Big Tech as the New Big Tobacco

• Republicans and Democrats began to view Big Tech in the light Big Tobacco was, with one saying the comparison was “an appropriate analogy”

• Lawmakers like Republicans Ken Buck and Cynthia Lummis and Democrat Ed Markey compared Facebook and Big Tech to Big Tobacco. Markey described Instagram as “that first childhood cigarette, meant to get teens hooked early.” Lummis agreed that comparing Facebook and Big Tech to Big Tobacco was an “appropriate analogy.” Republican Rep. Bill Johnston compared Big Tech CEOs to those from large tobacco companies, accusing the tech firms of being equally dangerous to society. Buck compared big tech to big tobacco, saying they were “harming our kids for profit.” Richard Blumenthal, who led a lawsuit against Big Tobacco in the 1990s as AG of CT, said Facebook and Big Tech were facing a “Big Tobacco moment,” comparing Facebook’s strategy papers with those done by Tobacco companies on reaching middle schoolers.

• Big Tech directly followed in Big Tobacco’s footsteps by funding academic research
  • Big Tobacco had a long history of commissioning and funding academic research to pull focus away from the proven harms of their products. Big Tech similarly started to fund institutions to ensure the “ethical development” of their technology, which led to questions about conflicts of interest and research independence. Researchers from Cornell noted that Big Tech and Big Tobacco’s funding of scientific research and development were similar in both industries: “Pump vast sums of money” into researching the problems they were creating.
  • Both Big Tech and Big Tobacco wanted to influence research to ensure their industries sustained support and were seen as socially responsible. Researchers from Cornell said Big Tobacco invested in Academia in order to influence the research questions of those studying tobacco, hoping to find friendly academics who could be leveraged and recast the companies as socially responsible. Big Tobacco’s funding agencies worked to maintain an impartial and scientific image, even as it mainly funded research that was not about tobacco’s health impacts.
  • Much like Big Tobacco, the Academics that Big Tech invested in routinely failed to disclose their funding from Big Tech, which created a false impression of independence. The whole goal of funding the research was to exploit the confidence that is had in academia and research, because Think Tanks and organizations were treated as “neutral arbiters” by journalists and lawmakers.
  • At Big Tech funded agencies, public relations officials and lawyers were involved in plotting the overall research direction and tone. Internal Google documents directed scientists to “strike a positive tone” in their research. Further internal memos from Google showed that the company intended to use friendly academics as a key aim in its strategy to lobby against the EU’s Digital Markets Act. Big Tobacco has given hundreds of millions to research over the years and their efforts spanned across the globe. Big tobacco started its own research group, The Tobacco Industry Research Committee, in 1964 and pumped more than $130 million into the effort by 1986.
  • Big Tobacco continued this trend of investing in research across the globe, giving tens of thousands of Pounds to two think tanks in the UK that advised the government on Tobacco laws. The two think tanks criticized plans to force retailers to sell cigarettes in unbranded cartons, which was a measure supported by cancer charities and opposed by Big Tobacco. In 2019, it was reported that Tobacco companies had contributed to at least 106 think tanks in two dozen countries. The think tanks they contributed to were found to oppose plain cigarette packaging, had written to regulators in support of new tobacco products or promoted industry funded research. Big Tobacco also contributed to The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Americans For Tax Reform. As Big Tech faced pressure from proposed tech legislation, they significantly increased their spending on outside organizations, giving to nearly 771 third party organizations since 2015. A significant spike in funding of outside groups by Big Tech after federal and state officials increased scrutiny on their anti-competitive behaviors. Amazon went from contributing to 45 outside organizations in 2015 to 251 outside organizations in 2020. Google more than doubled the amount of outside groups it gave to in 2018 and 2019 compared to 2017 as it faced pressures from California’s consumer privacy law. All of this increased spending by Big Tech put a heavy pressure on academic staff to seek external sources of funding.
  • Who Big Tech gives to and how much they contributed is murky, as think tanks and nonprofits aren’t required to disclose their funding. Despite Amazon, Facebook and Google voluntarily disclosing who they contributed to, the companies did not divulge the amounts of their contributions.
  • However, it was found that in the past 5 years, six leading academic institutes in the EU had taken tens of millions of pounds of funding from Google, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft to research issues linked to the tech firm’s business models. The Institute For Ethics In Artificial Intelligence at the Technical University of Munich received a $7.5 million grant from Facebook in 2019. The Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Berlin accepted almost 14 million Euros from Google since it was founded in 2012.
  • In the U.S., Big Tech individually contributed to various renowned and highly influential think tanks and nonprofits. Those think tanks and nonprofits included but are not limited to the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, International Center for Law & Economics, the Information Technology & Innovation foundation and the Global Antitrust Institute at George Mason University.
  • Big Tech was rewarded handsomely for their contributions to nonprofits and think tanks. Some lobbyists, scholars and think tank officials argued that Google’s donations to nonprofit groups helped explain why it had avoided damaging regulatory and enforcement decisions in the U.S. Further, the major nonprofits that Big Tech had contributed to helped facilitate introductions between the government and Big Tech.
  • The Global Antitrust Institute at George Mason University had trained more than 850 foreign judges and regulators on Antitrust at their seminars.
  • While not all of the nonprofits and think tanks held events on behalf of Big Tech, many did advocate for Big Tech in other ways. The Cato Institute argued publicly that people should be “extremely skeptical about predictions of entrenched monopoly power” for big tech. The Progressive Policy Institute president and founder Will Marshall published an op-ed arguing against breaking up Big Tech monopolies while simultaneously calling them “innovative and successful.”
• Big Tobacco was a lobbying “juggernaut” that invented the special interest lobbying model Big Tech used
  • In 1998, the Big Tobacco spent nearly $73 million on federal lobbying and employed over 200 lobbyists. When adjusted for inflation, the #73 million in 1998 equated to $122 million in 2021. The Dean of Harvard’s graduate school of arts and sciences said Big Tobacco had “invested in the kind of special interest lobbying” that characterized the late 20th and early 21st century American politics. Big Tobacco was known for their “giant spending” and effective lobbying.
  • Big Tobacco was said to have a “substantial” presence on Capitol Hill and had a lobbying effort so large it could only be described as a “juggernaut” by OpenSecrets. The Dean of Harvard’s graduate school of arts and sciences said Big Tobacco spent “boatloads” of money in Congress to prevent regulation as more information became public about the harm their products caused. Still to this day, Big Tobacco employed a massive amount of lobbyists, with Altria employing at least 409 lobbyists in 49 states and Reynolds employing 257 lobbyists in 39 states.
  • Big Tobacco were also big spenders politically in the 90’s and early 2000’s. In 1996, the tobacco industry contributed more than $10 million to political campaigns. In 1998, they contributed more than $8.6 million. In 2000, Big Tobacco again spent more than $8.6 million on political campaigns. And in 2002, Big Tobacco spent $9.29 million on political campaigns. Reynolds American and Altria Group also donated $1.5 million to Donald Trump’s inauguration.
• Big Tech invested in lobbying to the same degree that Big Tobacco did and have similarly become Washington lobbyists biggest cash cow
  • A June 2021 NY Times headline read “Tech Giants, Fearful of Proposals to Curb Them, Blitz Washington With Lobbying.” And in 2020, Big Tech spent more on lobbying than any other industry at a combined $51.72 million. Facebook spent the most out of any company in 2020 and the same year spent the most it ever had on lobbying: $19.68 million. Following in second was Amazon, who spent $17.86 million on lobbying, which was also the most the company had ever spent in a year on lobbying. Google spent $7.53 million on lobbying and Apple spent $6.6 million on lobbying in 2020. When asked what they were looking to achieve with their lobbying, none of the tec companies would detail their targets.
• Big Tobacco created the model for Big Tech’s pre-empting legislation and regulation Big Tobacco offered to fund research and write legislation that would carve ou several loopholes and prevent stricter rules in the future
  • Starting in the 1980s, Big Tobacco worked to pre-empt legislation with their own corporate-written legislation, a trend that continued into recent policy debates over the legal age to buy tobacco products. Big Tobacco had worked to pre-empt laws to raise the legal age to buy smoking products from 18 to 21 by pushing new legislation that would make enforcement difficult and nullify tougher local laws. A spokesman for the Campaign For Tobacco-Free Kids argued that Big Tobacco were “masters at proposing or supporting a bill that looked good on the surface but often included provisions that [were] harmful to public health.”
  • By pre-empting legislation, Tobacco was able to halt any local efforts to limit how tobacco used. It was said that by pre-empting legislation with their own corporate-backed bills, Big Tobacco could effectively tie the hands of city governments who wanted to limit tobacco use further. Tobacco companies had been working to pre-empt legislation for decades, including pre-empting versions of the Clean Indoor Air Acts in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1994, a Philip Morris Employee even wrote that the company was “dead serious about achieving pre-emption in all 50 states.”
• Big Tech followed suit and began supporting legislation they felt they could control to build goodwill after scandals ravaged the industry
  • Following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook appeared to back some government regulation. The company launched a new campaign that offered concessions on the Big Tech regulatory debate to generate some goodwill while trying to reframe the larger debate on its own terms. Zuckerberg said in testimony that he welcomed privacy and misinformation regulation as long as it was the “right regulation.”
  • Zuckerberg went so far as to call on congress to make “thoughtful reform” of Section 230, which safeguarded tech platforms from being held liable for content individual users posted. Zuckerberg said a company’s liability protection under Section 230 should be conditional on their ability to prove they can moderate harmful content – regardless if it successfully removed all harmful content. Zuckerberg's proposal for Section 230 immunity reforms “could theoretically shore up Facebook’s power” as it forced smaller social media companies and startups to develop costly content moderation systems. However, Facebook executives testified before Congress that they wanted Congress to pre-empt local laws that likely included stricter privacy protections than a federal bill.
  • Ironically, just weeks before Zuckerberg’s 2018 testimony, Facebook poured hundreds of thousands into fighting a privacy ballot initiative in California. Facebook gave $200,000 to a PAC dedicated to defeating “a state ballot initiative that would expand Californian’s privacy controls. After his testimony, Facebook withdrew support for the group and then declined to say if they were involved in other efforts to oppose privacy legislation.
• Big Tech also used more subtle means to influence policy, like leaning heavily and quietly on trade associations.
  • A Big Tech lobbyist admitted that there was “strength in numbers” and said Big Tech could use trade associations to “do a little bit of heavy lifting.” Big Tech had increasingly been leaning on industry associations to influence public policy in Washington. Lobbyist Kate Mills, a partner at a Amazon-hired lobbying firm, admitted that Big Tech’s strategy involved leaning heavily and quietly on trade associations.
  • Amazon, Facebook and Google funded a bevy of political groups that had helped push positive polling and engaged in other “fingerprint-free tactics” designed to deter regulators seeking to break up or penalize the industry. An advocacy group funded by Big Tech had secretly written an op-ed for a local small businessman in Arizona that opposed the state’s investigation into Google. The small business owner was unaware Google had backed the group that approached him to publish the op-ed.
  • In a single year, Amazon reported spending $6.36 million on state focused “government relations efforts” in 44 states.

• Big Tech supported a wide range of industry associations that advocated and lobbied for them in D.C.
  • Big Tech has contributed to a wide range of industry associations, including but not limited to NetChoice, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Consumer Technology Association, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, TechNet, The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, The Internet Association and ComPITA
  • The various organizations pushed for Big Tech’s goals and defended them when they came under fire. NetChoice, “Tech’s most aggressive lobbying presence in D.C.” was a vocal opponent of antitrust action against Google. NetChoice attacked Texas’ lawsuit against Google’s anticompetitive advertising practices and attacked the DOJ’s antitrust lawsuit against Google.
  • The Consumer Technology Association spent $10 million on lobbying for Big Tech and opposed local tech regulations on their behalf. The Consumer Technology Association counted Facebook, Alphabet, Apple and Amazon as members. The group opposed proposed right to repair laws in Nevada and elsewhere.
  • Other organizations provided extra support for Big Tech when they were railing against antitrust or privacy legislation. The Progressive Policy Institute joined Google, Facebook and Amazon (all of which were donors) when the companies were fighting back against Senator Warren’s call to break up Big Tech. Facebook’s Lobbyist co-chaired a technology council at the Illinois Chamber of Commerce as the Chamber was backing the gutting of an online privacy law.
  • Facebook turned to a lower-profile trade groups such as The Internet Association and CompTIA to help block privacy legislation. 21 days after a judge ruled against Facebook in a biometric privacy act lawsuit, a Facebook backed law weakening Illinois’ biometric privacy act was introduced in the Illinois state legislature. Facebook and CompTIA were directly described as “having a hand in blocking or weakening biometric privacy bills in Montana, Washington, And Illinois.”
  • CompTIA pushed for changes to the biometric information privacy act on Facebook’s behalf, along with donating to the Republican Party of Texas, where the Republican Attorney General was the sole enforcer of the State’s Biometric Privacy Regulations
  • In 2020, Facebook launched an astroturf organization to convince federal regulators that Facebook was crucial to free speech. Facebook created American Edge to combat potential federal regulations through advertising and other means. After American Edge was formed as a nonprofit organization, it set up an accompanying social welfare group, which was a common tactic used to obscure donors. American Edge said it was important to create policies that don’t weaken companies that “share American values” as they competed globally.
• Much like Big Tobacco was in the 90s, Big Tech became mammoth political donors, collectively spending more than $100 million between 2016-2020
  • Most of Big Tech’s campaign contributions went towards Democrats, which increased year by year as Democrats grew louder about tech reform. Between 2016-2020, Alphabet, Google’s parent company, contributed more than $44 million in political donations. Between 2018-2020, Amazon contributed more than $26 million to political campaigns. Apple contributed more than $12 million to political campaigns between 2016-2020 and Facebook contributed more than $18 million to political campaigns between 2016-2020. Facebook also donated to all four co-sponsors of an Illinois bill to weaken the 2008 biometric information privacy act.
• Adding to their influence campaigns, Big Tech followed Big Tobacco’s playbook of employing revolving door techniques both Big Tobacco and Big Tech have had former employees in high level government positions and have hired former high level government officials
  • Big Tobacco found a way to deeply ingratiate themselves with the Trump and Bush administrations. Several top Bush administration staffers had backgrounds in Tobacco, including Senior Adviser Karl Rove. Vice President Pence had extensive ties to the Tobacco industry, receiving $39k in donations from RJ Reynolds and more than $60k from the industry group National Association of Convenience Stores. Senator Blumenthal noted that many of Trump’s appointees had “deep commitments to the Tobacco industry.” Former head of the FDA Scott Gottlieb worked for the e-cigarette company Kure and condemned the influence of Anti-tobacco “activists” in the FDA. The former Solicitor General Noel Francisco represented RJ Reynolds on behalf of the corporate law firm Jones Day prior to joining the federal government.
  • Big Tobacco also hired former Trump Officials as lobbyists. RJ Reynolds hired former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price’s deputy Chief of Staff as their lobbyists.
  • Google had an ally in the DOJ’s antitrust division during the Trump Administration and a former FTC commissioner joined a law firm Google had hired. Makan Delrahim, who led the DOJ antitrust division under Donald Trump, formerly worked on behalf of Google. After leaving office, former FTC commissioner Joshua Wright joined a law firm that represented Google before the FTC.
• Big Tobacco and Big Tech had a habit of running from their names after losing public trust in 2003, Philip Morris changed its name to ‘Altria Group’ after public started to feel their name “meant death”
  • Philip Morris said the name change brought “clarity” to its corporation and operating companies. In 2003, Philip Morris changed its name to ‘Altria Group’. The company said the name change brought “clarity” to its corporate structure and the relationship between the parent company to its operating companies. Philip Morris’ Senior Vice President at the time said “When people say ‘Philip Morris’, people don’t know which company you’re talking about [...] We’re more than a tobacco company.”
  • Philip Morris also owned Kraft Foods along with their tobacco company
  • In reality, the name change was a financial decision brought as a way to distance the company from the “death” people associated with them. A former FDA commissioner said Philip Morris was “running away from tobacco” with their name change. The company’s connection with Tobacco had long depressed its stock price, despite being the largest packaged goods company. To consumers, Philip Morris meant tobacco, and tobacco meant death.
• Facebook planned to change its company name to ‘Meta’ after facing fire for spreading misinformation
  • Facebook planned to change the name of its company to ‘Meta’ as a signal of its ambition to be known for more than social media. Facebook was reportedly investing in what it called the ‘Metaverse’ which was a digital world where people used various devices to engage with each other in a 3d environment.
  • The name change came after internal memos leaked showing the company knew about the damage it caused society. At the time of the name change, Facebook was facing some of the most intense scrutiny in its history after an internal whistleblower had leaked internal documents showing Facebook knew about the harmful effects it was having.
  • Much like Philip Morris, Facebook’s renaming was seen as a way to distance itself from the social networking controversies it was facing. TV personality Jim Cramer kind of let the cat out of the bag when he said the secret of Facebook’s valuation was because of its “habit of reinvention” Facebook’s name change was seen as directly resembling Philip Morris’ decision to change their name after controversies plagued the company. Fast Company said “for a company that brisle[d] at references to its services being akin to cigarettes, taking a page from the Big Tobacco playbook [was] a stunner.” But at the end of the day, the name change would have no impact on Facebook’s operations or executive structure. The change was largely cosmetic.
• Big Tech spent more on federal lobbying from 2010-202 than the nation’s largest banks from 2000-2010 or Big Tobacco from 1996-1999
  • Since 2000, the four largest Big Tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Alphabet/Google, and Facebook – have spent $465,026,307 on federal lobbying. $434,474,221 of that total has come since 2010.
  • Additionally, nine groups that the four Big Tech companies fund have spent $98,061,827 on federal lobbying since 2000. $80,400,019 of that total has come since 2010.
  • Big Tech’s federal lobbying total eclipses that of other major toxic industries: Since 2010, the nation’s largest opioid manufacturers have spent $282,292,834 on federal lobbying. America’s seven largest banks in the leadup to the financial crisis spent $194,193,858 on federal lobbying from 2000 to 2010. From 1996 to 1999, the nation’s largest tobacco companies spent $155,750,398 on federal lobbying, or $261,306,596 in 2021 dollars.