September 2014

[Commentary] The Internet works for Americans because government has wisely chosen to let the web grow and thrive without burdensome regulation and onerous red tape that can choke progress and smother innovation. But instead of continuing this path of tremendous success, some want to radically change course and are urging the government to force a heavy-handed regulatory model on the Internet and to run it like a public utility.

They want to impose laws written in the 1930’s on the most innovative and important technology of today and our future. They want to give the government the power to impose new rules, set new fees and require permission to innovate. We can build an open Internet without resorting to public utility regulation. The Federal Communications Commission can act responsibly to foster the continued growth of the Net and prevent anti-competitive activity, or it can capitulate to extremist voices who seek to force a result that would inflict major collateral damage on the Internet economy, and ironically, fail to serve the very ends they seek. Let’s not abandon the virtuous cycle that is helping build faster networks for one that promises greater government control and stalled investment. Let’s choose a future that embraces progress, not potholes.

Google’s expanding diaspora in Washington has sparked growing concerns about the company’s influence with government officials.

Just as the Treasury Department’s actions in 2008 had implications for Goldman Sachs, many of the questions before federal agencies and lawmakers today, from network neutrality rules to the potential for regulating drone deliveries and self-driving cars, could be significant to Google’s businesses. Some of the ex-Googlers hired by the White House already have returned to the private sector; that’s understandable -- not every recruit, especially those who left families behind in Silicon Valley, wants to make a lifelong commitment to Washington, or to the government’s pay scale -- but the revolving door action makes critics all the more skeptical about the relationships between companies and federal offices.

Staffers at technology companies long have enjoyed free gourmet meals, courtesy of their employers -- it is part of the culture in much of Silicon Valley, encouraging both collaboration and longer work hours. The Internal Revenue Service, arguing that these freebies are a taxable fringe benefit, has given new attention to the issue in recent months during routine audits of some companies, tax lawyers said.

When employers haven't been withholding taxes related to the meals, the IRS increasingly has sought back taxes that can amount to 30% of the meals' fair-market value, the lawyers said. In another sign of a new focus on the issue, the IRS and Treasury Department included taxation of "employer-provided meals" in their annual list of top tax priorities for the fiscal year ending next June. The agencies said they intend to issue new "guidance" on the matter, but gave no specifics about timing or what the guidance would say.

Election Day is just two months off and the national tab for the 2014 campaign already stands at $1 billion. Before it's all over, the bill for the first midterm election since both Democrats and Republicans embraced a historic change in campaign finance is likely to grow to $4 billion or more.