![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sitaangelForeign Companies Pay to Influence U.S. Policy
More than $620 million spent lobbying federal government
By Julia DiLaura
WASHINGTON, May 20, 2005 — The army of lobbyists working behind the
scenes to affect federal legislation and agency regulations now
count some 650 foreign companies among their clients, which are
seeking to influence everything from America's defense contracting
and pharmaceutical policies to the sort of environmental matters
that literally affect U.S. soil, according to an analysis by the
Center for Public Integrity.
For example, from 1998 to mid-2004, London-based BP plc spent $33
million lobbying the U.S. government—the third-highest amount among
foreign entities. Surprisingly, this international energy giant
lobbied nearly as much on matters related to the environment and
Superfund as it did on oil and gas issues. One likely explanation:
BP and its U.S. affiliates are listed as the potentially responsible
parties for 162 Superfund pollution sites that, collectively, have
cost the Environmental Protection Agency $1.1 billion in analysis
and clean-up costs. All told, records reveal, 22 foreign companies
listed as potentially responsible parties for 275 Superfund sites in
40 U.S. states reported lobbying on the same issue or directly to
the EPA.
During these same six-plus years, the Center analysis shows,
companies with headquarters in 78 foreign nations spent more than
$620 million lobbying the federal government. Over that time, those
companies employed 550 lobbying firms and teams of 3,800 lobbyists,
more than 100 of whom were former members of Congress. Companies
based in the United Kingdom alone spent more than their counterparts
in 37 U.S. states during that time period.
BP, which ranked 52nd among lobbying groups overall—just ahead of
insurance giant American International Group Inc., the American
Bankers Association and Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.—was one of several
oil companies involved with Arctic Power, a lobbying consortium that
has led the years-long efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to oil exploration and drilling.
In late 2002, in the face of the debate over the potential
profitability of developing the region, BP—like a number of large
U.S. oil companies—withdrew from the lobbying group, citing the
action as a cost-cutting move and deferring its decision on whether
to expand Alaskan operations into ANWR until Congress had finished
its deliberations.
Registration Requirements
Foreign governments are not required to register their lobbyists
with the Senate Office of Public Records (which tracks all other
individuals and organizations that lobby the U.S. federal
government) even if they conduct activities that meet the U.S.
government's definition of lobbying. Instead, foreign governments,
political parties and politicians complete a more intensive
disclosure of activities under the Foreign Agents Registration Act
at the Department of Justice.
Therefore, international spending reported under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act—and included in the Center's LobbyWatch database—is
not a complete illustration of foreign entities attempting to
influence the U.S. government. It is rather a more limited
reflection of foreign-business spending.
There's not much ambiguity, however, about why these foreign
companies seek to keep their voices heard in Washington: they
typically have a direct stake in this nation's ever-shifting canon
of business law and tax policy.
For example, each of the three top-spending foreign companies—
DaimlerChrysler Corp. of Germany, pharmaceutical giant
GlaxoSmithKline of the United Kingdom and BP plc—all have extensive
business operations within the United States.
Those companies that don't actually operate within the United States
almost universally depend on advantageous trade policy, either with
U.S. markets or under the parameters of international trade
agreements in which the United States is a definitive power. Not
surprisingly, international trade was by far the most common issue
foreign companies reported lobbying on, followed by defense and
taxation and the Internal Revenue Code.
But lobbying by foreign companies doesn't stop at business and trade
policy or the outsourcing-friendly contract system: many foreign
groups lobby on U.S. domestic policy, even as it's being negotiated
in Congress.
For example, U.K.-based GlaxoSmithKline, the second-highest-spending
foreign company, consistently reported lobbying on Medicare and
Medicaid reform issues during the nearly seven years studied. The
pharmaceutical giant, one of more than 90 foreign companies that
reported lobbying on health issues or the Department of Health and
Human Services, is also a member of lobbying machine PhRMA, whose
almost $93 million spent during the period in question earned the
industry huge victories with Congress and the FDA.
And as they seek to influence U.S. policy, foreign companies
primarily seek the same top lobbying firms that their domestic
counterparts tend to rely on.
The five lobbying firms that led the industry in the entire 1998 to
2004 period— Interpublic Group of Companies Inc., Piper Rudnick, WPP
Group plc, Patton Boggs and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP—also
received the most money from foreign companies.
Not surprisingly, those familiar lobbyists tread the same well-worn
corridors of power. Just as in the lobbying industry at large, the
U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives were by far the most
lobbied by foreign companies, followed by the Departments of State,
Commerce, Treasury and Defense, and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative.
Nor should the result of that access be surprising. Sixteen foreign
companies that paid Washington-based representatives to lobby the
Department of Defense between 1998 and mid-2004 received more than
$16.4 billion in Pentagon contracts during that time, $5.6 billion
of which was awarded without competition.
Editor's note:
Some of the figures in this story were compiled prior to a
significant change in the way the Center calculates corporate
spending on lobbying. The new methodology is more conservative and
significantly lowers yearly spending both in aggregate and for many
large companies. LobbyWatch has been updated new yearly totals,
including spending through calendar year 2004. If you have any
questions please contact the Database Editor.
