Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lobbyist Spending Reaches Highest Since 2010

Lobbying spending reached $3.4 billion last year, the most since the all-time peak eight years ago, according to calculations out Monday from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce was the top spender for the 19 th consecutive year, spending $95 million to promote its pro-business agenda – including $26 million in the final three months of 2018, mainly to advocate against President Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico. The National Association of Realtors was second, at $73 million.


But the industry that spent the most, by far, was the pharmaceutical sector at $280 million – hoping to shape public opinion and the work of Congress as the rapid rise in drug prices moves the center of the health care policy agenda. The industry's trade association, known as PhRMA, spent 10 percent of that total. The company that spent the most were Pfizer ($11 million), Johnson & Johnson ($7 million) and AbbVie ($6 million).

Read More

Entrance Sign at the University of Florida

Universities are embracing “institutional neutrality,” but at places like the University of Florida it’s becoming a tool to silence faculty and erode academic freedom.

Getty Images, Bryan Pollard

When Insisting on “Neutrality” Becomes a Gag Order

Universities across the country are adopting policies under the banner of “institutional neutrality,” which, at face value, sounds entirely reasonable. A university’s official voice should remain measured, cautious, and focused on its core mission regardless of which elected officials are in office. But two very different interpretations of institutional neutrality are emerging.

At places like the University of Wisconsin – Madison and Harvard, neutrality is applied narrowly and traditionally: the institution itself refrains from partisan political statements, while faculty leaders and scholars remain free to speak in their professional and civic capacities. Elsewhere, the same term is being applied far more aggressively — not to restrain institutions, but to silence individuals.

Keep ReadingShow less