Apple vs. Google vs. Microsoft: who's spending more to influence Congress?

By | May 18, 2010, 7:16am PDT

When it comes to understanding how decisions are made in DC, the smart money says, “Follow the money.” That’s why yesterday’s Chart of the Day from Business Insider is so interesting.


Reprinted with permission from BusinessInsider.com

Business Insider’s Jay Yarow and Kamelia Angelova took a look at how much some of our best-known tech companies are spending on lobbying — and how much that is as a percentage of company revenue.

Interestingly, the two companies of the group with the biggest interest in killing net neutrality, AT&T and Comcast, spent the most absolute dollars on Washington lobbying, $15 and $13 million, respectively.

Companies more likely to be for net neutrality, like Google, Yahoo, and Amazon, spent $4, $2, and $1.8 million, a fraction of the amount being spent by the carriers.

How much does it cost to get elected?

According to OpenSecrets.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit that tracks congressional funding, money wins elections:

The candidate with the most money going into Election Day emerged victorious in nearly every contest.

Further, according to OpenSecrets, it cost $1.1 million for the typical representative to win an election and almost $6.5 million for the typical senator.

That may seem like a lot, but given that Microsoft spent something like $80 to $100 million marketing Bing alone, a congressional election is relatively cheap.

There are 435 representatives and 100 senators, so a little math shows us it costs, on average, $2.1 million to get elected.

How much influence does this buy?

I was curious how much each of these tech companies was spending per congressional office holder. As the table on the right shows, AT&T spent the most, at a little over $28,000. Apple spent the least, at about $2,800 — almost enough for each member to buy an 8-Core Mac Pro.

The % Cost column to the right is the percentage of the average cost to get elected. Looking at the numbers, AT&T’s per-elected official expenditure of $28,037 amounts to only 1.335% of what it costs the average congress critter to get elected.

In other words, tech interests basically spent bupkis.

Who’s really spending big in DC?

Wanna know who’s really going to town, buying your elected representatives?

Take a look at the following chart from OpenSecrets.org, reprinted with permission from the Center for Responsive Politics:

And you were wondering how it was we all got screwed on health care.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

31
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple vs. Google vs. Microsoft: who's spending more to influence Congress?
efsane Updated - 11th Apr 2011
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli sohbet sesli chat
0 Votes
+ -
Ya gotta love it
frgough 18th May 2010
Government makes the decision, but it's somehow evil corporations that are really to blame.

The solution to your complaint is simple: make government as weak as possible. But, you don't like that idea because what you are actually complaining about is that the state isn't being dictatorial in the way YOU want.
0 Votes
+ -
Another solution:
snberk341 18th May 2010
@frgough

The other solution is to a) put dollar limits on what a candidate can spend on election. This helps to ensure that they don't "owe" anyone or any corporation for their election, and b) limit the money that lobbyists can spend on elected officials. If lobbyists were limited to making their cases in committee hearings with facts, figures, presentations, and documentation instead of over 5 course dinners with wine, food, and entertainment then perhaps more decisions would be fact based.

These two measures alone would go a long way to disconnect elected representatives from the people with the money, and reconnect them to the people with the votes..... which is what a democracy should be about, I think.
0 Votes
+ -
That doesn't work
Narg 18th May 2010
@snberk341
Limiting dollars by candidates has been tried. What ends up occuring is 3rd party expenditures. It's a free country, so anyone can advertise all they want. Limiting this is unconstitutional.

Your wishes on democracy are there. Just overshadowed by the big bucks that are free, which is expected. Freedom is the reason for this country, right? So passing laws to limit freedom would be Socialistic in nature, which isn't a good thing.
0 Votes
+ -
@Narg
snberk341 18th May 2010
@Narg

But you *can* limit 3rd party expenditures. All sorts of speech is limited, for the good of the community, and under the constitution. You can't yell "FIRE" in a theatre, you can't promote violence against identifiable groups, you can't publish certain forms of pornography even though mostly porn is protected by the constitution, you can't threaten violence against certain persons in the government, etc etc.

So the notion that *all* speech is protected by the constitution is not valid. The debate then is whether limiting this form of speech (3rd party advertising) should be protected as free speech, or limited in the interests of a fair and democratic election.

I'm from Canada where we have limits on what a candidate can spend, where the bulk of a candidate's election funding is provided by tax-payers, where we are currently grappling with the issue of limiting 3rd party advertising, and where elections are run by non-partisan entities on the theory that the elected incumbents should not be the ones hiring the referees in that great hockey game called an election.
@narg
You don't get to use words you don't know the definition to. Like, for instance, socialism. As for your Constitutional argument, the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, NOT unlimited volume. Any argument equating limiting capital with limiting speech as opposed to just normalizing volume is, at best, weak.
0 Votes
+ -
But I digress
agleason@... 18th May 2010
@frgough Yes, I too want government to "dictate" some protections for me as consumer, and not worry so much about protecting the interests of the already powerful (yes, I'm that selfish). I do agree about the dangers of a strong capable government though - there ought to be law against it.
0 Votes
+ -
Who is really to blame?
djchandler 18th May 2010
@frgough - Do you mean as opposed the way you want? Are you ready to compromise? Can't we at least try to get along?

What's evil? The most evil we can do to one another is assume evil motivates those with opposing viewpoints. Evil is dehumanizing and marginalizing people, especially when done for political advantage towards those who don't share a particular political philosophy.

But the recent Supreme Court ruling ( Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission ) puts the concept of representative democracy in jeopardy by conceivably allowing unrestricted money from corporate interests to usurp the collective political power of individual citizens. That power is being utilized even now to discourage and marginalize voters as never before while the politics of " no" overrules the citizen voters that elected Democrats and put them in control of both the legislative and executive branches for the first time in 14 years.
@frgough It's not just Corporations either. Organizations Lobby as well. What I find interesting is that David failed to include AT&T as the biggest spender and they've been the biggest spender for the last 3 or 4 years at least.

Why are Google and Apple mentioned over AT&T? This is the first year Google has spent that much and for Apple it's the first year they've spent that little. shocked

Oh..... right, I forgot Apple considers AT&T their Body Guard in Congress. I wonder how much back pocket funding is going on between these two? wink ....so no wonder Apple is spending less on paper and AT&T even more!
I'm curious. Why do you have AT&T at $15 million in your technology chart, but it's listed at $155 million in the OpenSecrets chart?
@TMatta That is interesting -- and that's why it pays to use multiple sources. The top chart is based on one set of data, and OpenSecrets is based on another. Interesting, no?
0 Votes
+ -
Votes for sale
sboverie 18th May 2010
There are a lot of problems with the way we elect people to represent ourselves and PACs and election costs are parts to the problems. The candidates with the largest war chest has an easier time getting elected than other qualified people who do not have available resources.

Heinlein said that if he had a choice between a career polititian or a crook, he would choose the crook because the crook stay bought. The problem is that I can't even get into the bidding for a crooked pol.

The weird thing is that so many corporations and individuals are donating money to buy influence to reduce taxes.
@sboverie@...
What is the difference between a career politician and a crook?

None!
@arminw

haha ... there is ... one is legit ... another is not ... hahaha happy
The telling tale is that this isn't a democracy, it's an auction
0 Votes
+ -
Ding ding ding ... we have a winner!
klumper 18th May 2010
And seeing through the smoke and mirrors - and other random BS - award goes to ... Reinhold. Take a bow my friend.

Who reminds us but again: You can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time.
@klumper You can fool some of the people all the time, you can fool all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time.

I like it better with the flipped phrase.
0 Votes
+ -
Another winner
klumper 18th May 2010
@shadfurman
I like it better with the flipped phrase.

Agreed.
Apple's numbers are skewed. They've got a former presidential candidate sitting on their board of directors. What kind of lobbying influence does that give you in D.C.?
We will always have a problem with our elections. We, who want change are another special interest group. But, in fact, it is virtually impossible to hold a fair election, just simple math. No free country can have a totally fair election. Read here if interested.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html?full=true

Keep up the vote, it is what we have.
0 Votes
+ -
Percentage of Revenue is Irrelevant
daengbo 18th May 2010
The percentage of revenue is irrelevant because the congress critters only care how much you give, not how much it hurts to give. Otherwise, they'd represent the poor instead of big business.
@daengbo
It is interesting to see, though, which companies feel that the goodwill of government is vital to their business plans.
It only goes to show that we have `The Best Government Money Can Buy`!!!!
0 Votes
+ -
..if corporations buy government...?
tyelmene Updated - 18th May 2010
It's simple really. Evil corporations are buying the decisions away from the public interest. Big oil. big phama, big banks, and of course the defense industry have all "bought" out our freedom to get their greed satisfied (wars included) and they all have betrayed the American ideal...

But the ISP carriers in the broadband industry represent a new low! They buy the same rights to steal (just like/as corrupt as the others), but add the nuance of limiting our free speech to speak out against their theft. Yes, a new low... and they have both the overwhelming resources and the lack on conscious to take their spoils. This is what happens ...not if, but when corporations buy government!

Bottom line:
The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205 has irreparably marginalized the United Stated of American as democracy forever. We are all made less and are subject to a government that is owned by AT&T/Comcast.

-expletive!-
0 Votes
+ -
Excellent synopsis
Ole Man 18th May 2010
@tyelmene
Would that the average citizen could see through the smoke and mirrors.

Thankfully it seems they have reached the bottom and possibly change is on the horizon. At least let us hope so.
The best government money can buy - cui bono ?....

Henri
0 Votes
+ -
quod erat demonstrandum
grax 18th May 2010
You know it makes sense - it's the American way!
In chart #1 AT&T spent $15 million lobbying in 2009. In chart #2 they spent $155 million in period undefined. An order of magnitude?
The best answer is to band political advertising, as we know it today, on TV and Radio. A public service like CSPAN or YouTube can provide more than enough equal time to get to know the candidates and issues.
Sound bite, 60 second ads have dumbed-down politics
and enabled a huge transfer of wealth to the media empires. Thus enriched, they can sell us more dissatisfaction and conflict. Is that what we want? To cede politics to unelected CEOs?
0 Votes
+ -
Freedom...
technology@... 19th May 2010
If we reduce the power of government, the vacuum of power will be filled with other private interests with sufficient wealth (hence power) to make decisions on behalf of the people. It is an unpleasant compromise. Yet we don't have any voice in private interests, while we do have a voice, however nominal it may be, in our government. Society is by its nature anti-liberty. We all have to compromise to live in a group and function harmoniously. Freedom gets tossed around a lot, but I am not sure what some politicians and activists mean when they use the word. Sometimes it seems like they just want the freedom to do whatever they want without regard to their impact on the lives and freedoms of others. People who can afford health insurance but go without place a burden on the rest of us when they do get sick or injured. Mandating that everyone contribute to the cost of health care is a way to ensure that freedom is not freeloading. We have no trouble blaming the poor for living off our dime (and what a posh life it is to be poor and on welfare!), but we get all riled up when society demands that everyone to chip in to lower the cost and expand the availability of a vital service.

Finally, let's look at the world's largest economies per capita. Among the top countries are Germany and Japan, two countries that are decidedly more socialist that us and who were completely destroyed financially and structurally after WWII. The US, which is much more laissez faire, exited WWII smelling like roses, but the average US citizen does not experience the prosperity as much as they do in Germany and Japan. In fact since Ronald Reagan enacted his huge tax cuts, the rich have been getting richer and richer, but the rest of us are still waiting for the trickle, and so far, the cost of living has gone up while real incomes have stagnated or declined. Now, let's look at all the examples of "small governments", that is governments that offer little-to-no social services or social safety net. How many big earners there? How are the average citizens doing in those countries? How about counties with very small, weak governments. Somalia anyone?

I'm not sure how to curb the influence of money in politics, but we have to do something or our democracy will become a sham, a banana republic of the worse kind (if it isn't already one).
0 Votes
+ -
glaring discrepancy in the article "facts"
MichaelCarr 19th May 2010
I found a glaring discrepancy in the article "facts":

o AT&T listed at $15 million in top chart, and

o AT&T listed at $150 million in last chart.

I suggest you address this as an added note in the article.
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli sohbet sesli chat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix