[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
'We Really Can't Take Anything These Companies Say at Face Value' Janine Jackson ([link removed])


Janine Jackson interviewed Public Citizen's Jane Chung about Big Tech lobbying for the April 2, 2021, episode ([link removed]) of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

[link removed]


Public Citizen: Big Tech, Big Cash

Public Citizen (3/24/21 ([link removed]) )

Janine Jackson: A new report ([link removed]) from Public Citizen on Big Tech’s political influence opens with some illustrative quotes, including one from former Trump official Mick Mulvaney, about his time as a House representative for South Carolina: “We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress. If you're a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn't talk to you. If you're a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.” It's nice to have it put so boldly, I suppose, but that is our understanding of how things often, regrettably, work.

So what does it mean that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google—all wildly profitable ([link removed]) enterprises that are being challenged ([link removed]) on multiple fronts, from internal practices ([link removed]) to societal impact ([link removed]) —are showering money on Congress ([link removed]) at startling levels? What are they looking to buy? Are they getting it? And how would we know?

The report ([link removed]) is called Big Tech, Big Cash: Washington's New Power Players, and we're joined now by its author, Public Citizen’s Big Tech accountability advocate, Jane Chung. She joins us now by phone from Brooklyn. Welcome to CounterSpin, Jane Chung.

Jane Chung: Thanks for having me.

JJ: As I say, although it stinks, no one is really shocked to know that money changes hands in DC, that industry and lawmakers rub shoulders at parties and then—huh!—here's favorable legislation. They might be surprised at the sheer scale of the outlays you document, and their increase. Give us a sense of the scale of the lobbying, campaign-contributing effort of these Big Tech corporations.

JC: Sure. Some comparisons I make in the report, I think, help illustrate the scale. When I was just coming into my political awareness, I'll say, I learned that Big Oil and Big Tobacco, for much of the '90s and the early 2000s, got their way in legislation and regulation in Washington because they were pouring money into lobbying and campaign contributions.

What I found throughout my research phase of this report is that Facebook and Amazon—which are now the two largest individual corporate spenders on lobbying ([link removed]) in Washington—they now spend about twice as much ([link removed]) as the companies Philip Morris and ExxonMobil. So that just gives you a sense of who today's big players are, as compared to yesterday's, when we know that Big Oil and Big Tobacco were really the biggest forces in Washington.

JJ: This is an update to a 2019 report ([link removed]) , so you can also see the increase ([link removed]) , right, in the spending from those actors?

JC: Yep, exactly. And it's not surprising; as you mentioned earlier in your introduction, there’s a lot of regulatory ([link removed]) and legislative ([link removed]) challenge that is coming to the Big Tech companies. We've seen it last Congress ([link removed]) , we’ll see more this Congress ([link removed]) , and if I had it my way, hopefully, it leads to some real action and change as well.

JJ: Each of the players, of course, has their own set of issues and problems. Amazon workers, listeners know, are struggling to unionize ([link removed]) right now, after years of complaints about workplace conditions. They have got a friend ([link removed]) in DC, who's not new in town, and who reflects another thing that the report spotlights, which is the revolving door ([link removed]) . That plays a role with these tech companies as well, doesn't it?

JC: It plays a huge role. And to give you a little bit of a sense of what happens behind closed doors: I call myself an advocate; really, I'm also a lobbyist, but we like to think of ourselves as lobbyists for the people.

JJ: Right.
Jane Chung of Public Citizen

Jane Chung: "We really can't understate the importance of relationships in Washington, and specifically how much the revolving door benefits corporate interests."

JC: And corporations have their own lobbyists.

And so much of our job is calling and messaging staff members on the Hill, to try and get meetings, to tell them about the issues that are important to us, and to try and move them toward what we think is the best solution.

When it comes down to it, and you have an email in your inbox or you have a missed call, and it's your buddy from 10 years ago when you worked together on the Hill, you're much more likely to pick up than someone whose phone number you don't recognize. And so we really can't understate the importance of relationships ([link removed]) in Washington, and specifically how much the revolving door benefits corporate interests.

JJ: It seems important to say: Lobbying is not inherently bad, and receiving money isn’t prima facie evidence of co-optation or corruption, necessarily, on the part of an official.

In comments ([link removed]) you made to the New Statesman, you were saying that sometimes the reason behind lobbying is self-evident, but at other times, it's not clear. And part of what you're trying to do is not just say, "hey, this money went from here to there—voilà!," but try to figure out what is the interest that a company might have in particular legislation.

And something you said, that I thought was very interesting, is that sometimes, a company could be lobbying for an issue that seems counterintuitive to its business interests, but there's other reasons that they're doing that. Can you just talk a little bit about that?
New Statesman: Revealed: The army of Big Tech lobbyists targeting Capitol Hill

New Statesman (2/15/21 ([link removed]) )

JC: Sure. You mentioned earlier, many of your listeners probably know, that Amazon is facing a lot of scrutiny ([link removed]) for its labor practices, as workers in Alabama are counting up votes this week to establish a union ([link removed]) for the first time, it would be for the first time in Amazon's corporate history.

