yesIssie LapowskyNone
×

Get access to Protocol

I’ve already subscribed

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

Big Tech is cutting off political contributions. Here are the biggest losers.

Election objectors like McCarthy, Nunes, Jordan and Stefanik all took tech PAC money last year. But they're not the only ones losing out.

Big Tech is cutting off political contributions. Here are the biggest losers.

Some of tech's biggest critics in Congress have taken money from tech PACs. Now, they're getting cut off.

Photo: Darren Halstead/Unsplash

One day after Twitter banned President Trump and Google and Apple kicked the far-right social network Parler out of their app stores, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik dashed off a tweet: "If you think the American people will quietly accept #BigTechTyranny, You. Are. Wrong."

One detail Stefanik left out: She took $30,000 from corporate PACs linked to Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Intel in the last year alone, according to campaign finance records. During her tenure in Congress, she's raised nearly twice that much from those companies. And now, she's getting cut off.

Stefanik and the 146 other Republicans who voted against certifying election results last week — including fellow tech critics House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Reps. Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan — are among the many members of Congress who will soon lose financial backing from top tech PACs that are either scaling back or completely halting their corporate PACs' campaign contributions, following last week's siege on the Capitol.

For all of their efforts to secure the election, tech giants ended up contributing an awful lot to members of Congress who tried to overturn the election anyway. Of the more than $7 million that Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Intel's PACs spent in the 2020 election cycle, Protocol found that around $700,000 of it went to members who voted to contest the results. That includes $35,000 that went to McCarthy, $14,000 that went to Jordan and $10,000 that went to Nunes, all of whom have lashed out at tech companies over alleged censorship. Now, those same companies are putting a hold on that spending while they reevaluate.

And yet, as many have pointed out, some efforts to pull back from political donations may wind up hurting those members who voted to certify the election results more than those who didn't. Facebook, Google and Microsoft have announced that they will be cutting off all PAC contributions for the foreseeable future, a decision that earned the companies criticism for punishing both sides of the aisle for a Republican-driven insurrection.

The numbers bear that out. While Microsoft spent $1.87 million on all PAC donations during the 2020 election cycle, only $167,000 of that went to members who objected to the election results. Google made some $1.86 million in contributions last year, but just $174,000 went to objectors, including McCarthy, Nunes, Stefanik and Jordan. Facebook spent less than either of those companies, with just $523,000 in overall PAC contributions in 2020, but just over $33,000 of that funded objectors. These three companies alone, in other words, could wind up withholding millions of dollars in support from members of Congress who voted to uphold the results, just to avoid singling out the ones who didn't.

Amazon, Airbnb and Intel, for their part, have said they will only be stopping contributions to members who objected to certification, leaving the vast majority of their contributions intact for now.

The companies set different timelines for themselves to reconsider their political giving. Facebook's pause will last "for at least the current quarter." Google said its PAC is on hiatus while "we review and reassess its policies following last week's deeply troubling events." Amazon said it will discuss the decision with affected members and "evaluate their responses as we consider future PAC contributions."

It's possible that any of these companies could return to business as usual in the second quarter when the memory of the riot isn't quite so fresh. But if they stick to their commitments in the long run, these companies could leave a significant hole in some Congressional coffers.

Here's a look at where top tech companies spent their money on Capitol Hill before the last election, who stands to lose their support for trying to overturn the results of that election and who's getting caught in the crossfire.

Methodology: This data comes from OpenSecrets. These figures apply only to PAC contributions, not lobbying spending or contributions made by individuals. Twitter and Apple don't have corporate PACs, so they're not reflected here. Airbnb also pledged to withhold contributions to election objectors, but in 2020, the company spent only about $5,000 on these members, so it was excluded from our list.

