Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Coronavirus caused a lobbying boom. It's hurting our democracy.

Lobbying world - K Street

K Street, as the lobbying world is known, took in $903 million during the first quarter of this year.

Bjarte Rettedal/Getty Images
Mizuno is a politics major at Princeton and an intern at Lobbyists 4 Good, a nonprofit crowdfunding platform for people seeking to hire lobbyists for their causes.

The coronavirus pandemic has gutted the American economy. Small businesses have shuttered their doors, large corporations have filed for bankruptcy, unemployment rates have soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression — and entire industries may need help from the government to avoid collapse.

But as millions of Americans struggle to pay their rent on time, one industry is booming. Lobbyists on Capitol Hill are in sky high demand. Corporations and special-interest groups are turning to lobbyists to help them maximize aid from the government as the economic fallout from the pandemic continues.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, spending on federal lobbying totaled $903 million in the first quarter of this year, matching the figure from the first three months of 2010 — the most expensive single season of lobbying on record. The $2 trillion economic recovery package enacted in March, bill, known as the CARES Act, is the second most lobbied bill of all time.

With the help of lobbyists, businesses are trying to secure the biggest piece possible of the relief pie. The problem, however, is that lawmakers should be listening to the voices of their constituents, not corporations with close ties to the government. In times of crisis, the lobbying boom is funneling taxpayer money away from those who need it most.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

As lawmakers rush to address the pandemic, many industries are slapping "coronavirus" onto their existing agendas as a way to seek to take advantage of the current circumstances. Adidas is lobbying for a provision to allow people to use pretax money to purchase gym membership and fitness equipment — even as gyms around the country have been ordered closed. Drone manufacturers are asking the Trump administration to grant waivers to bypass regulations. And corporate giants like CVS and Apple, whose profits have gone up during the pandemic, nonetheless lobbied to get provisions in the CARES Act.

As a result, the law is full of provisions that benefit wealthy corporations. Money allocated to corporations by the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve under the measure doesn't have to be used to support workers. Corporations may use these taxpayer-funded loans to buy back stocks, maintain profits for their shareholders or pump money into their reserves. A congressional oversight commission set up as part of the law has yet to name its chairman. Even if it does begin to function, the panel has been given limited power to access information about private companies. That means there's no guarantee the loans will actually benefit everyday Americans and their families.

The real winners of the lobbying bonanza? Lobbying firms. Take, for example, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. The firm raked in a whopping $11 million from clients just in January, February and March — and added 33 new clients to its portfolio. The firm was paid $960,000 from three entities under Apollo Global Management, one of world's largest private equity firms, on "issues related to Covid-19 relief." It's difficult to fathom why a giant private equity firm would need coronavirus relief. The co-founder of Apollo, Joshua Harris, has advised the Trump administration on infrastructure policy and has been considered for a White House position. Disclosures show that many other lobbying firms with close ties to the administration also saw big gains in their profits.

Meanwhile, small businesses are struggling. In a survey of 86,000 small- and medium-sized businesses, Facebook reported that a third of businesses closed during the pandemic do not expect to reopen. These businesses and their employees are barely hanging on by a thread. Among hotel, cafe and restaurant employees, 94 percent reported they have no access to paid time off and 93 percent reported they have no sick leave. Food banks across America are buckling under high demand. Every minute a member of Congress spends with a corporate lobbyist is time spent away from listening to the concerns of ordinary constituents.

As Congress gears up to negotiate additional relief bills, who should have the power to influence how our tax dollars are allocated? At Lobbyists 4 Good, we believe power should rest in the hands of ordinary Americans. We allow individuals to start crowdfunded campaigns to hire advocates for their cause. One of our current campaigns is pressing Congress to prioritize public health in the next coronavirus response legislation — not on bailing out corporations. These lobbying efforts rely on everyday people for funding through small donations — not large corporations or wealthy donors.

Businesses big and small have been shuttered by the pandemic, and they should have their voices heard by lawmakers. But the government's purpose, especially in times of crisis, must be to serve the interests of the American people, not corporations.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less