Policy

Tech lobbies more the bigger it gets. A new paper explains why.

A group that challenges concentration in the tech industry argues in a new paper that companies are using their economic power to get better deals from government — and the author says it can start "a dangerous feedback loop."

neon sign of handshake

Lobbying by tech companies has been growing for years.

Photo: Charles Deluvio/Unsplash

As skepticism about corporate power grows on both sides of the aisle, some advocates and politicians have blamed market concentration for ills ranging from slowed innovation, high drug prices and expensive internet service to low wages, reduced online privacy and even risks to U.S. national defense.

Now, a paper from an anti-monopoly group argues that economic consolidation, including in tech, may contribute to increased lobbying as well.

The paper, released Wednesday by the American Economic Liberties Project, focuses on three industries: internet tech, pharmaceutical manufacturing, and oil and gas production. Overall, the research finds a "moderate positive" correlation between measures of concentration in those markets in a given year and how much the sectors spend on lobbying a few years later, even when adjusted for inflation.

"In short, the results of this report suggest that not only is big business good at lobbying, but that bigger business leads to more lobbying," says the report, which was authored by Reed Showalter, a fellow with the group.

While examining what Showalter calls in the paper "a very complex political dynamic," his analysis finds that a common measure of industry concentration in a given year explained "roughly 43% of the variation in lobbying expenditures by internet companies" four years later.

Showalter told Protocol the time lag is a "meaningful" find. Free-market economics has long emphasized the role of lobbying and government action in creating monopolies, and many on the left have also broadly embraced the idea that monopoly is a goal of corporate influence. The paper also notes the expectation that companies would increase lobbying ahead of mergers — although legal fees aren't generally included in lobbying disclosures. Showalter even cites older research that spending to sway government can produce increased market share.

Yet the paper argues that the lobbying increase actually happens later.

"It's not that lobbying gets them big," Showalter said of companies in a follow-up email. "It's that bigness makes a business able/willing to lobby."

Both the number of tech company lobbyists and the fees they command have ballooned significantly in recent years, in many cases displacing traditional Washington powerhouses such as energy, defense contractors and tobacco in expenditures.

Facebook spent nearly $20 million on federal lobbying in 2020 — more than any other company, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. (Some trade groups outspent individual companies, as did Blue Cross Blue Shield, which is a federation of local companies.) Amazon came in at No. 2, spending nearly $19 million. In the first half of 2021, the ecommerce giant is first, with Facebook falling to second, according to CRP.

Both companies are under tremendous pressure in Washington, with Facebook the subject of an antitrust lawsuit by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Amazon is also the subject of a competition probe by the FTC, and Big Tech is facing broad threats of regulation overall.


Seeking to influence policy in response to such threats is both common and broadly protected by the U.S. Constitution, but like lawmakers themselves, lobbyists are widely reviled as unethical. The paper cites evidence that the practice benefits businesses more than other types of interests such as consumers or labor, and Showalter suggests lobbying can be "a harm to democracy."

His analysis of tech companies zeroes in on Amazon, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle and other companies he selected in order to approximate "what a layperson would think of as a primarily internet-based company."

The paper proposes that companies in competitive industries may not have spare resources to put as much toward influence operations. On the other hand, companies that have "less to fear from competition... may reasonably decide it is more prudent to seek rents and power from the government through lobbying rather than trying to make their goods and services better."

Showalter told Protocol that examples of rent-seeking could include Amazon's unsuccessful pursuit of a massive cloud contract from the Pentagon. He also pointed to companies seeking tax breaks and told Protocol that the lobbying power that arises after consolidation may in turn create "a dangerous feedback loop where big business can buy more government favors to harm competitors."

The paper notes that the comparative youth of the industry — still fewer than 20 years old, and in many cases not even that — makes some comparisons difficult, and the analysis doesn't account for campaign contributions, which are another common form of influence. Lobbying at the state level, which may not appear in federal lobbying disclosures, is also a regular response to increasingly local tech regulation. And industry groups have pushed back on the entire notion of a crisis of economic consolidation and rejected claims of specific harms.

To the AELP, however, one key upshot of the research is that antitrust enforcement should go beyond its current focus on prices to encompass a broader mission that could include pushing back on monopolies and concentrated industries with an eye to how they affect government.

Expansion beyond this emphasis, known as the consumer welfare standard, has been a top priority of AELP, as well as would-be reformers like Lina Khan, the new FTC chair.

"Corporate concentration and antidemocratic political influence go hand in hand," the report says.

Every day, millions of us press the “order” button on our favorite coffee store's mobile application: Our chosen brew will be on the counter when we arrive. It’s a personalized, seamless experience that we have all come to expect. What we don’t know is what’s happening behind the scenes. The mobile application is sourcing data from a database that stores information about each customer and what their favorite coffee drinks are. It is also leveraging event-streaming data in real time to ensure the ingredients for your personal coffee are in supply at your local store.

Applications like this power our daily lives, and if they can’t access massive amounts of data stored in a database as well as stream data “in motion” instantaneously, you — and millions of customers — won’t have these in-the-moment experiences.

Keep Reading Show less
Jennifer Goforth Gregory
Jennifer Goforth Gregory has worked in the B2B technology industry for over 20 years. As a freelance writer she writes for top technology brands, including IBM, HPE, Adobe, AT&T, Verizon, Epson, Oracle, Intel and Square. She specializes in a wide range of technology, such as AI, IoT, cloud, cybersecurity, and CX. Jennifer also wrote a bestselling book The Freelance Content Marketing Writer to help other writers launch a high earning freelance business.
Policy

How the internet got privatized and how the government could fix it

Author Ben Tarnoff discusses municipal broadband, Web3 and why closing the “digital divide” isn’t enough.

The Biden administration’s Internet for All initiative, which kicked off in May, will roll out grant programs to expand and improve broadband infrastructure, teach digital skills and improve internet access for “everyone in America by the end of the decade.”

Decisions about who is eligible for these grants will be made based on the Federal Communications Commission’s broken, outdated and incorrect broadband maps — maps the FCC plans to update only after funding has been allocated. Inaccurate broadband maps are just one of many barriers to getting everyone in the country successfully online. Internet service providers that use government funds to connect rural and low-income areas have historically provided those regions with slow speeds and poor service, forcing community residents to find reliable internet outside of their homes.

Keep Reading Show less
Aditi Mukund
Aditi Mukund is Protocol’s Data Analyst. Prior to joining Protocol, she was an analyst at The Daily Beast and NPR where she wrangled data into actionable insights for editorial, audience, commerce, subscription, and product teams. She holds a B.S in Cognitive Science, Human Computer Interaction from The University of California, San Diego.
Fintech

How I decided to exit my startup’s original business

Bluevine got its start in factoring invoices for small businesses. CEO Eyal Lifshitz explains why it dropped that business in favor of “end-to-end banking.”

"[I]t was a realization that we can't be successful at both at the same time: You've got to choose."

Photo: Bluevine

Click banner image for more How I decided series

Bluevine got its start in fintech by offering a modern version of invoice factoring, the centuries-old practice where businesses sell off their accounts receivable for up-front cash. It’s raised $240 million in venture capital and about $700 million in total financing since its founding in 2013 by serving small businesses. But along the way, it realized it was better to focus on the checking accounts and lines of credit it provided customers than its original product. It now manages some $500 million in checking-account deposits.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.
Enterprise

The Roe decision could change how advertisers use location data

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restricting use of location data. But that may be changing.

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restrictions on the use of location data. But that may be changing.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, the likelihood for location data to be used against people suddenly shifted from a mostly hypothetical scenario to a realistic threat. Although location data has a variety of purposes — from helping municipalities assess how people move around cities to giving reliable driving directions — it’s the voracious appetite of digital advertisers for location information that has fueled the creation and growth of a sector selling data showing who visited specific points on the map, when, what places they came from and where they went afterwards.

Over the years, the digital ad industry has been resistant to restrictions on the use of location data. But that may be changing. The overturning of Roe not only puts the wide availability of location data for advertising in the spotlight, it could serve as a turning point compelling the digital ad industry to take action to limit data associated with sensitive places before the government does.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories
Bulletins