SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 31 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Mike Tanglis, mtanglis@citizen.org, (202) 454-5183
Mike Stankiewicz, mstankiewicz@citizen.org, (202) 588-7767
Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook Blanket Washington With Campaign Contributions, Lobbyists
Public Citizen Analysis Shows the ‘Big 4’ Have Spent $350 Million in Lobbying, Contributions Since 2010
WASHINGTON
The "Big 4" tech companies - Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google - have spent nearly $350 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to influence lawmakers over the past eight years, according to a report issued today by Public Citizen.
Lobbying and campaign contributions from these publicly embattled corporations have increased significantly, from $19 million during the 2010 election cycle to $118 million in the 2018 cycle. The bulk of this spending consists of soaring lobbying expenditures, which jumped more than 500%, from $17 million during the 2010 cycle to $105 million in the 2018 cycle.
Meanwhile, campaign contributions increased nearly 400% from the 2010 to 2018 cycles, from $2.5 million to $12.1 million. Contributions from lobbyists for the Big 4 were substantial, at an average of about $21,000 for each lobbyist who gave, totaling $4.6 million during the 2018 election cycle.
"While these companies pride themselves on being masters of innovation, they have relied on the old school approach when it comes to avoiding scrutiny and gaining influence in Washington - throw as much money at the place as they can," said Michael Tanglis, a senior researcher for Public Citizen and author of the report.
Political action committees (PACs) for Amazon, Google and Facebook (Apple does not have a PAC) each made contributions to a filibuster-proof majority of U.S. senators in 2018; Amazon contributed to 73%, Google 66% and Facebook 60%. The PACs of Google and Amazon contributed to 53% and 54%, respectively, of members of the U.S. House of Representatives, ensuring that no bill will be passed without the support of lawmakers who received money from these companies.
Almost all Democratic and Republican Senate and House leadership members received at least $25,000 combined from Big 4 PACs during the 2018 election cycle. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) received $45,000, the most of any member of Congress, while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) received $40,000.
Regarding contributions from executives, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg led all others, contributing $134,800 to members of Congress in 2018. Google CEO Sundar Pichai contributed $33,900 to both the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) during the 2018 cycle.
Lobbying firms hired by the Big 4 are well connected to some of the most powerful members of Congress. Fierce Government Relations, which represents Apple, employs lobbyists who used to work for Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Subject Matter, which represents Facebook, has on its staff individuals who once worked for the DCCC, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.).
"We have seen the biggest tech companies escape accountability for years, even as they have constantly breached user privacy and flouted rules to protect consumers," said Lisa Gilbert, vice president of legislative affairs for Public Citizen. "Tech companies are turning to those with deep Rolodexes to block legislation designed to protect consumers. We must overcome their sphere of influence and get stronger protections passed."
Read the full report here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'Sick Joke': Progressives Roundly Reject Idea of Rahm Emanuel as DNC Chair
"No amount of rebranding can change the fact that Rahm Emanuel's political career has been an abject failure—neoliberal centrism is exactly the wrong direction for the Democratic Party," said one critic.
Nov 15, 2024
Progressives were left fuming and flummoxed over reporting Friday that Rahm Emanuel is considering running for chair of the Democratic National Committee, with many leftists wondering whether the party has learned anything from its loss of the White House, Senate, and, arguably, the country's working-class voters.
Axiosfirst reported that Emanuel—President Joe Biden's ambassador to Japan and a former congressman, Chicago mayor, and chief of staff to former President Barack Obama—is mulling whether to seek the top DNC post. Current DNC chair Jamie Harrison, who was elected to the post in 2021, is unlikely to seek a new term, which would begin in March.
Emanuel has some powerful backers among the war-and-Wall Street wing that has dominated the Democratic party for decades.
"If they said, 'Well, what should we do? Who should lead the party?' I would take Ambassador Rahm Emanuel, and I would bring him back from Japan, and I would appoint him chairman of the Democratic National Committee," prominent political consultant David Axelrod, who ran both of Obama's successful presidential campaigns, said Wednesday on his podcast.
Axelrod followed up the next day with a post on X, the social platform formerly known as Twitter, in which he wrote of Emanuel, "Dude knows how to fight and win."