More than $620 million spent lobbying federal government
By Julia DiLaura
WASHINGTON, May 20, 2005 — The army of lobbyists working behind the
scenes to affect federal legislation and agency regulations now
count some 650 foreign companies among their clients, which are
seeking to influence everything from America's defense contracting
and pharmaceutical policies to the sort of environmental matters
that literally affect U.S. soil, according to an analysis by the
Center for Public Integrity.
For example, from 1998 to mid-2004, London-based BP plc spent $33
million lobbying the U.S. government—the third-highest amount among
foreign entities. Surprisingly, this international energy giant
lobbied nearly as much on matters related to the environment and
Superfund as it did on oil and gas issues. One likely explanation:
BP and its U.S. affiliates are listed as the potentially responsible
parties for 162 Superfund pollution sites that, collectively, have
cost the Environmental Protection Agency $1.1 billion in analysis
and clean-up costs. All told, records reveal, 22 foreign companies
listed as potentially responsible parties for 275 Superfund sites in
40 U.S. states reported lobbying on the same issue or directly to
the EPA.
During these same six-plus years, the Center analysis shows,
companies with headquarters in 78 foreign nations spent more than
$620 million lobbying the federal government. Over that time, those
companies employed 550 lobbying firms and teams of 3,800 lobbyists,
more than 100 of whom were former members of Congress. Companies
based in the United Kingdom alone spent more than their counterparts
in 37 U.S. states during that time period.
BP, which ranked 52nd among lobbying groups overall—just ahead of
insurance giant American International Group Inc., the American
Bankers Association and Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.—was one of several
oil companies involved with Arctic Power, a lobbying consortium that
has led the years-long efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to oil exploration and drilling.
In late 2002, in the face of the debate over the potential
profitability of developing the region, BP—like a number of large
U.S. oil companies—withdrew from the lobbying group, citing the
action as a cost-cutting move and deferring its decision on whether
to expand Alaskan operations into ANWR until Congress had finished
its deliberations.
Registration Requirements
Foreign governments are not required to register their lobbyists
with the Senate Office of Public Records (which tracks all other
individuals and organizations that lobby the U.S. federal
government) even if they conduct activities that meet the U.S.
government's definition of lobbying. Instead, foreign governments,
political parties and politicians complete a more intensive
disclosure of activities under the Foreign Agents Registration Act
at the Department of Justice.
Therefore, international spending reported under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act—and included in the Center's LobbyWatch database—is
not a complete illustration of foreign entities attempting to
influence the U.S. government. It is rather a more limited
reflection of foreign-business spending.
There's not much ambiguity, however, about why these foreign
companies seek to keep their voices heard in Washington: they
typically have a direct stake in this nation's ever-shifting canon
of business law and tax policy.
For example, each of the three top-spending foreign companies—
DaimlerChrysler Corp. of Germany, pharmaceutical giant
GlaxoSmithKline of the United Kingdom and BP plc—all have extensive
business operations within the United States.
Those companies that don't actually operate within the United States
almost universally depend on advantageous trade policy, either with
U.S. markets or under the parameters of international trade
agreements in which the United States is a definitive power. Not
surprisingly, international trade was by far the most common issue
foreign companies reported lobbying on, followed by defense and
taxation and the Internal Revenue Code.
But lobbying by foreign companies doesn't stop at business and trade
policy or the outsourcing-friendly contract system: many foreign
groups lobby on U.S. domestic policy, even as it's being negotiated
in Congress.
For example, U.K.-based GlaxoSmithKline, the second-highest-spending
foreign company, consistently reported lobbying on Medicare and
Medicaid reform issues during the nearly seven years studied. The
pharmaceutical giant, one of more than 90 foreign companies that
reported lobbying on health issues or the Department of Health and
Human Services, is also a member of lobbying machine PhRMA, whose
almost $93 million spent during the period in question earned the
industry huge victories with Congress and the FDA.
And as they seek to influence U.S. policy, foreign companies
primarily seek the same top lobbying firms that their domestic
counterparts tend to rely on.
The five lobbying firms that led the industry in the entire 1998 to
2004 period— Interpublic Group of Companies Inc., Piper Rudnick, WPP
Group plc, Patton Boggs and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP—also
received the most money from foreign companies.
Not surprisingly, those familiar lobbyists tread the same well-worn
corridors of power. Just as in the lobbying industry at large, the
U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives were by far the most
lobbied by foreign companies, followed by the Departments of State,
Commerce, Treasury and Defense, and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative.
Nor should the result of that access be surprising. Sixteen foreign
companies that paid Washington-based representatives to lobby the
Department of Defense between 1998 and mid-2004 received more than
$16.4 billion in Pentagon contracts during that time, $5.6 billion
of which was awarded without competition.
Editor's note:
Some of the figures in this story were compiled prior to a
significant change in the way the Center calculates corporate
spending on lobbying. The new methodology is more conservative and
significantly lowers yearly spending both in aggregate and for many
large companies. LobbyWatch has been updated new yearly totals,
including spending through calendar year 2004. If you have any
questions please contact the Database Editor.
