that others will be forced to pay. Note that'd precisely what Apple wants. It wants "policies friendly to Apple's business practices and profits" and not to policies friend to business in general, large and small. At Apple, the "me" is all that counts. Apple's executives given every indication of being heartless, soulless lot rendered all the worse for regarding themselves has exceptional and superior.
That also explains their Confederate flag mess. They leapt hoping to give the appearance of being virtuous at little cost (a few apps not sold) and have ended up looking like bumbling fools.
That is hardly surprising. People who don't struggle daily with doing the right thing%u2014indeed, people who don't struggle with it at all%u2014often blunder when they try to feign ethics. You don't get good ethics reading the NYT, listening to NPR, and leaping into the latest hysteria.
Wow, talk about non-sensical, random word-vomit.
Yes, their the bottom of the bottom, worst of the worst. I hope this person they hire has a healthy liver for all of that booze and coke they'll most likely have to consume and oh, likes hookers, lot's and lot's of hookers. Hmm, come to think of it, where's that job listing.
It's when Tim gets a hair up his ass and wants to make some kind of "statement" that I worry about.
Why does that worry you? It impacts the quality of products and services that Apple provides? Are you his guardian or something? On the board of Apple?
Otherwise, get lost.
And I'm not going anywhere.
Dude.
'Customers are finicky beings'? You know this better than Apple does its customer?
Where would these finicky beings go? You say you're not going anywhere yourself, but you know a lot of finicky beings who will? Or are you just pulling this out of your... you know....
Dude?
You don't get good ethics reading the NYT, listening to NPR, and leaping into the latest hysteria.
No, in your book good ethics comes from watching Fox News, listening to Rush Limbaugh, and cheering for the Koch brothers.
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5
http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf
It worries me because public perception can affect profits. Customers are finicky beings and I would bet that's why Steve kept Apple out of the political limelight as he did.
Tim Cook Erupts After Shareholder Asks Him To Focus Only On Profit
http://www.businessinsider.com/tim-cook-versus-a-conservative-think-tank-2014-2
An NCPPR representative asked Cook to commit on the spot to only making moves that were profitable for the company. Cook replied, "When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said the same applies to environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader. "If you want me to do things only for ROI reasons, you should get out of this stock."
Apple: World's #1 Most Valuable Brand
http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/
Apple Most Profitable Company in History
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-earnings-most-profitable-quarter-ever-2015-1
Lobbying at Apple's size is a must. Either they attempt to influence policy or their competitors will do it to their advantage. Unfortunate, but that's the game.