90% of Mozilla's revenue comes from Google/Alphabet which can be loosely translated as "Mitchell Baker's salary is paid in 90% by Google" and "Mitchell Baker (indirectly) works for Google".
Mozilla is not a "weird neighbor" but a controlled opposition and its CEO's salary would suffer from breaking this unhealthy relationship or stepping on Google's toes. I'm fairly certain that a lot of Mozilla's developers and users don't have pro-Google viewpoints but it's cash that matters here, not viewpoints.
None of this holds any water. Google does not control Mozilla. There are other companies who would happily pay more than Google, and for a few years Yahoo did. Mozilla is constantly stepping on Google's toes, in many different ways, and there is zero indication this hurts Mitchell Baker's compensation. (I think it's also significantly less than 90 % of Mozilla's revenue that currently comes from Google, but that's completely besides the point.)
Mozilla is not a "weird neighbor" but a controlled opposition and its CEO's salary would suffer from breaking this unhealthy relationship or stepping on Google's toes. I'm fairly certain that a lot of Mozilla's developers and users don't have pro-Google viewpoints but it's cash that matters here, not viewpoints.