Amazon has spent a lot of money, lobbying and advertising about raising the federal minimum wage ([link removed]) to $15. They’ve bought out full-page spreads ([link removed]) in the New York Times, they've bought out every newsletter ([link removed]) that any Washington politico subscribes to, and even in the lobbying filings ([link removed]) , as I was going through them, they list a $15 minimum wage as an issue that they're lobbying for.

You might think, “Well, that's objectively a good thing.” And given Amazon's history ([link removed]) of not exactly treating their warehouse workers well, this seems like they may have turned a new leaf. Why would they want to pay their workers more? Why would they do something that seems so counterintuitive to an employer's interest?

And the reason in this case is because they want to overshadow all of the abuses ([link removed]) that are happening in the workplace with this great PR slogan about how they were ahead of the curve on raising their minimum wage to $15. When the reality ([link removed]) is, when they raised their warehouse workers' wages to $15, there were plenty of reports online around how this actually didn't raise the real wages for a lot of workers, and they cut back a lot of benefits and incentives at the same time, so the workers weren't experiencing, actually, any better material conditions as a result.

Other reports ([link removed]) online say that warehouse workers, typically, made much more than minimum wage, and so Amazon is putting downward pressure ([link removed]) on the industry-wide wages for that type of work.

So we really can't take anything these companies say at face value. Another great recent example is, a few of the companies—including Facebook and Google and Amazon—created a new group in Washington, called the “Chamber of Progress,” where they're touting ([link removed]) progressive slogans, and interests like “democracy reform” and “income equality”; all the while, we know that this is really just a front group ([link removed]) for advancing corporate interests in Washington. And so I think it's a sleight of hand that we have to pay attention to as we look at these companies.

JJ: “Chamber of Progress” makes me want to puke, I'm just going to say that right now.

JC: Exactly.
Jay Carney

Former Obama press secretary and current Amazon vice president Jay Carney

JJ: When we're talking about Amazon's new friend in DC, that's a guy named Jay Carney ([link removed]) . And I just wanted to point out that his official title ([link removed]) appears to be “senior vice president for policy and press,” which I find very interesting, as a way of thinking about image management as part of what is going on here.

Well, one of the reasons that you and others track lobbying outlays and campaign contributions, even though that's not the only kind of influence peddling ([link removed]) that's going on, but it's one of the pieces of information that you can get. And we should note that you're working with data from the Center for Responsive Politics ([link removed]) ; they're online at OpenSecrets.org ([link removed]) .

But other things happen that we just can't get a spotlight on, that we can't measure, right? So you're not trying to say this is this is the whole of it, yeah? This is just a piece of it.

JC: Sure, yeah, that's exactly right. The spending that I cover in this report is just a slice—and we don't know how big of a slice that is—of the full pie ([link removed]) of spending that not only Big Tech, but corporate interests at large, are spending in Washington.

So just to give you a few examples: This report covers ([link removed]) federal lobbying and campaign contributions. It does not cover state-level lobbying and campaign contributions, as well as local, which are much more difficult to quantify and track, because there are different standards on a state-by-state or locality basis. This doesn't track super PACs and other intermediaries; we know that a lot of corporations will essentially launder money ([link removed]) through a bunch of different names and organizations and super PACs and (c)(3)s and (c)(4)s to obscure the source of the funding, and contribute to elections and candidates in that way.

And then a whole new frontier that we've recently discovered is advertisements ([link removed]) , funding research ([link removed]) , funding academics ([link removed]) . We've seen recently that David Brooks ([link removed]) , of the New York Times op-ed column, was publishing ([link removed]) all sorts of great things about Facebook while not revealing that Facebook is one of the sources of funding for his new projects.

JJ: Right.

JC: So these are all ways that Big Tech takes its tentacles into the Washington machine, and are very, very, very difficult for us to track.

JJ: Let me just ask, finally: I started out by saying, “no one's shocked,” but just because we're jaded doesn't mean we accept, in a society with democratic aspirations, shall we say, that it's just “money in, policy out."

Briefly, unfortunately, what do you think about in terms of change? In terms of the problems that this report outlines, what are the big things that could change, and should change, that would ameliorate, anyway, the problems you outline?

JC: One of the things we call for at the end of this report is for all of these tech companies—and we've made this call for corporate America at large—to shut down their PACs ([link removed]) , to end all super PAC contributions. And that's a small fix that the companies can do themselves.

But in terms of the government, we really need the federal government to come in and make a stance, and pass things like HR.1 ([link removed]) or S.1 ([link removed]) , the For the People Act ([link removed]) , which has a lot of reforms in it to reduce the influence of corporate money in politics and increase transparency. These are the sort of changes we need to see, to ensure that the democracy that we all participate in is reflective of what the people want and need, rather than what Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple want and need.

JJ: We've been speaking with Jane Chung, Big Tech accountability advocate for Public Citizen. Find the report ([link removed]) , Big Tech, Big Cash, on the site citizen.org ([link removed]) . Jane Chung, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

JC: Thank you.




Read more ([link removed])

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .