Hypothetically, letting some anti-Google rhetoric through might legitimize an otherwise supportive stance.
Say I'm 80% evil and I fund a think tank. The think tank's reputation was 100, and now it's 60 with regard to statements about me because my funding it makes it seem biased. If it published a story that says I'm actually 4% evil, then it gets a reputation boost, I'm not looking as bad as I actually am, and I'm well positioned to let the organization do positive spin when I really need it.
I would say that Google and similar orgs actually usually do this. But Google and Amazon are getting really, really nervous when people talk about monopoly. If anti-trust comes back into vogue, and it could possibly, then it's an existential threat for these empires. They have to carefully manage their carrots and sticks on this issue, and with this one they went with the stick.
Why should Google expect funding a non-profit would benefit them? They get the tax-write-off precisely because it benefits The People first and Google second, if at all.
No, you are confusing charity with non-profit. Not every non-profit is a charity. Example: the NFL, a non-profit that serves its taxpaying members. A non-profit is an organization that exist not to generate revenue for its owners, so the owners don't pay tax -- the members or beneficaries do, under regular tax laws. Google pays taxes on its profits generated via the activity of the nonprofit.
Because any short-term harm that might have come from an undesirable policy paper is outweighed by the long-term, and lasting, harm to Google's reputation that is occurring now.
I disagree. Regulators might read the output of a think tank. People like you and me are instead talking about their actions. Seems like a clear win for Google.