Reaction came fast and furious, with Jonathan Cohn, policy director at the group Progressive Massachusetts, asking on the social network Bluesky, "How is this not a sick joke?"
Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) writing on X that "if you assembled a team of top scientists and told them to come up with a plan to ensure that the Democratic Party continues to lose working-class voters, I doubt they could do better than 'Make Rahm Emanuel head of the DNC.'"
Comedian, author, and podcaster Kate Willett
said on X: "If I had to pick one individual who set the stage for what seems like it may be decades of Trumpism, it's Rahm Emanuel. Imagine if Obama had saved peoples' homes in 2008 and put the bankers in jail? Truly fixed healthcare? Rahm worked diligently to make sure that didn't happen."
Miles Kampf-Lassin, the senior editor at the progressive website
In These Times, wrote, "I've said it before and can't believe I have to say it again: No amount of rebranding can change the fact that Rahm Emanuel's political career has been an abject failure—neoliberal centrism is exactly the wrong direction for the Democratic Party."
Hafiz Rashid argued Friday in a
New Republicarticle that, if he wins the post, Emanuel could be "the worst possible DNC chair."
"The fact that Emanuel has been disconnected from local and state politics for years... seems unlikely to help," Rashid asserted. "Democrats are currently expected to tap someone with expertise at the grassroots level and an understanding of how Democrats are winning elections now—two things Emanuel sorely lacks."
Apparently questioning the strategic wisdom of Vice President Kamala Harris' failed Democratic presidential run, Warren Gunnels, a staff director for Sanders,
said on X, "Ruling Elite: Let's get Dick Cheney's endorsement and anoint Rahm Emanuel as DNC Chair."
"One word," he added. "No."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wall Street Banks Accused of Trying to Sabotage Key Consumer Protection Rule
"The CFPB must stop this ploy by the biggest banks to keep us trapped under their thumbs."
Nov 15, 2024
Consumer advocates applauded last month as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule aimed at making it easier for people to switch financial institutions if they're unhappy with a bank's service, without the bank retaining their personal data—but on Thursday, more than a dozen groups warned the CFPB that major Wall Street firms are trying to stop Americans from benefiting from the rule.
Several advocacy groups, led by the Demand Progress Education Fund, wrote to CFPB director Rohit Chopra warning that major banks—including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, TD Bank, and Wells Fargo—sit on the board of the Financial Data Exchange (FDX), which has applied to the bureau for standard-setting body (SSB) status, which would give it authority over what is commonly known as the "open banking rule."
Standard-setting authority for the banks would present a major conflict of interest, said the groups.
The banks are also on the board of the Bank Policy Institute, which promptly filed what the consumer advocates called a "frivolous lawsuit" to block the open banking rule when it was introduced last month, claiming it will keep banks from protecting customer data.
At a panel discussion this week, Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan also said the open banking rule, by requiring financial firms to unlock a consumer's financial data and transfer it to another provider for free, would cause "chaos" and amplify concerns over fraud.
"The American people are fed up with Wall Street controlling every aspect of their lives and the open banking rule is an opportunity to give all of us some financial freedom."
The groups wrote on Thursday that big banks want to continue to "maintain their dominance by making it unduly difficult for consumers to switch institutions."
"The presence of these organizations on both the FDX and BPI boards undermines the credibility of FDX and presents various concerns relating to conflict of interest, interlocking directorate, and antitrust law," they wrote.
Upon introducing the finalized rule last month, Chopra said the action would "give people more power to get better rates and service on bank accounts, credit cards, and more" and help those who are "stuck in financial products with lousy rates and service."
The coalition of consumer advocacy groups—including Public Citizen, the American Economic Liberties Project, and Americans for Financial Reform—urged Chopra to reject FDX's application for standard-setting authority so long as the banks remain on its board.
“It would be a flagrant conflict of interest for the same banks who are suing to block the open banking rule because it threatens their market dominance to also be in charge of implementing it," said Demand Progress Education Fund corporate power director Emily Peterson-Cassin. "The American people are fed up with Wall Street controlling every aspect of their lives and the open banking rule is an opportunity to give all of us some financial freedom. The CFPB must stop this ploy by the biggest banks to keep us trapped under their thumbs."
