Amazon's California Lobbying Spend Reaches New High, Mirroring Federal Advocacy
Amazon.com Inc. spent a record amount lobbying California lawmakers in the third quarter, mirroring its recent highest-ever binge on advocacy in Washington, D.C. Amazon spent $136,660 on state lobbying services between July and September, the highest quarterly figure for the company since it began filing reports with the Secretary of State's office in 2000.
November 03, 2017 at 07:42 AM
4 minute read
An Amazon delivery truck. Photo credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM
Amazon.com Inc. spent a record amount lobbying California lawmakers in the third quarter, mirroring its recent highest-ever binge on advocacy in Washington, D.C.
Amazon spent $136,660 on state lobbying services between July and September, the highest quarterly figure for the company since it began filing reports with the Secretary of State's office in 2000.
The new filings show a $20,160 payment to Sally Kay of the company government affairs division plus $116,500 in fees billed by three lobbying firms. One of those firms is Gonzalez, Quintana, Hunter & Cruz, a go-to Sacramento shop for tech companies. The firm's clients include Facebook Inc., FanDuel Inc. and Dropbox Inc.
Amazon's California lobbying bill pales in comparison to the record $3.4 million it spent on federal issues in the third quarter. The Seattle-based company, with a beefed-up in-house lobbying team, has tried to forge a political path with lawmakers and regulators in Washington who are increasingly scrutinizing its size and influence. Amazon acquired Whole Foods for $13.7 billion this summer.
In Sacramento, Amazon's political concerns reflected efforts to protect the nuts and bolts of its business in a more regulatory friendly state. Records show the company lobbied on a bill, ultimately unsuccessful, to give local government agencies rule-setting authority over drone flights—deliver or otherwise.
Company lobbyists also weighed in on legislative proposals to regulate connected devices, such as Amazon's Alexa, and to create new permitting requirements for meal delivery services. Amazon's ready-to-prepare “Meal Kits” went on sale this summer.
Most of Amazon's work was done behind the scenes. Policy committees' analyses of bills this year don't record support or opposition by the company.
Amazon's third-quarter spending in California is almost three times higher than the amount it spent over the same three months in 2016.
Lyft Inc. also set a company record for state lobbying expenses in the third quarter, with $175,608 in advocacy spending.
Filings show a $46,200 payment to Dewey Square Group's Sacramento office plus $128,525 in charges from Mercury Public Affairs, KP Public Affairs and Rachelle Chong Strategic Consulting. Chong is a former member of the Public Utilities Commission, the state agency that oversees ride-hailing companies.
Lyft's reported lobbying interests included bills to allow hail-by-app drivers to accept credit card tips, to allow those drivers to obtain just one county or city business license and to crack down on non-permitted testing of autonomous vehicles. Lyft also lobbied the Department of Motor Vehicles on self-driving car regulations now in their final stages of development, according to the filings. Lyft partnered with Waymo, Alphabet Inc.'s self-driving unit, in May.
Uber Technologies Inc. spent a bit more on lobbying than its chief competitor—$175,769—though the amount is not a company record. The company reported paying former Assemblyman Mike Gatto $30,000. That money, he said, was for legal services provided to Uber by his new firm, