Expert Insights
Dark Money
The most in depth article into dark money and the lobbyists and K street firm revolving doors keeping corruption the number 1 Job opportunity in Washington.
January 28, 2025
this. is the most comprehensive look at the level of corruption that has made certain that these fires were completely devastating, people were not insured and just how sick they rich are that are behind this and the companies they own. Including owning senator Diane Feinstein.
California deliberate or accident The insurance had to rise from 4x to 7x in a calendar year, the governor decided to limit the amount the insurance companies could increase policies by more than 5% a year Chubb stops writing policies in 2021 Tokio Azaria insurance companies were forced out of California by bad choices, they were forced to cover high risk policies at a loss the ca government cut 101 million in 2024 28m from wildfire resilience conservancies, 12m. from home hardening against fire 8m from monitoring research programs from ca universities 4m from forest legacy program and private home hub 3 million from an inner agency forest data hub.
55 out of 101 where is the 46 million in 2018 Trump told Newsome that stopping management from back burning and forestry scrub land removal, would be catastrophic, Feb 2024 117million gallons of water was removed from reservoir the reason it was drained was from damage to the cover from bird poo, Layfield group responsible for fixing the repairs in the covers, no answers the palladates dam, if there Dams were empty for a week they are usually pancaking, a California family owns half a trillion dollars of water they have a net worth of 8 billion. The Monterey agreement that allowed with the help of senator Diane Feinstein moved the water from California to farmland and made a huge profit.
A Secret Meeting in Monterey
After years of drought, in 1994, five of the largest SWP contractors participated in a closed meeting in Monterey, California. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) was at the table with the contractors. The purpose of the meeting was to rewrite the contracts that govern water allocation for the entire State Water Project.
After days of contentious meetings, a deal with the State of California was brokered by businessmen who saw the value of owning this highly valuable public resource. The secret meeting resulted in a pact known as “The Monterey Agreement – Statement of Principles,” which in turn became codified into policy known today as “The Monterey Amendments”.
It was in that meeting that the state gave away California citizens’ water rights and transferred it to a handful of large, privately owned corporations, which soon became the “Kern Water Bank Authority” in 1995. In the same meeting, the state also agreed to give away the underground water storage facility that DWR spent $74 million purchasing and developing.
In addition to handing over a resource meant to be held by the state “in trust” for all California citizens, the amendments to the SWP contracts included a lack of accountability regarding how much water the state was allotting to contractors. By deregulating the mechanisms of accountability, the contractors could effectively sell water that doesn’t exist, creating in essence “paper water” – water that only exists on paper (in contracts). Today, the state has already allocated 5.3 times more paper water than is available.
Stuart and Lynda Resnick own Paramount Farms and are two of the wealthiest farmers on Earth after stealing California’s water supply. After acquiring their 57.7% share of the water in the Kern Water Bank in 1994, they immediately doubled their acreage of thirsty, high-value specialty crops like nuts and fruit while their small-farm neighbours watched their fields and livelihoods wither due to lack of water – even in times of severe drought.
The Resnicks, as majority holders, and the Kern Water Bank Authority, can also sell stored water back to the state – water that ratepayers have already paid for – essentially getting paid twice for the same water.
This bill was pushed and paid for by a family using congresswomen Diane Feinstein now deceased.
This is similar to the Trump assassination attempt there where catastrophic failures that were made on purpose to look like incompetence, but the truth is they knew exactly what they were doing, they removed any maintained fire preparation for backburning cleaning the forest floor, they removed the water and knew the level of catastrophic home owners who lost everything and where not insured on p uprose as the government made insurance companies leave the state as it was no longer cost effective. To insure any properties or cars in California.
This article is more than 9 years old
Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill
This article is more than 9 years old
C Robert Gibson and Taylor Channing
Critics of the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership are unlikely to be silenced by an analysis of the flood of money it took to push the pact over its latest hurdle
Wed 27 May 2015 22.30 AEST
Share
A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax and as Congress hotly debates the biggest trade deal in a generation, its backers have turned on the cash spigot in the hopes of getting it passed.
Barack Obama given 'fast-track' authority over trade deal negotiations
“We’re very much in the endgame,” US trade representative Michael Froman told reporters over the weekend at a meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum on the resort island of Boracay. His comments came days after TPP passed another crucial vote in the Senate.
That vote, to give Barack Obama the authority to speed the bill through Congress, comes as the president’s own supporters, senior economists and a host of activists have lobbied against a pact they argue will favour big business but harm US jobs, fail to secure better conditions for workers overseas and undermine free speech online.
Those critics are unlikely to be silenced by an analysis of the sudden flood of money it took to push the pact over its latest hurdle.
Fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators. The US Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) – the fast-tracking bill – by a 65-33 margin on 14 May. Last Thursday, the Senate voted 62-38 to bring the debate on TPA to a close.
Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by the world’s most well-heeled multinational corporations with just a handful of holdouts.
Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:
Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes.
The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.
The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.
The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.
Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.
In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track.
Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research.
Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana and a Republican from Alaska.
Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, has been one of the loudest proponents of the TPP. (In a comment to the Guardian Portman’s office said: “Senator Portman is not a vocal proponent of TPP - he has said it’s still being negotiated and if and when an agreement is reached, he will review it carefully.”) He received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January and March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), and Procter & Gamble ($12,900). Portman is expected to run against former Ohio governor Ted Strickland in 2016 in one of the most politically competitive states in the country.
Seven Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track and are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January and March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.
Arizona senator and former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his seventh Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.
“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” said Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent. Us. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their re-election campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.
You down with TPP? An explainer on Obama's 'secret' trade pact
“How can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, and lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests?” Gidfar said. “As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behaviour remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”
This article was amended on 28/5/15 to include a comment from senator Rob Portman.
Watch this National Geographic film: Water and Power: A California Heist by Marina Zenovich.
Read this paper: Water Heist: How Corporations are Cashing in on California’s Water by journalist John Gibler of Public Citizen.
READ WHERE YOUR WATER WENT TO AND WHO PROFITED
https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving-door/
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/traffic/
https://bestneighborhood.org/household-income-los-angeles-ca/
https://www.c-win.org/the-monterey-amendments
https://www.senate.gov/committees/how_to_committee_hearings.htm
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=1465962160aa4498bb9e8e68b7d5940f
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/1hxsj8h/how_this_billionaire_couple_stole_californias/
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/wildfire-resources/
What is Dark Money?
“Dark money” refers to spending meant to influence political outcomes where the source of the money is not disclosed. Here’s how dark money makes its way into elections:
Politically active nonprofits such as 501(c)(4)s are generally under no legal obligation to disclose their donors even if they spend to influence elections. When they choose not to reveal their sources of funding, they are considered dark money groups.
Opaque nonprofits and shell companies may give unlimited amounts of money to super PACs. While super PACs are legally required to disclose their donors, some of these groups are effectively dark money outlets when the bulk of their funding cannot be traced back to the original donor.
Dark money groups have spent roughly $1 billion — mainly on television and online ads and mailers — to influence elections in the decade since the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling that gave rise to politically active nonprofits.
Citizens who are barraged with political messages paid for with money from undisclosed sources may not be able to consider the credibility and possible motives of the wealthy corporate or individual funders behind those messages.
Infographic: See how Dark Money flows between nonprofits
Click the image to view the full infographic.
Types of Election Spending
Political jargon can get confusing. What you need to know about spending to influence elections is that there are two main types.
Hard money: traditional political spending
With this kind of spending, donors must be disclosed, contribution limits apply, and organizations are allowed to coordinate their efforts to help elect a candidate. This is not dark money. These groups include candidate committees, political parties and traditional Political Action Committees (PAC).
Soft money: outside political spending
Outside spending — sometimes referred to as independent or non-coordinated spending — refers to political spending made by organizations and individuals other than candidate campaigns themselves. All outside groups that aren't political parties — except for a few traditional PACs that make independent expenditures — are allowed to accept unlimited sums of money from individuals, corporations or unions. With these donations, groups may engage in several direct political activities, including buying advertising that advocates for or against a candidate, going door to door or running phone banks. However, these organizations are not allowed to coordinate their spending with political candidates or parties.
Some outside groups — like super PACs — are required to disclose their donors, but others are not. The no disclosing organizations are referred to as dark money groups.
While dark money groups can spend directly on elections, they are only required to report their spending if they mention a candidate during a brief period before Election Day or spend on express advocacy that explicitly supports a candidate. With each election cycle, dark money groups report less and less spending to the FEC.
But more dark money than ever is pouring into federal elections with less disclosure.
Federal campaign finance law requires political committees, including super PACs, to disclose donors but the ultimate source of their funding can be concealed behind contributions from shell companies or dark money groups.
Federal political committees reported over three times more political contributions from dark money groups and shell companies during the 2022 cycle than they did during the 2018 midterm cycle, continuing a trend of super PACs reporting more dark money contributions and dark money groups reporting less spending with each election cycle.
Graph: Outside Spending by No disclosing Groups, Excluding Party Committees
$0$100M$200M$300M$400M2000200220042006200820102012201420162018202020222024Total Outside Spending with No Disclosure of Donors, 2000-2024
Based on data released daily by the FEC. Last updated on October 24, 2023.
Types of Dark Money Spending
Whenever money is spent in a political election with the purpose of influencing the decision of a voter and the source of the money is not disclosed, it is dark money. Common types of organizations that can spend in elections while shielding the sources of their money are outlined in greater detail below.
Political Nonprofits
Nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code may engage in varying amounts of political activity. Because they are not technically political organizations, they are generally not required to disclose their donors to the public. These groups, like super PACs, cannot coordinate spending with political parties or candidates, and therefore are allowed to raise unlimited sums of money from individuals, organizations and corporations.
Types of 501(c) Organizations
There are several types of 501(c) organizations with different structures, uses and capabilities. None of these organizations are required to publicly disclose the identity of their donors or sources of money though some disclose funding sources voluntarily.
501(c)(3) groups: These organizations operate for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. These groups are not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted. Donations to these organizations are tax-deductible.
Groups you may know: NAACP, Centre for American Progress, Heritage Foundation, OpenSecrets
501(c)(4) groups: Often referred to as "social welfare" organizations, these nonprofits are the most common kind of dark money group. They may engage in political activities, if these activities do not become their primary purpose. The IRS has never defined what "primary" means, or how a percentage should be calculated, so the current de facto rule is 49.9 percent of overall expenditures, a limit that some groups have found easy to circumvent. Donations to these groups are not tax-deductible.
Groups you may know: National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, Majority Forward, One Nation
501(c)(5) groups: These are Labor and agricultural groups and may engage in political activities, if they adhere to the same general limits as 501(c)(4) organizations. They are generally funded by dues from union employees. Donations to these groups are not tax-deductible.
Groups you may know: Service Employees International Union (SEIU), American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
501(c)(6) organizations: These are business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards and trade associations, which may engage in political activity if they adhere to the same general limits as 501(c)(4) organizations. Donations to these groups are not tax-deductible.
Groups you may know: US Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association, National Association of Realtors
Graph: 501(c) Spending by Type
View totals by:
Type of groups Viewpoint
Type of groups
$0$50M$100M$150M$200M$250M$300M2000200220042006200820102012201420162018202020222024Trade Assn 501(c)(6) Unions 501(c)(5) Social Welfare 501(c)(4)
Based on data released daily by the FEC. Last updated on October 24, 2023.
Super PACs
Technically known as independent expenditure committees, super PACs may raise and spend an unlimited amount of money and accept contributions from companies, nonprofits, unions and individuals. Since super PACs cannot give money directly to candidates, they are exempt from the limits on fundraising and spending that regular PACs must abide by.
Despite the sometimes-inaccurate portrayal of them in the media, super PACs must identify all their donors to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and thereby to the public. They must do so on a monthly or semi-annual basis in non-federal election years and monthly in the year of an election. In that sense, super PACs are quite transparent, except when the donor is a shell corporation or a nonprofit that doesn't disclose its donors.
So-called pop-up super PACs formed shortly before an election may game disclosure deadlines, enabling them to spend unlimited sums influencing races without disclosing their funding sources until after voters go to the polls.
While super PACs are not allowed to coordinate any of their independent expenditures with a candidate's campaign, many single-candidate super PACs are run by individuals who are personally close to a candidate or formerly associated with a campaign.
Hybrid PACs (Carey Committees)
A hybrid PAC has the ability to operate both as a traditional PAC, contributing funds to a candidate's committee, and as a super PAC that makes independent expenditures. To do so, these committees must have a separate bank account for each purpose. The committee may collect unlimited contributions from almost any source for its independent expenditure account but may not use those funds for its traditional PAC contributions.
