Chip companies spent $100 million lobbying Congress. They’re about to get $52 billion in subsidies.

Chip companies have been expanding their federal lobbying activity over the past four years. Here’s how much they're spending.

Chair Maria Cantwell , D-Wash., holds semiconductor chips while talking with Pat Gelsinger, CEO, of Intel Corporation.

Lawmakers have been debating $52 billion in federal subsidies aimed at bolstering American chip production.

Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

To make money, you’ve got to spend money. Chip companies have spent $100 million in lobbying expenditures over the last several years in hopes of getting 500 times that back from the federal government in the form of subsidies. That would be a healthy return on an investment.

The chip industry’s spending on lobbying has risen sharply in recent years, as lawmakers have been debating $52 billion in federal subsidies aimed at bolstering American chip production and innovation. To help convince lawmakers to set aside federal dollars for the industry, lobbying expenditures have increased roughly 50% since 2018, jumping to $46.4 million in 2021. Four years ago, chip companies spent $31.7 million in D.C., according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

By comparison, the internet industry — which includes tech giants Facebook, Google and Amazon — increased its spending by 18% to $90.2 million during the same period, according to the CRP data. Unlike chip companies, Big Tech has faced rapidly escalating issues in Washington prompting discussion of regulation that threatens to damage profits or break apart businesses.

The chip industry didn’t spend all of its cash lobbying for subsidies, according to disclosure forms reviewed by Protocol. Chip companies have begun to realize that they are increasingly subject to the whims of Washington as their businesses have grown and become a more prominent part of the economy, contributing to a broad swath of industries. The change in thinking has resulted in an overall increase in lobbying efforts over the past four years, including the battle for subsidies.

Some companies, such as Qualcomm and Intel, disclose each specific law their lobbyists are pushing for, while other businesses only report general topic areas such as intellectual property or trade. From the filings, it's not clear exactly how much cash the industry spent directly on lobbying for manufacturing subsidies.

But what is clear is that spending began to ramp up in 2020, reaching $37.7 million as the first subsidy bill was introduced in Congress. At that point, big chip manufacturers such as GlobalFoundries and TSMC, the latter of which had not previously spent money on lobbyists in the U.S., ramped up their efforts. GlobalFoundries has announced factory expansion plans in Malta, New York, and increased its lobbying outlays to $1.7 million in 2021 from $1.4 million in 2020. GlobalFoundries did not respond to a request for comment.

Taiwan’s TSMC spent $2.2 million on lobbying in 2021, up from $2 million the year earlier — the first lobbying outlay from TSMC since 1998, according to CRP data. Disclosure forms from TSMC say the company hired lobbyists to push for versions of the subsidies program and tax-related issues.

TSMC has announced plans to build a $12 billion factory, or fab, in Arizona. Construction began last year and the new site is expected to begin production in two to three years. TSMC did not return a request for comment.

But many smaller amounts of new lobbying dollars also made a significant contribution to the sharp rise in lobbying expenditures. Chip factory tool-maker KLA spent roughly $700,000 in 2021, and about $500,000 the year before, when its recent lobbying outlays were less than $200,000; ASML, which is based in the Netherlands and declined to comment, spent $820,000 in 2021; Taiwan-based chip designer MediaTek spent $650,000, though it doesn’t manufacture chips.

“Like our peers, we’ve expanded our engagement just as we’ve grown every other part of our business,” MediaTek Government Relations Vice President W. Patrick Wilson said in an email.

Even China’s SMIC doled out $180,000 in lobbying expenditures last year, down from $310,000 in 2020. At least some of SMIC’s paid lobbying activity was around “[e]ligibility of [the] company to import U.S.-origin semiconductor-related goods under U.S. export control laws.”

The biggest lobbying spender in the chip industry was Qualcomm, which spent $9.1 million on lobbying last year, up by roughly $1 million from its $8 million expenditures through 2018, according to CRP data. Qualcomm declined to comment.

Intel and rival AMD spent about half of Qualcomm’s total last year. AMD doesn’t manufacture chips, but Intel has announced more than $40 billion in new factory construction in Arizona and Ohio. CEO Pat Gelsinger has said the Ohio plans hinge on federal government support.

One notable outlier in the lobbying expenditure data is graphics and AI chip producer Nvidia hasn’t spent any money on lobbying since 1998, the first year in which records were available.

The $52 billion in funding has received bipartisan support, and a version of the law that includes the subsidies has been passed in the House and Senate. Lawmakers are currently attempting to reconcile the two pieces of legislation before sending legislation to the president’s desk.

The funding is largely popular among lawmakers, but the version of the law under consideration includes a number of provisions around China that contain potentially sensitive partisan issues.

It’s likely President Biden will sign legislation that contains chip subsidies; he discussed the importance of U.S. semiconductor manufacturing during the State of the Union address earlier this year.

Introduced in mid-2020, the Chips for America Act would provide $52 billion in funding to subsidize chip factory construction and fund several research and development initiatives, among other things.

Although the U.S. doesn’t produce many chips itself, American businesses control most of the world’s intellectual property and chip design expertise. The legislation aims to encourage chip companies to build more factories, or fabs, in the U.S. and help rejuvenate domestic production of chips, which are seen as vital for national security.

Additional reporting by Ben Brody.


UiPath had a rocky few years. Rob Enslin wants to turn it around.

Protocol caught up with Enslin, named earlier this year as UiPath’s co-CEO, to discuss why he left Google Cloud, the untapped potential of robotic-process automation, and how he plans to lead alongside founder Daniel Dines.

Rob Enslin, UiPath's co-CEO, chats with Protocol about the company's future.

Photo: UiPath

UiPath has had a shaky history.

The company, which helps companies automate business processes, went public in 2021 at a valuation of more than $30 billion, but now the company’s market capitalization is only around $7 billion. To add insult to injury, UiPath laid off 5% of its staff in June and then lowered its full-year guidance for fiscal year 2023 just months later, tanking its stock by 15%.

Keep Reading Show less
Aisha Counts

Aisha Counts (@aishacounts) is a reporter at Protocol covering enterprise software. Formerly, she was a management consultant for EY. She's based in Los Angeles and can be reached at acounts@protocol.com.

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.

Figma’s chief product officer: We can do more with Adobe

Yuhki Yamashita thinks Figma might tackle video or 3D objects someday.

Figman CPO Yuhki Yamashita told Protocol about Adobe's acquisition of the company.

Photo: Figma

Figma CPO Yuhki Yamashita’s first design gig was at The Harvard Crimson, waiting for writers to file their stories so he could lay them out in Adobe InDesign. Given his interest in computer science, pursuing UX design became the clear move. He worked on Outlook at Microsoft, YouTube at Google, and user experience at Uber, where he was a very early user of Figma. In 2019, he became a VP of product at Figma; this past June, he became CPO.

“Design has been really near and dear to my heart, which is why when this opportunity came along to join Figma and rethink design, it was such an obvious opportunity,” Yamashita said.

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at llawrence@protocol.com.


Microsoft lays out its climate advocacy goals

The tech giant has staked out exactly what kind of policies it will support to decarbonize the world and clean up the grid.

On Sept. 22, Microsoft — seen here, CEO Satya Nadella — published two briefs explaining what new climate policies it will advocate for.

Photo: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The tech industry has no shortage of climate goals, but they’ll be very hard to achieve without the help of sound public policy.

Microsoft published two new briefs on Sept. 22 explaining what policies it will advocate for in the realm of reducing carbon and cleaning up the grid. With policymakers in the U.S. and around the world beginning to weigh more stringent climate policies (or in the U.S.’s case, any serious climate policies at all), the briefs will offer a measuring stick for whether Microsoft is living up to its ideals.

Keep Reading Show less
Brian Kahn

Brian ( @blkahn) is Protocol's climate editor. Previously, he was the managing editor and founding senior writer at Earther, Gizmodo's climate site, where he covered everything from the weather to Big Oil's influence on politics. He also reported for Climate Central and the Wall Street Journal. In the even more distant past, he led sleigh rides to visit a herd of 7,000 elk and boat tours on the deepest lake in the U.S.


The next generation of refrigerants is on the way

It’s never been cooler to reconsider the substances that keep us cool. Here’s what could replace super-polluting greenhouse gases in refrigerators and air conditioners.

It’s incumbent on refrigeration tech companies to not repeat past mistakes.

Photo: VCG via Getty Images

In a rare display of bipartisan climate action, the Senate ratified the Kigali Amendment last week. The U.S. joins 137 other nations in the global effort to curb the use of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. Now the race is on to replace them for climate tech startups and traditional HVAC and refrigeration companies alike.

Most HFCs have a global warming potential (GWP) more than 1,000 times that of carbon dioxide — though some are as much as 14,800 times more potent — which makes reducing them a high priority to protect the climate. The treaty mandates that the U.S. and other industrialized nations decrease their use of HFCs to roughly 15% of 2012 levels by 2036.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Latest Stories