Connecting more dots in the Googlegate cover-up

Why does Google continue to cover-up its real political and financial relationship with Moveon.org?

• Why won't Google be "open" about this?
• What is the Google "black box" hiding?

Lets connect-some-dots chronologically of this close political and finanical Google-Moveon.org relationship.

• As the net neutrality legislative fight heated up in Washington in the spring/summer of 2006: 
  • "Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter of MoveOn. According to sources in the Democrat National Committee, MoveOn has received more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists in Washington to create grassroots support for the Internet regulation legislation. Some of that money has gone to an online petition drive and a letter-writing campaign, but the majority of that money is being used to fund their activities against Republicans out in the states." as reported by the American Spectator. 
• At the request of Moveon.org, Google blocked anti-Moveon.org ads of sitting U.S. Senator Susan Collins who is reportedly top on Moveon.org hit list for defeat in next year's election, as reported by the Washington Examiner. 
• Several days later, Moveon.org reversed itself in Wired magazine.
  • Moveon.org admitted it was censoring free speech and realized it was not smart politics to continue it:  
    • ""We don't want to support a policy that denies people freedom of expression," says Jennifer Lindenauer, MoveOn.org's communications director."
  • Google on the other hand has stubbornly maintained it has done nothing wrong or that it blocked the political free speech of a sitting US Senator. 
    • In the same Wired article: 
    •  "Pablo Chavez, Google's public policy counsel, on Friday refuted the notion being floated on conservative blogs, and an opinion piece in the San Francisco Examiner, that the company had refused to run the advertisements based on political grounds."  
• Currently, in an effort to revive flagging interest in net neutrality legislation, Google and Moveon.org are calling for net neutrality hearings into Verizon/AT&T's admitted and quickly-fixed mistakes concerning the free flow of content. 
  • See the call for hearings from the Google-funded Open Internet Coalition and the Google-funded Moveon.org's net neutrality coalitions: SaveTheInternet and FreePress. 
• Over a week later and days after Moveon.org has admitted its mistake in blocking political free speech, Google stubbornly remains silent about:
  • it's true role in this censorship incident; 
  • it's editorial policy on deciding which ads get approved by Google -- given that its current content policy does not mention it blocks either trademarked content nor political/election content like the Senator Collins ads that it in fact blocked.     

Connecting the dots: 

• Given Google's rich financial support of the Moveon.org's net neutrality political apparatus; and
• Given Moveon.org's tacit public admission in Wired that it conspired with Google to censor the political speech of a Google/Moveon.org political opponent of net neutrality legislation; 
  • Can Google be considered a politically-neutral Internet access gateway as they represent themselves to be? and
  • Can Google be trusted to be an honest information/business broker in the U.S. election process?

Bottom line: Given Google's non-neutral free speech scandal, and the fact that Google is the dominant gatekeeper for Americans to access the Internet, how does Google justify that its proposed net neutrality legislation only apply to broadband access providers and not dominant Internet access providers like Google?