LLCs and Shell Companies
Limited Liability Companies (LLC) perform several necessary business functions. However, their unique structure may easily be abused or used to hide less than above-board activity. In politics, LLCs are sometimes established to help disguise the identity of a donor or source of money spent on behalf of a political candidate.
LLCs are governed by state law, but generally, minimal information is necessary to file the required articles of incorporation. In states such as Delaware, New Mexico, Nevada and Wyoming, LLCs may be incorporated without even disclosing the names of members or managers.
This lack of accountability and transparency have helped disguise the source of millions of dollars in political spending. Shell companies make major contributions to super PACs each election cycle, leaving voters in the dark while the recipient often knows the donor's true identity.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the OpenSecrets. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact OpenSecrets: info@crp.org
— By Dan Auble, Brendan Glavin and Pete Quist, June 22, 2022
This report is part of OpenSecrets’ Layers of Lobbying series examining federal and state lobbying trends. The series also includes the State Lobbying Disclosure Scorecard and Layers of Lobbying: Federal and state lobbying trends in spending, representation and messaging.
Intro
OpenSecrets’ new analysis of 2021 lobbying expenditure data shows that many of the same organizations are working across federal and state levels of government to impact public policy on similar issues, continuing a trend identified in OpenSecrets’ previous report on state and federal lobbying expenditures in 2019 and 2020.
Lobbying does not happen in a vacuum. Rather, these activities in any jurisdiction are part of a broader coordinated public policy approach by some of the biggest organizations in the country, as illustrated by the pharmaceutical industry’s consistent messaging surrounding drug pricing.
The Merger
In 2021, the Centre for Responsive Politics (CRP) merged with the National Institute on Money in Politics (NIMP) to form OpenSecrets. CRP had been tracking federal lobbying activities for nearly 25 years, while NIMP had collected state lobbying registrations for 15 years in every state and lobbying spending for at least seven years in 19 states where meaningful data was reported, where states made reports available in accessible formats and where resources allowed.
This merger has opened the door for combined federal and state lobbying reporting. OpenSecrets published its first report examining commonalities and differences in federal and state lobbying on June 2, 2022, using lobbying data from 2019 and 2020. This report continues that analysis using newly available 2021 data.
The Big Picture
Lobbying spending continues to grow at both the state and federal levels, highlighting the importance of shining light on these efforts to impact public policy. Federal lobbying spending in 2021 reached nearly $3.8 billion, its highest level in nominal dollars ever and one of the most expensive years adjusted for inflation. In fact, 2022 first quarter disclosures indicate spending this year may set a new record. After peaking at $4.2 billion in 2009, adjusted federal spending declined consistently before seeing bumps in the first year of both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Similar spending increases happened in the 19 states where OpenSecrets has collected state lobbying spending data since 2015. Spending in 2021 exceeded $1.8 billion, a record in nominal dollars and second only to 2019 in inflation-adjusted spending.
Inflation-Adjusted Federal Lobbying Totals and State Totals in 19 States, 2015-2021
Export to CSV
Year
State Adjusted Total
Federal Adjusted Total
State and Federal Total
2021
$1,962,060,093
$3,771,429,311
$5,733,489,404
2020
$1,905,468,150
$3,530,300,892
$5,435,769,042
2019
$1,986,658,579
$3,553,863,920
$5,540,522,499
2018
$1,930,428,513
$3,566,790,455
$5,497,218,968
2017
$1,935,013,770
$3,564,552,129
$5,499,565,899
2016
$1,764,754,856
$3,403,105,744
$5,167,860,600
2015
$1,760,784,240
$3,522,975,349
$5,283,759,589
The health sector led the federal and state lobbying spending in 2021, continuing a trend from 2019 and 2020. Other top sectors spending on federal lobbying generally continued to represent the same groups in 2020 as they did in 2019, demonstrating the continuity in lobbying interests from year to year and from one congressional session to the next.
Top 10 Federal Lobbying Spending Sectors, 2021
Export to CSV
Sector
Total
Health
$689,466,798
Miscellaneous Business
$514,477,932
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
$509,750,016
Communications and Electronics
$481,029,988
Energy & Natural Resources
$307,181,930
Transportation
$255,250,843
Other
$249,051,693
Ideology/Single-Issue
$176,679,256
Agribusiness
$150,180,980
Defence
$118,347,402
As with federal lobbying, state lobbying spending demonstrates stability among the top economic sectors. Just as they had in 2019 and 2020, the top five state lobbying sectors matched the federal list except for communications interests being replaced at the state level with governmental interests. The health sector topped both the federal and state lists once again in 2021.
Top 10 State Lobbying Spending Sectors, 2021
Export to CSV
Sector
Total
Health
$141,268,847
Government Agencies/Education/Other
$137,415,361
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
$128,549,244
Miscellaneous Business
$120,704,176
Energy & Natural Resources
$115,488,271
Lawyers & Lobbyists
$78,085,952
Communications and Electronics
$69,945,048
Ideology/Single Issue
$58,405,507
Labor
$49,491,908
Transportation
$37,945,220
The list of the biggest federal lobbying firms tends to be relatively static, and the firms paid the most to lobby at the federal level continued to be among the highest-grossing firms in 2021. Eight of the top 10 were among the top-paid firms in the 2019 and 2020 session as well.
Top Federal Lobbying Firms, 2021
Export to CSV
Lobbying Firm
Total
Brownstein, Hyatt et al
$55,640,000
Akin, Gump et al
$53,790,000
BGR Group
$35,060,000
Holland & Knight
$34,890,000
Cornerstone Government Affairs
$34,500,000
Invariant LLC
$31,160,000
Forbes Tate Partners
$24,420,000
Squire Patton Boggs
$24,290,000
Mehlman, Castinetti et al
$22,600,000
Capitol Counsel
$21,930,000
While two of the top 10 state firms also paid to lobby heavily at the federal level, most of the top state lobbying firms focus solely on state-level lobbying. This continues a trend identified in OpenSecrets’ recent report examining lobbying in 2019 and 2020, highlighting clients’ valuation of firms with local knowledge and relationships if they hire a firm rather than using in-house lobbyists.
Top State Lobbying Firms, 2021
Export to CSV
Firm
Focus Jurisdiction
Total
Southern Group
Southern States
$22,002,000
Greenberg Traurig LLP
Federal and State
$21,395,611
Ballard Partners
Federal and State
$18,765,000
Capital City Consulting
Florida
$17,136,000
Brown & Weinraub
New York
$15,480,791
Kassirer LLC
New York
$15,441,993
Bolton-St. Johns
New York
$14,171,699
Ronald L Book, PA
Florida
$10,252,000
Capitol Advocacy LLP
California
$9,161,811
Gray Robinson, PA
Florida
$8,875,000
OpenSecrets found that pharmaceutical companies spent substantially more on federal lobbying than other industries in the health sector. In 2021, that difference only increased, with pharmaceutical companies spending three times what hospitals and other healthcare facilities spent. The $357 million pharmaceutical industry groups spent in 2021 puts them on pace to reach the $700 million mark for the 2021-2022 period, exceeding their spending in the previous two-year period. First quarter figures in 2022 indicate the industry’s increase in spending is accelerating.
Federal Lobbying Spending Within the Health Sector, 2021
Export to CSV
Industry
Total
Pharmaceuticals & Health Products
$356,597,531
Hospitals and Nursing Homes
$118,642,782
Health Services
$117,410,312
Health Professionals
$88,049,165
Miscellaneous Health
$8,767,008
Spending from industries within the health sector at the state level in 2021 kept roughly on the same trajectory as spending in 2019 and 2020 in the 19 states from which OpenSecrets has data. Health care facilities again led the broader sector in lobbying spending, followed by the pharmaceutical industry.
State Lobbying Spending Within the Health Sector, 2021
Export to CSV
Industry
Total
Hospitals and Nursing Homes
$52,913,210
Pharmaceuticals & Health Products
$32,305,267
Health Professionals
$30,211,872
Health Services
$25,838,498
Many pharmaceutical companies lobby heavily at both the state and federal levels. Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), led spending from this industry at both the federal and state levels. Four other lobbying clients were among the top 10 pharmaceutical lobbying spenders at both the federal and state levels, as well: Pfizer, Gilead Sciences, Eli Lilly & Co. and the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
The top 10 spenders at the federal and state level within the pharmaceutical industry were rounded out by additional large drug makers. Any company reaching the top 10 in federal spending was among the top 20 for state spending in the 19 states with available data, and vice versa.