The groups called the open banking rule "a historic step forward for the cause of giving consumers true freedom intheir financial lives."
"For this reason, it is imperative that SSB status not be granted to an organization whose board members are, either directly or through a trade association they are participating in, suing the CFPB to stop the rules from taking effect, particularly when such members may be ethically conflicted from such dual participation," said the groups. "By rejecting SSB status for FDX or any other organization with similar conflicts of interest pertaining to Section 1033, the CFPB will help prevent big banks from sabotaging open banking rules."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Has Placed 'For Sale' Sign on White House With Chief of Staff Pick: Watchdog
"A lobbyist with this record of controversial representation and a minefield of potential conflicts of interest should not go near the Oval Office, much less be White House chief of staff."
Nov 15, 2024
A government watchdog group said Friday that President-elect Donald Trump has effectively signaled that the incoming administration is open for business by choosing longtime Republican strategist Susie Wiles—a former lobbyist for the tobacco industry and other sordid interests—as his White House chief of staff.
In a new report, Public Citizen shows that Wiles represented at least 42 clients as a registered federal government lobbyist between 2017 and 2024—corporate influence-peddling that continued even while she helped run Trump's 2024 presidential bid.
Among Wiles' clients, according to the watchdog group, were:
- A waste management company that has resisted removing nuclear waste from its radioactive landfill;
- A foreign copper and gold mining company that wants to eliminate federal opposition to its plan to dig a massive mine in a pristine watershed;
- A tobacco company that sought to block federal health restrictions on its candy-flavored cigars, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has found are attractive to kids;
- A foreign news company whose owner has been indicted for money laundering; and
- A foreign mining private equity firm seeking approval to develop an open-pit leach gold mine on federal public lands.
"By putting a corporate lobbyist in charge of his administration with his first act as president-elect, Trump is hanging a 'For Sale' sign on the front door of the White House," Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate at Public Citizen and author of the new report. "A lobbyist with this record of controversial representation and a minefield of potential conflicts of interest should not go near the Oval Office, much less be White House chief of staff."
White House chief of staff is a powerful position that does not require Senate approval. In the role, Wiles will control the flow of information and those who have access to the president as well as manage White House personnel.
Trump's selection of Wiles flies in the face of his previous pledge to "drain the swamp" and recent criticism of the disproportionate influence lobbyists wield in Washington, D.C.
"They're making a lot of money, absolutely," Trump acknowledged in an August appearance on the "This Past Weekend" podcast with comedian Theo Von. "One way you could stop it is to say if you're going to go into government, you can never be a lobbyist."
"You have to stop listening to lobbyists," Trump said. "You know, I was not a big person for lobbyists."
In fact, according toProPublica, the first Trump administration hired more than 280 lobbyists—one for every 14 political appointments.
The campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets reported in 2021 that Ballard Partners, Wiles' lobbying firm, "increased its revenue with each year of Trump’s presidency, peaking in 2020 with a $24.4 million haul."
"Wiles' lobbying client list is both extensive and littered with controversial clients who stand to benefit from having their former lobbyist running the White House."
Corporate influence inside the second Trump administration will likely be even stronger given the presence of Wiles and other figures such as Elon Musk, the world's richest man and a major beneficiary of government contracts. Earlier this week, Trump tapped Musk and biotech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead a commission tasked with recommending sweeping cuts to federal spending and regulations.
Public Citizen called Trump's decision to form such a commission and place Musk at its helm "the ultimate corporate corruption."
In its new report, the watchdog argued that a person with Wiles' lobbying history "should not be White House chief of staff."
But assuming she ultimately takes the position in January, Public Citizen called on Wiles to disclose details of her lobbying work, including "the names of the individuals she lobbied, what she asked those individuals to do or not to do, and what resulted from her lobbying"; recuse herself from "all decision-making involving her past lobbying clients and the federal agencies that are making decisions that affect her lobbying clients"; and agree not to lobby the federal government again after she leaves the White House.
"Wiles' lobbying client list is both extensive and littered with controversial clients who stand to benefit from having their former lobbyist running the White House," Public Citizen said Friday. "This report's findings raise serious questions about potential conflicts of interest that need to be answered before Inauguration Day."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular