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.


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


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


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


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


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.


Musk’s texts reveal what tech’s most powerful people really want

From Jack Dorsey to Joe Rogan, Musk’s texts are chock-full of überpowerful people, bending a knee to Twitter’s once and (still maybe?) future king.

“Maybe Oprah would be interested in joining the Twitter board if my bid succeeds,” one text reads.

Photo illustration: Patrick Pleul/picture alliance via Getty Images; Protocol

Elon Musk’s text inbox is a rarefied space. It’s a place where tech’s wealthiest casually commit to spending billions of dollars with little more than a thumbs-up emoji and trade tips on how to rewrite the rules for how hundreds of millions of people around the world communicate.

Now, Musk’s ongoing legal battle with Twitter is giving the rest of us a fleeting glimpse into that world. The collection of Musk’s private texts that was made public this week is chock-full of tech power brokers. While the messages are meant to reveal something about Musk’s motivations — and they do — they also say a lot about how things get done and deals get made among some of the most powerful people in the world.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. 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.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Circle’s CEO: This is not the time to ‘go crazy’

Jeremy Allaire is leading the stablecoin powerhouse in a time of heightened regulation.

“It’s a complex environment. So every CEO and every board has to be a little bit cautious, because there’s a lot of uncertainty,” Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire told Protocol at Converge22.

Photo: Circle

Sitting solo on a San Francisco stage, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire asked tennis superstar Serena Williams what it’s like to face “unrelenting skepticism.”

“What do you do when someone says you can’t do this?” Allaire asked the athlete turned VC, who was beaming into Circle’s Converge22 convention by video.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


Is Salesforce still a growth company? Investors are skeptical

Salesforce is betting that customer data platform Genie and new Slack features can push the company to $50 billion in revenue by 2026. But investors are skeptical about the company’s ability to deliver.

Photo: Marlena Sloss/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Salesforce has long been enterprise tech’s golden child. The company said everything customers wanted to hear and did everything investors wanted to see: It produced robust, consistent growth from groundbreaking products combined with an aggressive M&A strategy and a cherished culture, all operating under the helm of a bombastic, but respected, CEO and team of well-coiffed executives.

Dreamforce is the embodiment of that success. Every year, alongside frustrating San Francisco residents, the over-the-top celebration serves as a battle cry to the enterprise software industry, reminding everyone that Marc Benioff’s mighty fiefdom is poised to expand even deeper into your corporate IT stack.

Keep Reading Show less
Joe Williams

Joe Williams is a writer-at-large at Protocol. He previously covered enterprise software for Protocol, Bloomberg and Business Insider. Joe can be reached at JoeWilliams@Protocol.com. To share information confidentially, he can also be contacted on a non-work device via Signal (+1-309-265-6120) or JPW53189@protonmail.com.


The US and EU are splitting on tech policy. That’s putting the web at risk.

A conversation with Cédric O, the former French minister of state for digital.

“With the difficulty of the U.S. in finding political agreement or political basis to legislate more, we are facing a risk of decoupling in the long term between the EU and the U.S.”

Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Cédric O, France’s former minister of state for digital, has been an advocate of Europe’s approach to tech and at the forefront of the continent’s relations with U.S. giants. Protocol caught up with O last week at a conference in New York focusing on social media’s negative effects on society and the possibilities of blockchain-based protocols for alternative networks.

O said watching the U.S. lag in tech policy — even as some states pass their own measures and federal bills gain momentum — has made him worry about the EU and U.S. decoupling. While not as drastic as a disentangling of economic fortunes between the West and China, such a divergence, as O describes it, could still make it functionally impossible for companies to serve users on both sides of the Atlantic with the same product.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

Latest Stories