Within the industry, PhRMA’s lobbying resources can hardly be overstated. Their members are over 30 of the biggest pharmaceutical manufacturing companies in the world, and PhRMA was outspent by only two organizations at the federal level last year. Among the 19 states OpenSecrets tracks, they ranked fifth in 2021.
Federal and State Pharmaceutical Lobbying Spenders, 2021
Export to CSV
Spender
Federal Rank
State Rank
Federal Total
State Total
Federal & State Total
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America / PhRMA
1
1
$30,406,000
$5,209,151
$35,615,151
Biotechnology Innovation Organization / BIO
2
11
$13,290,000
$674,988
$13,964,988
Pfizer, Inc
4
2
$10,250,000
$1,897,508
$12,147,508
Roche Holdings
3
14
$11,210,000
$357,933
$11,567,933
Amgen, Inc
5
15
$9,750,000
$229,444
$9,979,444
Horizon Therapeutics
6
13
$9,480,000
$496,271
$9,976,271
Gilead Sciences
7
8
$8,180,000
$781,854
$8,961,854
Eli Lilly & Co
10
3
$7,515,000
$1,425,897
$8,940,897
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association
9
6
$7,800,361
$1,116,840
$8,917,201
Merck & Co
8
12
$8,010,000
$598,702
$8,608,702
Bristol-Myers Squibb
12
5
$5,410,000
$1,202,611
$6,612,611
GlaxoSmithKline
11
7
$5,460,000
$1,001,213
$6,461,213
Emergent BioSolutions
13
10
$3,180,000
$692,333
$3,872,333
Alkermes
14
9
$2,940,000
$723,682
$3,663,682
Vertex Pharmaceuticals
15
4
$1,910,000
$1,412,055
$3,322,055
The top pharmaceutical spenders at the federal and state levels greatly overlapped in 2021 but generally paid different firms for state lobbying than federal lobbying. This is a continuation of the trend found in 2019 and 2020 data and clearly highlights the strategy by national companies to hire local lobbyists that have strong relationships with government officials and expertise in each state’s legislative processes.
Top 10 Federal Pharmaceutical Firms, 2021
Export to CSV
Firm
Total
Tarplin, Downs & Young
$7,590,000
Forbes Tate Partners
$6,110,000
BGR Group
$5,800,000
Tiber Creek Group
$4,430,000
Akin, Gump et al
$4,320,000
Todd Strategy Group
$4,280,000
Thorn Run Partners
$4,050,000
Capitol Counsel
$3,500,000
W Strategies
$3,380,000
Jeffrey J Kimbell & Assoc
$3,360,000
Each of the lobbying firms receiving the most money from pharmaceutical interests at the state level work predominantly or exclusively in one state, with Massachusetts, New York and California dominating the list of the 10 firms paid the most by the industry in 2021.
Top 10 State Pharmaceutical Firms, 2021
Export to CSV
Firm
State
Total
Bay State Strategies Group
Massachusetts
$608,500
Capitol Advocacy, LLP
California
$569,000
Tress Capitol Advisors
New York
$506,000
Noteware Government Relations
California
$457,038
Metz Husband & Daughton
Florida
$390,000
Valencia Government Relations
California
$355,000
BCB Government Relations
Massachusetts
$331,992
Finneran Global Strategies
Massachusetts
$305,000
McDermott Quilty & Miller
Massachusetts
$299,100
Dickinson & Avella
New York
$298,008
The hiring of different firms in each jurisdiction, whether to lobby officials in the federal government, Oregon or Kansas, raises two points. Special interests perceive a value in hiring lobbyists who know the policymaking processes and the policy makers. But additionally, the use of different lobbyists in different jurisdictions does not seem to affect messaging.
The perceived value of specialists in lobbying is especially clear with large national companies like pharmaceutical manufacturers. In contrast to organizations with state chapters or smaller companies within a state or region, large national companies generally have a consistent message when dealing with similar policy considerations in different places. Having the same lobbyists represent a company in each place could help keep messaging consistent, but these companies hire locally anyway.
Further emphasizing the value of hiring firms that know the people and systems they are lobbying, three of the top 10 firms lobbying for pharmaceutical companies at the federal level are self-described specialists in healthcare or life sciences. Half have active lobbyists who previously worked for the Department of Health and Human Services, which regulates the industry through the Food and Drug Administration and is the nation’s largest single spender on prescription drugs via Medicare and Medicaid.
As the OpenSecrets 2019 and 2020 report showed, however, these companies are able to keep very consistent messages even while hiring different lobbyists in each jurisdiction.
Lobbying on International Price Referencing
H.R. 3 was introduced in Congress in April 2021 to address drug costs through a wide range of approaches. The bill would require the United States government to negotiate drug prices for certain high-cost drugs and that the negotiated prices be no more than 120% of the average price of those drugs in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom. This kind of approach is often referred to as setting an international reference rate, international price comparison or external reference pricing.
At least 183 organizations reported lobbying Congress on H.R. 3, and 16 specifically mentioned international drug pricing in 2021. Those 16 organizations lobbying on international pricing spent $171 million in total lobbying on all issues. Among those are many top pharmaceutical companies and trade groups, including PhRMA and BIO.
Several states also started considering legislation that included international reference rates for prescription drug pricing, a new development indicated by the National Academy for State Health Policy in 2021. Two of those states were Maine and North Dakota.
Maine’s LD 1636 required the Maine Health Data Organization to compare the prices of some of the most expensive drugs in the state to Canadian prices and determine what cost savings would result if the prices for those drugs in Maine matched the lowest province price. The bill requires the Maine Health Data Organization to publish a report annually outlining those potential savings and submit the report to the legislature to inform potential legislative action on drug prices. The bill ultimately passed into law in April 2022.
North Dakota’s SB 2170, which failed a House floor vote in April 2021, would also have used Canadian prices as reference points for some of the most expensive drugs in the state and implemented drug pricing negotiations between the state and pharmaceutical manufacturers based on those reference rates.
In a report examining pharmaceutical companies’ testimony in various states from 2019 to 2020, OpenSecrets found that each pharmaceutical organization’s testimony seemed to share a consistent message even while different lobbyists represented the company in each jurisdiction. Testimony submitted to the Maine and North Dakota legislatures by PhRMA and by the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) also contain stark similarities.
PhRMA was represented in Maine by Nick Doherty, director of policy for PhRMA, and by Minnesota lobbyist Peter Fjelstad in North Dakota. While PhRMA was represented by different lobbyists, its lobbyists submitted multi-point statements that were nearly identical in each state with written testimony opposing LD 1636 in Maine and opposing SB 2170 in North Dakota.
Below are three examples of written testimony section headers that were identical in the Maine and North Dakota testimonies.
“By importing prices set in other countries, this legislation also imports cost-effectiveness analyses that are known to be discriminatory.”
“International reference pricing could threaten drug development and replaces market competition with government price setting.”
“This legislation raises significant legal concerns.”
Each bullet above was the title of one or more paragraphs of written testimony from PhRMA that were similar or identical between the two states. The last section regarding legal concerns included a paragraph that was identical in the two states that referred repeatedly to the “Superintendent of Insurance,” a position that exists in Maine, but which has the more common title in North Dakota of Insurance Commissioner.
BIO was represented in Maine by Ben Chandhok, state government affairs director of the Eastern Region, and in North Dakota by Greg Hoke, the director of state government affairs. BIO’s written testimony in Maine and North Dakota differed somewhat on the first page, then were identical to each other in the following pages, even to the font used.
While working in states like Maine and North Dakota with a message focused on dire predictions about government price controls and reduced access to groundbreaking drugs, BIO and PhRMA use similar language in their statements opposing federal proposals as well, calling the measures “foreign price controls” and emphasizing the risk that fewer innovative drugs would be available in the U.S.
PhRMA has also used the argument that international price referencing allows discriminatory practices used abroad to affect the U.S. market. This argument is featured both in their own publications and also through their support for the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, which has extensive ties to PhRMA and its lobbyists and has spent over $5 million on ads opposing the policy. In comments filed early this year with the U.S. Trade Representative that tout the necessity of innovation and market competition, PhRMA also touched on “egregious and discriminatory pricing policies in several markets, including Canada, Japan and Korea.”
At the federal level, specialist firms with valuable networks are often hired to lobby. Both BIO and PhRMA each paid Tarplin, Downs and Young, the top firm representing pharmaceutical interests, $320,000 for federal lobbying in 2021. Lobbyists representing both organizations for the firm include former Centre’s for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Principal Deputy Administrator Kimberly Brandt, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Legislation for CMS, Raissa Downs, Pam Smith who served as Deputy Staff Director of the Senate Health Labor and Pensions Committee, and former Assistant Secretary for Legislation at HHS Jennifer Young.