Amazon

Action taken: Suspended contributions to any member of Congress who voted to override the election results

Total PAC contributions in 2020 cycle: more than $1.94 million

Total PAC contributions to federal candidates in 2020 cycle: more than $1.26 million

Total PAC contributions to members who objected to election results in 2020: $238,500

Objectors who raised the most:

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), $10,000
Sam Graves (R-MO), $10,000
Richard Hudson (R-NC), $10,000
Elise Stefanik (R-NY), $10,000
Morgan Griffith (R-VA), $10,000

Microsoft

Action taken: Will not make any political donations until after it "assesses the implications" of the riot

Total PAC contributions in 2020 cycle: more than $1.87 million

Total PAC contributions to federal candidates in 2020 cycle: more than $820,000

Total PAC contributions to members who objected to election results in 2020: $167,000

Objectors who raised the most:

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), $10,000
Steve Scalise (R-LA), $10,000

Non-objectors who raised the most:

Chris Coons (D-DE), $10,000
Steven Daines (R-MT), $10,000
Lindsey Graham (R-SC), $10,000
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), $10,000
Gary Peters (D-MI), $10,000
Ben Sasse (R-NE), $10,000
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), $10,000
Tina Smith (D-MN), $10,000
Dan Sullivan (R-AK), $10,000
Thom Tillis (R-NC), $10,000
Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), $10,000
Kevin Brady (R-TX), $10,000
James Clyburn (D-SC), $10,000
Steny Hoyer (D-MD), $10,000
Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), $10,000
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), $10,000
Adam Smith (D-WA), $10,000

Google

Action taken: Froze all political contributions

Total PAC contributions in 2020 cycle: more than $1.86 million

Total PAC contributions to federal candidates in 2020 cycle: $1.05 million

Total PAC contributions to members who objected to election results in 2020: $174,000

Objectors who raised the most:

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), $10,000
Steve Scalise, (R-LA) $10,000
Elise Stefanik (R-NY), $10,000
Jim Jordan (R-OH), $10,000
Jeff Duncan (R-SC), $10,000
Steve Chabot (R-OH), $10,000

Non-objectors who raised the most:

Susan Collins (R-ME), $10,000
Chris Coons (D-DE), $10,000
Joni Ernst (R-IA), $10,000
Martha McSally (R-AZ), $10,000
Kevin Brady (R-TX), $10,000
John Curtis (R-UT), $10,000
Rodney Davis (R-IL), $10,000
Tom Emmer (R-MN), $10,000
Anna Eshoo (D-CA), $10,000
Drew Ferguson (R-GA), $10,000
Steny Hoyer (D-MD), $10,000
Darin LaHood (R-IL), $10,000
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), $10,000
Michael McCaul (R-TX), $10,000
Patrick McHenry (R-NC), $10,000
Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), $10,000
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), $10,000
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), $10,000

Intel

Action taken: Will not contribute to members of Congress who voted against certification of the Electoral College results

Total PAC contributions in 2020 cycle: more than $977,000

Total PAC contributions to federal candidates in 2020 cycle: more than $560,000

Total PAC contributions to members who objected to election results in 2020: $100,500

Objectors who raised the most:

Andy Biggs (R-AZ), $10,000
Roger Williams (R-TX), $10,000

Facebook

Action taken: Pausing all PAC contributions for at least the current quarter

Total PAC contributions in 2020 cycle: more than $523,000

Total PAC contributions to federal candidates in 2020 cycle: more than $303,000

Total PAC contributions to members who objected to election results in 2020: $33,500

Objectors who raised the most:

Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), $5,000
Steve Scalise (R-LA), $5,000
Michael Burgess (R-TX), $5,000

Non-objectors who raised the most:

Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), $10,000
Richard E. Neal (D-MA), $10,000
Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), $10,000
Adam Schiff (D-CA), $10,000

Disclosure: Reporter Issie Lapowsky is married to an Amazon employee.

Twitter’s future is newsletters and podcasts, not tweets

With Revue and a slew of other new products, Twitter is trying hard to move past texting.

We started with 140 characters. What now?

Image: Liv Iko/Protocol

Twitter was once a home for 140-character missives about your lunch. Now, it's something like the real-time nerve center of the internet. But as for what Twitter wants to be going forward? It's slightly more complicated.

In just the last few months, Twitter has rolled out Fleets, a Stories-like feature; started testing an audio-only experience called Spaces; and acquired the podcast app Breaker and the video chat app Squad. And on Tuesday, Twitter announced it was acquiring Revue, a newsletter platform. The whole 140-characters thing (which is now 280 characters, by the way) is certainly not Twitter's organizing principle anymore. So what is?

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editor at large. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

The Capitol riots scrambled FCC Republicans’ Section 230 plans. What now?

The FCC's top tech agitators have been almost silent about Big Tech's Trump bans.

The commissioners will gingerly walk a line of condemning the tech platforms without seeming like they are condoning the rhetoric that led to Trump's suspensions or the takedown of Parler.

Photo: Jonathan Newton-Pool/Getty Images

Brendan Carr, one of the Federal Communications Commission's two Republicans, spent the better part of 2020 blasting Big Tech platforms for allegedly censoring conservative speech, appearing on Fox News and right-wing podcasts to claim that social media companies exhibited bias against President Trump and the GOP more broadly.

But in the weeks since Twitter, Facebook and YouTube suspended former President Trump and removed large swaths of his supporters in the wake of the violent riot on Capitol Hill, Carr has remained largely silent about the deplatforming, except to condemn the violence. "Political violence is completely unacceptable," Carr told reporters days after the riot. "It's clear to me President Trump bears responsibility."

Keep Reading Show less
Emily Birnbaum

Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.

Politics

Facebook’s Oversight Board won’t save it from the Trump ban backlash

The Board's decision on whether to reinstate Trump could set a new precedent for Facebook. But does the average user care what the Board has to say?

A person holds a sign during a Free Speech Rally against tech companies, on Jan. 20 in California.

Photo: Valerie Macon/Getty Images

Two weeks after Facebook suspended former President Donald Trump's account indefinitely, Facebook answered a chorus of calls and referred the case to its newly created Oversight Board for review. Now, the board has 90 days to make a call as to whether Trump stays or goes permanently. The board's decision — and more specifically, how and why it arrives at that decision — could have consequences not only for other global leaders on Facebook, but for the future of the Board itself.

Facebook created its Oversight Board for such a time as this — a time when it would face a controversial content moderation decision and might need a gut check. Or a fall guy. There could be no decision more controversial than the one Facebook made on Jan. 7, when it decided to muzzle one of the most powerful people in the world with weeks remaining in his presidency. It stands to reason, then, that Facebook would tap in its newly anointed refs on the Oversight Board both to earnestly review the call and to put a little distance between Facebook and the decision.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.

Big Tech gets a win from Biden’s sweeping immigration actions

Tim Cook and Sundar Pichai praised President Biden's immigration actions, which read like a tech industry wishlist.

Newly-inaugurated President Joe Biden signed two immigration-related executive orders on Wednesday.

Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Immediately after being sworn in as president Wednesday, Joe Biden signed two pro-immigration executive orders and delivered an immigration bill to Congress that reads like a tech industry wishlist. The move drew enthusiastic praise from tech leaders, including Apple CEO Tim Cook and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai.

President Biden nullified several of former-President Trump's most hawkish immigration policies. His executive orders reversed the so-called "Muslim ban" and instructed the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to preserve the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program, which the Trump administration had sought to end. He also sent an expansive immigration reform bill to Congress that would provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented individuals and make it easier for foreign U.S. graduates with STEM degrees to stay in the United States, among other provisions.

Keep Reading Show less
Emily Birnbaum

Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.

Politics

This is the future of the FTC

President Joe Biden has named Becca Slaughter acting chair of the FTC. In conversation with Protocol, she laid out her priorities for the next four years.

FTC commissioner Becca Slaughter may be President Biden's pick for FTC chair.

Photo: David Becker/Getty Images

Becca Slaughter made a name for herself last year when, as a commissioner for the Federal Trade Commission, she breastfed her newborn baby during video testimony before the Senate, raising awareness about the plight of working parents during the pandemic.

But on Thursday, Slaughter's name began circulating for other reasons: She was just named as President Joe Biden's pick for acting chair of the FTC, an appointment that puts Slaughter at the head of antitrust investigations into tech giants, including Facebook.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Latest Stories