Think Tanks Receiving Money to Influence Public Policy/Research

Future Privacy Forum

• The Future Privacy Forum received funding from Google, Amazon, and Facebook.
• The Forum backed the recent passage of the Virginia Consumer Data Privacy Act.
  • The bill passed with bipartisan support but was criticized as too "industry-friendly," as it protected big tech from ordinary Virginians filing lawsuits regarding their data use and sale.
  • An estimated 70 percent of all internet traffic data flows through servers in Virginia, giving the bill nationwide implications.

New American Foundation

• New American Foundation received more than $21 million from Google.
• In 2017, New American chastised its in-house Open Markets Institute for praising a European antitrust settlement against Google – a move that backfired.
• New America's board included a bipartisan mix of former elected and federal officials, including former New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and former Pennsylvania Congressman Chris Carney.
• Open Markets Institute subsequently split off from New American and is presently one of the most influential drivers pushing for increased Big Tech regulation.

Global Antitrust Institute

• Global Antitrust Institute At George Mason University received at least a combined total of $725,000 from Google and Amazon alone, $500,000 of which was donated in 2017 – 2018. Facebook also disclosed working with The Global Antitrust Institute in 2019.
• Global Antitrust Institute's leader Joshua Wright was a former Federal Trade Commissioner and previously worked at a lobbying firm hired by Google.
• The Institute held seminars and training for public regulators and officials and released white papers that supported weakened antitrust enforcement.
• The Institute sought to influence litigation by creating a "training" program for federal judges on antitrust policies.

Information Technology And Innovation Foundation (ITIF)

• ITIF is a Big Tech funded think tank that often reflects the industry’s viewpoints. Its website says it received funding in excess of 5K in the most recent fiscal year from Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook.
• ITIF opposed Lina Khan’s confirmation to be FTC chair and Jonathan Kanter’s confirmation to lead DOJ’s antitrust division.
• ITIF opposed the bipartisan Senate bill cracking down on self-preferencing and issued a report saying the practice was actually good for competition and consumers.
• ITIF opposed President Biden’s executive order on competition because it said competition in the US tech industry was already robust.
• ITIF opposed lawmaker efforts to target the app store practices of Big Tech, said something that wasn’t broke didn’t need fixing.
• ITIF opposed changes to section 230, said the algorithms used by Big Tech should not be blamed for the spreading of harmful content.

Links to Americas for Tax Reform and ALEC

• Active lobbying in North Dakota
• 2021: A bill introduced in the North Dakota legislature sought to crack down on Apple and Google’s anticompetitive conduct in their app stores.

• New York Times reported that Koch Network Group Americans for Prosperity sided with Apple and Google against the app store antitrust bill in North Dakota.
• ALEC lobbied North Dakota legislators to vote against the app store antitrust bill.
• Americans for Tax Reform lobbied Arizona legislators to vote against an amendment similar to the app store antitrust bill that was proposed in North Dakota.

Google has funded both Americans for Tax Reform and ALEC

• Google listed Americans For Tax Reform as one of the third-party, tax-exempt groups to which it’s government affairs and public policy team gave one of its “most substantial” contributions.
• Google funded the American Legislative Exchange Council until 2014 when it broke from the organization over its views on climate change.
  • Google had served on ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force, which the Washington Post reported had developed proposals that may have been “enticing to tech companies.”
  • U.S. News & World Report: “For years, tech giants like Facebook, Google and Yahoo with deep roots in both libertarianism and the laissez faire tech culture of Silicon Valley had managed to find common cause with the American Legislative Exchange Council.”

• Google claimed it left ALEC because of its anti-climate change efforts, but ALEC had been “deliberately confusing climate science for years” and “hasn’t even been subtle about it.”
  • San Francisco Chronicle Headline: "Despite Recent Split From Conservative Group, Google’s Connections To Climate Change Denial Runs Deep"

Apple has been a member of ALEC and donated to Americans for Tax Reform

• Americans for Tax Reform rejected arguments that Apple was engaging in anticompetitive conduct in its app store.
  • Americans for Tax Reform accused Spotify of “fighting dirty” for accusing Apple of engaging in anticompetitive behavior in the app store.
  • Americans for Tax Reform dismissed accusations that Apple’s App Store discriminated against apps that were not its own, and said it was “very transparent” about its policies.
  • Americans for Tax Reform opposed a European Union decision that would require Apple to pay $14 billion because it used Ireland as a tax haven.

• Apple was a member of ALEC until around 2013 when disclosures about how ALEC operated and its controversial “model legislation” activities pushed corporate sponsors, including Apple, to cancel their memberships.

Americans for Tax Reform is a dirty dark money group

• Americans for Tax Reform and Grover Norquist were key players in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
  • 2006: Senate Indian Affairs Committee found that Americans For Tax Reform served as a “conduit” for funds that flowed from Jack Abramoff’s clients to “surreptitiously finance grassroots lobbying campaigns.”
  • The Senate Indian Affairs Committee found that Grover Norquist was an “avid participant’ in Jack Abramoff’s schemes to channel money from affluent clients, especially Native American gaming interests, to former Christian Coalition Executive Director Ralph Reed.

• The Oregon Justice Department investigated Americans for Tax Reform for collecting money from Oregon business leaders and trade groups and then routing it into an Oregon anti-tax group in what authorities called a “laundering scheme.”
• 2012: Center for Responsive Politics found that Americans for Tax Reform used more than 51 percent of its spending on campaign activities, which tested IRS guidance that prevented tax-exempt groups from using the majority of their spending on campaign activities.
• 2012: Americans for Tax Reform told the FEC that it spent $15.8 million altogether on independent expenditures, but told the IRS it spent only $9.8 million on direct and indirect campaign activity.
  • Center for Responsive Politics found Americans for Tax Reform used at least a sizeable amount the $26.4 million grant it got from Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS to fund its political ads.

• 2010: Americans for Tax Reform reported to the FEC that it spent $4.1 Million on independent expenditures, but only reported $1.9 million in political spending to the IRS.

• Americans for Tax Reform Foundation took a pandemic small business loan between $150,000 and $300,000 even though it advocated for restraint in government spending.

• Grover Norquist, the Executive Director of ATR, equated tax collection with getting mugged on the street and suggested that arguments for higher taxes on rich people echoed the arguments Nazis used to justify their targeting of Jews.
• Grover Norquist: “Bipartisanship is another name for date rape.”
• Americans for Tax Reform was a member of ALEC and five of its staff members attended ALEC’s annual meeting in 2019.
• Grover Norquist fought to privatize K-12 education and Social Security and became involved in funding union busting.
• Americans for Tax Reform had received at least $14,500 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation.
• Americans for Tax Reform Foundation had received more than $685,000 from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.
  • DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund’s donors were largely unknown, but several major conservative donors reported contributions to them, including the Koch brothers, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Devos Family and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
  • Conservative Transparency: “It is widely noted that [DonorsTrust] & [Donors Capital Fund] are a part of the ‘Koch Network.’"

• Americans for Tax Reform had received more than $37 million from conservative dark money groups and foundations, including $30 million from Crossroads GPS and $4.5 million from the Koch Network’s Center to Protect Patient Rights.
  • Crossroads GPS was a conservative dark money group founded by Karl Rove that caused the FEC to issue new guidance for independent expenditures because of how much money it spent in elections.

• Americans for Tax Reform received significant funding from corporate interests, particularly those in the pharmaceutical, telecommunications, and tobacco industries.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a bill mill for conservative causes

• USA Today reported that between 2010 and 2018, bills based on ALEC models were introduced nearly 2,900 times at the state level and in Congress, with more than 600 becoming law.
  • The Guardian reported that ALEC was a “secretive ‘bill mill’ responsible for spreading rightwing legislation across” the United States.
  • New York Times reported that ALEC drafted model bills that “broadly advance a pro-business, socially conservative agenda.”

• Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman found that ALEC wielded “considerable influence in state legislatures,” the bills it promoted found their way into a majority of state legislatures and the percentage of their bills that passed was “strikingly high” compared to others that passed.
  • Mother Jones: “With more than 2,400 state lawmakers as members—roughly one third of the nation’s total—ALEC is a year-round clearinghouse for business-friendly legislation.”

• USA Today reported that ALEC “flourished because it also offers conservative Republican elected officials a social network, access to campaign donors and a blueprint for how to accelerate their political careers."
• USA Today reported that many of ALEC’s model bills “amount[ed] to wish lists for special interests, have become pervasive in the American legislative process.”
  • Bloomberg Businessweek reported that ALEC created “model legislation” that corporation could suggest to state legislators and corporations have even written bullet points of a piece of legislation.

• The Guardian’s Ed Pilkington argued what was problematic about ALEC was it gave corporations a vote and a veto that was equal to the power of state legislators and gave them a “direct plug into the system.”
  • Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman: "One feature that separates ALEC from other lobbying ventures is that it partners with corporations whose interests span the space of conservative issues.”

• New York Times reported that ALEC’s rules gave corporations a “great deal of influence on the task forces, where model legislation must first clear a preliminary vote before going to the board.”
  • New York Times reported that ALEC bylaws allowed lawmakers to be removed from task force leadership for any reason but only allowed corporate members to be removed “with cause.”

• Arizona congresswoman Debbie Lesko acknowledged that ALEC was about corporations have influence at the state level.
• Mother Jones reported that what was troubling about ALEC was how the ideas and model bills were intentionally “divorced” from their source.
  • Mother Jones: “ALEC might better be described as one of the nation’s most powerful—and least known— corporate lobbies.”
  • Brookings Institution’s Molly Jackman: "ALEC is notoriously secretive about the process by which members draft and approve model legislation.”

• New York Times: “The records offer a glimpse of how special interests effectively turn ALEC’s lawmaker members into stealth lobbyists, providing them with talking points, signaling how they should vote and collaborating on bills affecting hundreds of issues like school vouchers and tobacco taxes."
• The Guardian: “ALEC's critics have accused it of violating tax laws by lobbying on behalf of rightwing legislation that advances the interests of its corporate members.”
  • Bloomberg Businessweek: “ALEC creates the fiction that these bills grow wild in the fertile, democratic loam of America’s state legislatures."

• Common Cause accused ALEC of abusing its tax-exempt status. Documented Investigations said corporations and corporate lobbyists saw a big return on their investment in ALEC because it was often much cheaper than a direct lobbying campaign.
• USA Today reported that ALEC lost influence in 2012 after Trayvon Martin was shot, which sparked scrutiny of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law, which was sponsored by ALEC members.
• Big corporations started leaving ALEC following the shooting of Trayvon Martin after ALEC came under “heavy, public scrutiny” for pushing “stand your ground” laws in the states.
• The Guardian reported that ALEC was supported by “some of the largest rightwing foundations” in the United States, including the Koch brothers, the Bradley Foundation and the Searle Freedom Trust.
• Mother Jones: “Funded primarily by large corporations, industry groups, and conservative foundations—including R.J. Reynolds, Koch Industries, and The American Petroleum Institute—the group takes a chain-restaurant approach to public policy.”
• ALEC was primarily financed by its corporate members who spent at least $12,000 annually to be members. Corporate members had to pay an addition $5,000 to be on one of the organization’s task forces, which drafted and debated “model legislation” in secret.
• ALEC has received more than $1.6 million from the Charles Koch Foundation.
• ALEC has received almost one million from DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund.
  • DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund’s donors were largely unknown, but several major conservative donors reported contributions to them, including the Koch brothers, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Devos Family and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.
  • Conservative Transparency: “It is widely noted that [DonorsTrust] & [Donors Capital Fund] are a part of the ‘Koch Network.’"

• ALEC has received more than $3.5 million from conservative foundations, including the Joyce and Donald Rumsfeld Foundation, the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.

Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)

• PPI was funded in part by Facebook, Google and Amazon. The Washington Examiner noted that Big Tech’s contributions to organizations like PPI were “To defend themselves from public scrutiny and regulation.”
• Three of PPI’s board members, Bernard McKay, Bill Budinger and Chris Kelly, were closely aligned with Big Tech. Bernard Kelly was a board member for the Computers and Communications Industry Association as well as a board member at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation. Board member Bill Budinger founded a major microchip company named Rodel, which built semiconductors and silicon wafers. Board member Chris Kelly was previously Facebook’s Chief Privacy Officer and the platform’s first General Council. Kelly opposed breaking up Big Tech.
• PPI’s Tech Policy Analyst was previously a policy analyst for NetChoice. PPI’s Malena Dailey worked at NetChoice before moving to PPI. Her focus at NetChoice was on state and federal legislation impacting Big Tech as well as policies related to antitrust and content moderation.
• PPI had partnered with TechNet on a research report, commissioned polls on Big Tech in battleground districts and produced research used by fellow pro-Big Tech groups. PPI partnered with TechNet on a study that highlighted 25 up-and-coming tech hubs across the country. The study highlight public policies that created the conditions for tech startups to succeed in growing numbers and more places. PPI commissioned a poll to survey voters in battleground districts on whether they believed Big Tech companies were monopolies with too much power and asked how Congress should respond. NetChoice once used a paper from PPI to defend Google after the platform faced antitrust actions that targeted their ad practices.
• PPI’s Director of Technology Policy had been a panelist at conferences put on by Big Tech. PPI’s Alex Slapp, Director of Technology Policy, was a panelist at a conference put together by NetChoice that focused on antitrust regulation, whether Big Tech had monopolized their industries and how to “define digital markets.” Slapp was also a panelist at a conference put together by the App Association (sponsored by Apple), which focused on antitrust and competition policies in the App economy.
• PPI represented Big Tech in Congress, both in public forums and in private briefings with Democratic elected officials. After Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook refused to attend a Congressional hearing on an antitrust bill, PPI asked if they could send a representative. PPI was also known to regularly sponsor briefings for Democratic elected officials.
• PPI praised Big Tech for their contributions to society. PPI released research touting the fact that “most Americans live[d] in states where the tech e-commerce ecosystem [paid] better than manufacturing. PPI claimed Big Tech was “building a new middle class” and believed “information technology had delievered more and unprecedented convenience for consumers, and good paying jobs.”
• PPI has spotlighted Amazon for being the #1 investor in America two years in a row. PPI ranked Amazon the #1 investor in America in 2020 and 2021. PPI’s Chief Economic Strategist, Michael Mandel, said that Amazon was “leading the way for what corporate investment in America should look like.” He also believed that Amazon was “setting a new national standard for what the wage should be for high school educated workers” which would “force a lot of companies to decide if they want[ed] to invest in their workers.”
• PPI attacked antitrust laws targeting Big Tech through press releases, blog posts and other research materials. PPI published a blog that criticized Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan to break up Big Tech companies. PPI said “Warren’s call to break up America’s tech leaders may go down well with her party’s ‘Democratic Socialist’ faction. PPI also released an e-book that urged against the passage of antitrust laws for Big Tech. PPI argued that antitrust bills targeting Big Tech had “divestiture and draconian regulation.”
• PPI would single out specific pieces of legislation or committee reports to attack on behalf of Big Tech. PPI attacked the House Judiciary Committee’s tech antitrust report, saying it was “400-plus pages of weak evidence that Big Tech companies actually harm[ed] consumers and reduce[d] innovation in digital markets.” They believed regulation on App stores had a “highly prescriptive view” of what tech platforms “should allow.” PPI opposed the ‘American Innovation And Choice Online Act’, claiming if it passed consumers would be “worse off.”  PPI released research that claimed proved how the ‘American Innovation And Choice Online Act’ “could do irreparable harm” to tech services used and relied on by millions of Americans. They believed the ‘American Innovation And Choice Online Act’ would “result in a huge financial hit” to big tech companies that would lead them to reduce or alter popular services.