Thousands of comments from businesses small and large flooded the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in recent weeks as the Trump administration weighs imposing tariffs on nearly $300 billion worth of certain Chinese products.

The U.S. trade office this week began a series of public hearings at which business owners and executives were preparing to testify against, or in support of, the Trump administration's proposed tariffs. The hearings in Washington are set to run through June 25. Read the schedule of witnesses here.

Major U.S. law firms, representing client interests, submitted many of the comments to Robert Lighthizer, the former Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom partner who now serves as the U.S. Trade Representative. Here's a snapshot at some of the Big Law firms said in the letters to Lighthizer (and you can peruse the full docket of comments here):

>> Foley & Lardner, on behalf of Toshiba America Business Solutions Inc. Toshiba opposed tariffs on certain printers, copiers, scanners and fax machines. “Because these multi-function units and parts are frequently used across the U.S. economy, the tariffs represent a broad-based tax on U.S. consumers and businesses,” Gregory Husisian, chair of Foley & Lardner's international trade and national security practice, said in the letter. Associate Jenlain Scott in Washington was also on the submission. “The proposed tariffs would be a tax on numerous small-and-medium-sized businesses, and would do nothing to help any U.S. industry.”

King & Spalding sign King & Spalding, Atlanta HQ. Photo: John Disney/ALM

>> King & Spalding, on behalf of Rheem Manufacturing, the heating and cooling company, said it supports retaining tariffs on certain parts related to air conditioners. “There is ample availability of these air conditioner products from domestic and non-Chinese foreign suppliers,” King & Spalding partner J. Michael Taylor and counsel Daniel Schneiderman said in their comment to the U.S. trade office.

>> Drinker Biddle & Reath, on behalf of Best Buy Co. Inc., said it opposed proposed tariffs on products including laptop computers, televisions, gaming consoles and smart watches. “Best Buy intends to provide testimony on the inefficacy of the proposed tariffs in achieving the objectives outlined by the USTR in its Section 301 report and the impact of the proposed tariffs on Best Buy, the industry and U.S. consumers,” Drinker Biddle partners Nathaniel Bolin and Douglas Heffner, both based in Washington, said in their comment.

>> Venable, on behalf of VeriFone Inc., the point-of-sale terminal vendor, said “it is concerned that the proposed tariff increases will severely impact U.S. merchants, especially those that are small, medium and local.” The comment, filed by Venable partner Alexander Koff, added: “Verifone's position is that imposing the proposed duties … would not be practicable or effective to curb or eliminate the acts, policies, and practices of China” that the U.S. trade office identified as problematic.

>> Alston & Bird, on behalf of Balsam Brands Inc., the artificial Christmas tree retailer: “Balsam Hill urges the USTR to exclude pre-lit artificial Christmas trees from the final list of Chinese goods for imposition of Section 301 tariffs. Balsam Hill's artificial Christmas trees are constructed primarily of plastics, and most come decorated with lights and are known as pre-lit artificial Christmas trees,” Jason Waite, international trade partner in Washington, wrote in the letter to the trade office. Waite noted that nearly all “artificial Christmas trees sold in the United States are manufactured in China and no viable alternative sources of supplies are available for American consumers.”

>> Hogan Lovells, on behalf of Spectrum Brands Holdings, maker of many household, home and garden and pet care items, said proposed tariffs on various electric appliances “are inappropriate and would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. manufacturing, jobs and consumers. These tariffs would harm multiple American brands and potentially lead to a loss of market share to foreign competitors,” Hogan Lovells counsel Jared Wessel in Washington wrote.

Mayer Brown Mayer Brown offices in Washington, DC. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ

>> Mayer Brown, on behalf of Evenflo Co. Inc., maker of car seats, strollers and other children's products: “[I]imposing a 25 percent additional duty on products that are essential to the health and safety of infants and children (and in some cases, are required by law) would not be practicable or effective to obtain the elimination of China's relevant unfair acts, policies and practices, and would cause disproportionate economic harm to U.S. interests,” Mayer Brown trade partner Sydney Mintzer wrote.

>> Arent Fox, on behalf of Christie Digital Systems USA Inc., maker of certain visual and audio products that the cinema and entertainment industries use: “The proposed tariffs on the subject products imported by Christie will not further the administration's goal of eliminating China's acts, policies and practices, and will cause disproportionate harm to Christie, its employees and its customers,” Arent Fox trade partner Teresa Polino wrote. Associate Elyssa Kutner was also on the letter.