Comment by simonw
3 hours ago
> OpenAI nearly doubled its federal lobbying expenditure to a record $2.22mn in the first half of 2026, compared to last year, while Anthropic nearly tripled its spending to $3.53mn, according to federal disclosures.
Never ceases to amaze me how cheap lobbying is. That's pocket change for these companies.
It seems like the empirical fact that lobbying is cheap is at odds with your apparent assumptions about the value companies gain from lobbying. Does that fact make you rethink your notion of what lobbying actually entails?
Lobbying is cheap because it’s just making powerpoint presentations to Congressional staffers. It’s helping them identify where the pre-existing political fault lines are and arming them with ammo for fights that will play out according to existing ideological positions. “K Street lobbyists” don’t even bill at the rates you see for corporate lawyers. $3 million per six months is what a company like Anthropic might burn in a single B2B lawsuit.
> Lobbying is cheap because it’s just making powerpoint presentations to Congressional staffers.
No. It is not. For starters, ask anybody who works at a DC restaurant or sporting venue.
If it's just making powerpoint presentations why do AI companies whose whole raison d'etre is that they can make these powerpoints in seconds for pennies spend millions on lobbying instead? Lobbying is cheap because it identifies the relatively small number of leverage points it takes to send society down one track instead of another and targets the spending there. Buy the right guy dinner and you get what you want just the same as if you'd spent billions on ads to convince millions of people to vote for the guy who's gonna do what you want.
Lobbying expenditures are given to lobbyists not politicians. You're primarily paying for the salary of some humanities or social science majors and their travel expenses, which isn't that much money.
This should be a basic fact. If those who spend a good portion of time being angry at lobbyists yet intelligent enough to make mid-six figures conflate bribery with lobbying, it should be no surprise the corporations have captured the government. The general public has essentially zero civic understanding while corporations are able to hire the few that do.
> Lobbying expenditures are given to lobbyists not politicians. You're primarily paying for the salary of some humanities or social science majors and their travel expenses, which isn't that much money.
I don't think these are the only expenses, why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on
They are interested in learning about topics from credible people that impact businesses and voters,
If the only motivation you can ascribe is making money or relection, it is circular. Wealthy people spend money to become politicians.
2 replies →
> why should politician listen to them if lobbyists are not promising them support in next elections in the form of marketing, payments for expenses and so on
Mostly because those things are directly illegal. Lobbying organizations (and PACs and SuperPACs etc.) are very limited in what they can provide either as direct monetary contributions or in-kind gifts to a candidate. The restrictions here are basically the same as those on an individual, but usually with more strict reporting requirements and lower limits.
The marketing aspect is the only thing that they can legally provide, and that's less a lobbying function than a PAC function, and they are not allowed to coordinate with the campaign or the candidate on this.
Even ignoring financial issues, people are generally willing to talk to major groups or industries. You tend not to get re-elected if you ignore everyone.
The faintest whiff of a potential incentive wafted beneath the nose of an entrepreneur is enough to bring into motion the invisible hand. This is HN, that's what we do here. We assume that it is the same for politicians.
Lobbyists are in the business of wafting. It is quite enough for them to bring credible rumors of corporate agenda and plans to spend in pursuit of them. Political entrepreneurs will move to capture that spend without a single back-alley transaction involving burlap sacks of cash with comically large $ signs printed on the side. It has the same effect, though.
How should politicians be informed on these topics for which they are attempting to regulate? What's the alternative?
I think its entirely reasonable that the industries affected by regulations spend money to combat incorrect information like water usage of data centers.
[flagged]
Can you explain what you mean by
>some humanities or social science majors
this? Im sensing some meaning towards you calling out their degrees.
Your comment implies you have some deep civic understanding so can you expland on what your POV is? Im not american and would like to konw.
It's so cheap that normal people could band together and re-buy democracy. It's the banding together part that is hard.
Many of the groups that spend the most on lobbying are composed of "normal" people who have banded together for some common interest. For example:
- The AARP ($21M annual spend) has 38M members
- The National Association of Realtors ($54M annual spend) has 1.5M members
- The American Medical Association ($24M annual spend) has 300K members
Of course that doesn't mean that their interests necessarily align with your interests.
It really irks me for some reason that American Medical Association (one of the top spenders in lobbying) is doing the lobbying. I did a quick Gemini/Google search and these are the topics they lobby for.
``` Core Legislative PrioritiesMedicare Reform:
Fighting to fix stagnant physician payment formulas and account for inflation.
Prior Authorization: Pushing to reduce administrative roadblocks and delays enforced by insurance companies.
Scope of Practice: Opposing laws that expand independent clinical roles for non-physicians like nurse practitioners and pharmacists.
Burnout Reduction: Supporting federal and organizational relief to help doctors manage workplace stress and administrative tasks.
-- Public Health and Science
Public Health Crises: Supporting science-based policies on vaccinations, gun violence prevention, and chronic disease reduction.
Digital Health: Guiding regulations for artificial intelligence and telehealth integration in medical practices ```
Most of these are about keeping the gate (i.e., doctor's compensation high). The US doctors are the highest paid in the world (among developed countries like UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, etc.) by a long shot. Kind of mad if you think about it.
Disclaimer: My spouse is a specialist doctor. You can say I have selfish interest in keeping doctor's salaries high in the US. But I can't help highlighting that doctor's guilds (like AMA) are part of the reasons why the healthcare expenses are so high in the US.
Also if they want my money then their interests align.
3 replies →
I already pay for my government in taxes (which ironically these big cos don't pay).
Besides, if I were to gather up 4 million to lobby, the opposition would simply spend 8 million instead which they could come up with just as easily. They don't have to outrun the bear, the just have to outrun you.
Yeah, I would like my taxes to go to paying for expertise to help make good governance decisions, personally.
1 reply →
Normal people can't offer speaking fees, consulting gigs, and other sinecures to politicians and their staffers after they leave the government.
Right. That's what actually buys you the politician. Being able to promise "Pass this regulation for us and we'll make sure you are set up for life, since we know it's politically unfavorable"
the ~$2M just gets your foot in the door, that's it.
4 replies →
[dead]
This is what a PAC is. Political Action Committee.
They primarily only get headlines for outrage topics when people don’t like what they’re pushing toward. Many of the top PACs are from groups like realtors or sheet metal workers lobbying for their interests.
Most people skip PACs and donate straight to political candidates instead. Individual donations to candidates outweigh anything the AI companies are spending by a huge number.
Yes, and it’s trivial to form one! If you look up the documentation necessary you may not believe your eyes.
I think of that Netflix series on FIFA and its rampant corruption. The bribes in question are laughable, considering that FIFA is a multi-billion dollar operation, and it's always some round number like $1M. At least add some cents to it so it's not glaringly obvious in the bank accounts.
Are the bribes round, or is it just usual bullshit journalism practice of fudging the numbers and rounding them in the process (usually made apparent when there are multiple reports for the same number, each using different units of currency or measure).
2 replies →
And you cannot offer the Kushner family OpenAI shares. The 4 million is just the surface.
That's how Groupon originally started.
The estimated spending on the 2026 election season is $11.6 billion [1]. One primary has had an estimated $60 million spent on it (ie the Michigan Democratic primary). Thomas Massie's primary had an estimated $35 million spent on it. A GOP Super PAC has earmarked $342 million for 8 Senate races [2].
Over $5 billion was spent on lobbying in 2025 [3].
To truly move policy you need to get pliable representatives first and that's not just money. There is a pipeline here. First, you get the right connections. That could be coming from a wealth family, be the nephew or grandson of some politician, do your time as a staffer or whatever. Going up through the ranks acts as a giant filter to make sure you will maintain the status quo. So you have to find candidates to run for these offices who have been weeded out by the existing processes. And if you don't have enough of them, the DNC or RNC will spend selectively against you in the primary and general election. And an increasing number of races have over $100 million spent on them.
Buying back democracy would be very, very expensive.
And then after all that there's the income and jobs pipeline. Your children get six-figure jobs with think tanks and interested companies. You leave office and get placed on boards of large companies. You can't compete with that.
[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/media-advertising/articles/2026-el...
[2]: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5818507-gop-super-pac-...
[3]: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying
It seems to me that there's really nothing at that store that "normal people" want to buy.
Everything that we want to do can be done through ordinary collaboration with no need for the state. The special services which the state provides (violence and threats of violence, imperialism, inhibition of movement of people and goods across imaginary lines, etc) are the kinds of things that are really only interesting to the kinds of people who are already spending their money on lobbying.
It would not surprise me that the cost of lobbying rises exponentially as the policy moves left on the political spectrum. That pro-business, pro-austerity, neo-liberal policy is orders of magnitude cheaper to lobby for, then pro-worker, pro-democracy, pro-consumer policy.
Pro business is pro consumer.
2 replies →
"re-buy democracy"
It says a lot, if you think about it.
Compared to the bailout they're going to get at some point, because they're vital to national security and whatever, I think you could easily be looking at a 1000x+ return on investment on those numbers.
These numbers are so small that I'm doubly ashamed of all the corruption happening. If politicians at least sold out for fuck-you money, I'd understand, but no.
The real lobbying here is the fact that key politicians own combined billions in AI and related company stock.
It's pocket change now, but they are lobbying hard now knowing well they won't be able to afford it later.
Well you don't want to push the price up any more than you have to since then each subsequent lobby will cost a minimum of that amount.
Wow - so one really good researchers salary/stock grant. I feel like they're underinvesting...
That's what my microeconomics professor said shortly after Citizens United. "If political campaigns were that good of an investment, they'd be investing more!" ...and then they did. Outside spending absolutely took off after 2010 and shows no signs of slowing down. The conclusion he jumped to was false and it was false because he ignored the possibility that price discovery might take a while.
That's most definitely not the real sum.
People need to look at financial kick backs. There is a certain guy here in central Europe who left politics quite recently, but suddenly has 400 million euros wealth - out of nowhere. And nobody questions how he got that ...
The corruption happens not only via direct lobbyism. One has to look at the whole corruption bribe bubble here.
Because lobbying is essentially just the process of petitioning the government. Mostly.
It's buying dinners so you can talk with a Representative or Senator one-on-one. It's traveling to D.C. or the Congressperson's home state. It's paying for studies and etc to support your points. It's financing campaigns of politicians who already agree with your viewpoints. It's not "here's money, make law".
It's also financing campaigns of politicians who don't agree with your viewpoints in the (fully justified) hope that they'll look upon you more favorably if they win. It's thinly veiled promises of cushy jobs after they leave office, if they play ball.
Alternatively, couldn't this be seen as evidence on favor of the "corporate narrative" on lobbying? Namely, that the purpose of lobbying is to ensure politicians have instant and easy access to high-quality, insider information relevant to their decision-making on corporate issues (as opposed to simply being bribed)?
I remember my poli sci teacher on college tried very hard to convince the class of this (with little success).
I have a family member who's a lobbyist. When he talks about his job, a common theme is that a huge amount of his work is trying assess the impacts of policy on businesses (albeit mainly big businesses) and make sure lawmakers are able to take that into consideration. I don't know how well that represents lobbying as a whole, but that part always made sense and didn't seem like a bribe.
Several million dollars, as mentioned in the article, could easily be the cost of paying, e.g., 20 people to perform and communicate an assessment, as opposed to a direct "donation" to a politician. It's not said where that money was spent.
My ex worked at Congress for a few years so I got a little bit of view on the inside. There are a lot of lobbyists who do honest work and try to present correct data. Same for politicians. A lot of them (most?) really want to do a good job and make the country better. But, like in corporations, it's the psychopaths that only care for their own benefit and nothing else, who make it to the top and get to make the big decisions.
My ex was around when they worked on Obamacare. There were a lot of really good ideas floating around that had broad buy-in but then the super partisans and corrupt (say Lieberman and Baucus) destroyed it and created a big, but profitable for some, mess.
And with the increased spending after Citizens United it's only going to get worse.
Reminds me of the time Tony Blair left office and went to work for JP Morgan Chase.
https://www.forbes.com/2008/01/10/jpmorgan-consultancy-advis...
I never understood that narrative either. You won't get high quality information from someone that is paying you for influence. You will get a lopsided/biased perspective, and the unwritten expectation is you will use it or contributions will cease.
Congress can and does ask companies for their expertise/stance on any given issue or policy, for free. They want to be involved for the same reason they lobby.
The same could be said about the judicial system though, right? Both the prosecution and defense are paid to influence the judge, and will naturally provide a biased perspective. But that doesn't mean there's not high quality information within.
I don't think biased information is a total dead end, but the onus is just on judges and politicians to tease out information from more than one angle. And often they don't.
It always has been. Frankly, sometimes they don't even spend anything at all at lower levels, it's just a conversation, a meeting with an animatronic bureaucrat high on their own self-importance and power, in a mandatory spending jukebox of incompetence and failure. I have seen people squander millions simply because they were too incompetent to properly run an organization, plan, and budget and they needed to spend the money merely so it is not taken from them next budget cycle. I am also witness to corruption and nepotism that wildly enriches people merely because doing so is easy and does not require actual work.
The return on "lobbying" for corporations is immense, actually, it's a bit of a high cost, high return with some risks type of dynamic; but especially in the Beltway bandit den and increasingly in the silicon cartel valley they have worked out a systematic methodology for bamboozling and manipulating utterly inadequately prepared bureaucrats squandering other people's money with approaching zero consequences. No, even they not only don't face consequences, they are promoted faster the better and faster they can squander money and enrich friends and associates.
Forget the lobby, the parlor is where it's at.