This search for highly specialized policy expertise and connections to regulators and lawmakers might also help explain why the trade groups hired multiple outside firms in addition to their multimillion-dollar in-house operations with dozens of lobbyists.
In its report examining 2019 and 2020 state and federal lobbying activity, OpenSecrets found that national pharmaceutical organizations tended to be represented in their state level testimony either by in-house lobbyists or by local lobbyists that worked within a given state or region, but that the messaging was consistent regardless of who the lobbyist was. That pattern continued in 2021.
To the extent local lobbyists are used, it is obvious they are given the content of their message. Local lobbyists, then, are hired either as a pragmatic way to lobby without registering an organization’s own lobbyist in each jurisdiction or because of their relationships and local knowledge of legislative processes. Further examination of the state-level revolving door may help shed more light on the value these national organizations place on local relationships.
As more states consider international reference pricing of pharmaceuticals, the details of the testimony presented by drug manufacturers is predictable. This is likely true among other interests as well, and advocates working in various policy areas may benefit from using messaging in other states when planning efforts on their own. For example, by examining testimony submitted in other states, advocates may be able to be more proactive and comprehensive about addressing points raised by industry groups.
In Maine, PhRMA reported paying Nick Doherty $6,464 in lobbying fees in 2021, and $2,908 so far in 2022. BIO payments to Ben Chandhok for his testimony opposing LD 1636 were not reported. OpenSecrets does not collect lobbying spending in North Dakota because that state does not require lobbying compensation to be reported, a common but enormous hole in lobbying transparency in many states that prevents the public from getting a clear picture of efforts to sway elected officials.
Compensation paid to lobbyists by their clients — such as the organizations discussed in this report — represents the bulk of lobbying spending. Within the data collected by OpenSecrets for 2021, reported compensation was more than five times all other lobbying expenditures combined. These other expenditures generally include such things as gifts, food and drink, entertainment and public campaigns. While federal rules require compensation to be disclosed in quarterly reports, requirements at the state level vary widely. Seventeen states do not require compensation reporting at all, and another seven only require some form of partial reporting. That leaves only 26 states that require a full accounting of how much individual lobbyists are compensated.
These shortcomings are not just an issue of a transparency gap in individual states, they also allow national organizations to mount coordinated campaigns like those noted above across state capitals without having to fully disclose their activities.
To help address these state-level transparency issues, OpenSecrets will soon be releasing a separate report dedicated to detailing and ranking states efforts to collect and publicly disseminate information on lobbying.
Takeaways
Lobbying spending in 2021 shows a continuation of patterns found in 2019 and 2020 at both the federal and state levels, including which industries lobby the most at each level and which kinds of firms they hire.
State-level lobbying continues to be dominated by in-house lobbyists and firms that focus on state-level work, with state-focused firms often lobbying within a single state where they have close relationships and policymaking expertise.
Like major industries’ reliance on state-focused firms when lobbying at the state level, industries lobbying at the federal level often use specialist firms and lobbyists with ties to regulators and policy makers in the federal government.
Testimony from national interests continues to be similar, if not identical, across jurisdictions considering similar legislation — even when they use different lobbyists or different firms. The predictive value of this information may be useful to policy advocates working in their own states.
Lobbying reporting regimes at the state level, specifically regarding lobbyists’ compensation, leave broad gaps in the public’s ability to get a full accounting of efforts to influence legislation.
This report is part of a series examining the intersection of state and federal lobbying spending funded in part by Omidyar Network.
Return to our list of all OpenSecrets reports.
To learn more please go to this site https://www.opensecrets.org/news
It gets complicated and it’s better that you learn at you. Own pace on this site, which is amazing, the truth is out there it’s just so difficult to find and that’s not by accident/.
The swamp is so deep companies own senators for voting the way they want I. included the website to show you how much the senators get paid for their vote,
This is just disgraceful and needs to end the level of corruption is out of control. There are no consequences for the. Immoral decisions they make, they make the rich richer and the average farmer or property owner to go bankrupt.
Article by
Trent j Middleton
Get in Touch
Contact us for expert insights and tailored solutions in financial and security consultancy services.