11 ms·
Amazon Lobbied More Government Entities Than Any Other US Company Last Year
- dang 8y agoUrl changed from http://fortune.com/2019/03/13/amazon-lobbying-washington/ http://fortune.com/2019/03/13/amazon-lobbying-washington/, which points to this.
- duado 8y agoThey have the most diverse set of businesses of any company, so this makes sense.
- smt88 8y agoWhy is product diversity a driver of lobbying? Does Amazon have to lobby anyone at all? There are institutional investors who have stakes in a much wider variety of companies than Amazon. Why aren't they at the top of the list?
- millstone 8y agoIs that really true? What about, say, General Electric?
- crb002 8y agoThats because every Govt entity uses compute, and every govt entity needs a office goods supplier.
- TheLuddite 8y agoBreak-it-up
- dgzl 8y agoJeff sure does love operating at scale.
- noobermin 8y agoRemember when internet companies were supposed to be disrupting the system, not co-opting it and making regulatory capture favor themselves?
- afarrell 8y agoDidn’t this also used to be true of cable companies?
- JustSomeNobody 8y agoI remember when people dreamed this would happen.
- mattferderer 8y agoLobbying itself isn't bad & is needed to help disrupt things. Politicians require lobbyists & experts to explain different sides to them.
- rchaud 8y agoYou make it sound like they're lining up to have a moment with their local representative like the rest of us. As if there's not thousands in campaign contributions and in-kind gifts hinging on the politician swinging their way.
- eeZah7Ux 8y ago"different sides"? Are you hinting that a group of billionaire-owned megacorporations balance each other out and represent the interest of the average citiezen?
- rchaud 8y ago"Disrupters" are just temporarily embarrassed status quo fatcats.
- vicpara 8y agoYou either allow lobbying or ban it. Amazon used a legal process to tip the balance in their favour. The entire lobbying thing does sound to me like a hack in the entire democratic process. People should vote not companies.
- afarrell 8y agoLobbying in some form is explicitly protected by the 1st amendment. The question is: If you form a contract for someone else to petition for a redress of greivances on you behalf, is that contract void?
- coredog64 8y agoNote that this is also what labor unions and advocacy organizations like the ACLU operate under. Are we still so blasé about “corporations shouldn’t have 1A rights”? To preempt, campaign contributions are considered speech because (in theory) there are legal limits on what you can do with them.
- snarfy 8y ago1st amendment rights apply to people. They should not apply to corporations.
- paxy 8y agoIf you think they are lobbying now, wait till their Virginia HQ opens up.
- malms 8y agoBut it's for the benefit of the customer !
- YeahSureWhyNot 8y agoI am really worried that once it becomes a major employer in Virginia area Amazon will actually stop spending money on lobbying and start using layoffs and other muscle moves on their VA area workforce to pressure public officials into caving in to their demands. It probably was the main reason why they 'decided to split' the HQ2 between NY and Virginia. Virginia was in play all along because of its proximity to DC and New York was their main choice because of many reasons that dont need explanation. The whole casting cities and states was a shitshow put on to get New York and Virginia states/cities to give as big tax breaks as possible. So glad New Yorkers didnt play into Amazon's greedy game.
- stone-monkey 8y agoEven if they flexed their employer muscles, that would only affect local officials. Why would a republican senator from Kansas care if they're going to cut jobs in Virginia?
- YeahSureWhyNot 8y agobecause he doesn't want local families protesting in front of his local residence embarrassing him in front of all his other big shot neighbors?
- stone-monkey 8y agoI'm sure politicians get as embarrassed as the next person by public shaming, but forgive me if I'm inclined to believe they won't act much on complaints by non constituents.
- god_bless_texas 8y agoAmazon's reach into the FAA is particularly hysterical. Given that Amazon would like to do drone deliveries and has pissed off the FAA in some regards in the past - specific regulatory language confirms this - they have a huge footprint and open door policy in the DC offices. Companies competing in the delivery space like WalMart, UPS, etc should be very nervous about the drafting that goes on now at Amazon's becking.
- blablablabla991 8y agoIt's also bigger than any other US company, isn't it? (Head to head with Apple)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- MrBuddyCasino 8y agoAmazon is also larger and more diversified than most other American companies. Is suspect their lobbying dollars per revenue hasn't hanged all that much over the years.
- justaguyhere 8y agoI honestly don't know who is worse these days - wall street firms or big tech companies. These (Google, Amazon ... ) were the same companies that we looked up to, just a few years ago. How much things can change in such a short time :(
- blitmap 8y agoI think it was difficult to find understanding in an exchange broker, so we distrusted them. We wanted to change the world and build technologies befitting the 21st century, and could not see how they might grow into monsters. So many good intentions built by a tech giant made of ourselves.
- jeletonskelly 8y agoI, for one, still look up to them. I don't completely understand where the negative views started, but I suspect it was with Facebook, fake news, and the election or maybe the Amazon HQ2 disaster. Now, for some reason, they are being demonized for being large and participating in a system that has existed for centuries. They got large because they built things people wanted. What's wrong with that? I just don't get it. It's like a mob with pitchforks is forming to break-up "big tech" and they won't be satisfied until they've slayed the giants whether it's justified or not.
- indigochill 8y ago>They got large because they built things people wanted. Yes, but since then they've all made some public missteps. Facebook has repeatedly abused user data, Amazon routinely sells counterfeits, Google leverages user data for advertising and has a questionable track record with China, etc... People see that and feel like they want to switch to some competitor, but they don't know of one because Google, Facebook, and Amazon are the dominant parts of their experience of the internet. What I think most people don't realize is that the world does not in fact revolve around Google/Amazon/Facebook and despite their market share, they don't actually have monopolies in their industries. *diaspora is a thing. So is Duck Duck Go. So is Ali Express (or, you know, just buying stuff at a brick and mortar store) And so on. In the context of this ignorance, I think it becomes easier to sympathize with some pitchfork rattling.
- deytempo 8y agoInterested in learning how to count how many times each company lobbied...
- r_singh 8y agoI wonder if this has anything to do with Jeff Bezos being from Wall Street?
- distant_hat 8y agoMaybe they are diversifying into government now.
- jimmy1 8y agoI think sometimes people assume that x amount of lobbying dollars = y influence, but it's not a linear equation at all. At the end of the day, it is still people you are dealing with, and sometimes people can happily take your money, make you believe they are going to do what they said, and then not do it. Source: family members are lobbyists.
- YeahSureWhyNot 8y agoso what you are saying is its possible that poor Amazon wasn't able to get all the political influence it paid for and we are should not be angry at it for trying to buy itsel support that it otherwise would not have
- jimmy1 8y agoI think it's not as black and white. Amazon has all of that money because we as a society supported it's growth. We like Amazon, and we gave them our money. If the tables were turned, and you were a billionaire altruistic philanthropist, would you not attempt to do the same thing with your money? It's the same concept, just different side of the coin. Lobbying is not an exclusive concept. I could right now pay someone to go lobby the government for me. Obviously I wouldn't get very far, but what if my neighbors and I pooled our money together? And their neighbors? And so on and so forth and indeed that is how many lobbying arms are formed outside of industry. Ultimately at the end of the day, Lobbying is viewed with contempt because we have corrupt officials that weigh the opinions of certain lobbyist who are looking to corrupt the law for their own interests more than what is good for the general public. If you took out lobbying right now, you would still be left with corrupt officials that weigh the opinions of people with money more than the general public. But here is the kicker: you would do more harm than good, because now advocacy groups do not have a way to influence officials. Lobbying, however contemptible it seems to most people, exists because it does serve a purpose. Your elected officials cannot possibly keep up with the sea of issues in their constituencies. Lobbying provides a sort of self-selecting way for the more important issues to "bubble up to the top" What is always missing from conversations on lobbying is the hundreds of other lobbying groups that have as their mission to serve to improve the general good or public and how eliminating it would impact the good that is done by them (as evidenced by sibling comment by mtgx).
- Shivetya 8y agoIsn't this the point of politicians pressuring corporations? I remember back, way back, when Apple was caught off guard and "appropriately" stepped up with lobbying and political contributions. It is hard for me to find fault with any company which lobbies the government because they have no choice. If they don't play the game someone else will and use their influence to get the power of government applied to their competitors directly or indirectly. One way to fix it is not to prevent anyone from spending money on campaigns but to instead prohibit politicians, their immediate family, and relatives, from participating in any position that may have influence over a regulating body. It is very common to have family of politicians benefit by either getting jobs directly with a lobbying company or lobbying firm but the other method is through PACs which pay them huge salaries for part time work. I could care less what they do before they are in office but once in it needs to be clamped down. congress and their relatives are more likely to increase their wealth by magnitudes than lose it, the reason is simple, they structured the rules to benefit them and make it nigh impossible to unseat them
- dfrage 8y agoA very good book length treatment of this can be found in Peter Schweizer's Extortion: How Politicians Extract Your Money, Buy Votes, and Line Their Own Pockets https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544103343/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0544103343/ And it just so happens that his latest book covers the family angle: Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062569368/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062569368/ Big companies don't have any choice if they want to stay in existence without shakedowns that might end up crushing them. Microsoft's biggest crime in the 1990s as Washington viewed it? Not spending enough money there.
- sandworm101 8y ago>>> instead prohibit politicians, their immediate family, and relatives, from participating in any position An interesting idea in principal, but not legal or even practical under western systems of government. If my brother runs for office and wins, that shouldn't limit my employment options. We aren't going to fire people from government jobs because of the actions of their family members.
- maxk42 8y agoAnd they also own a major national publication.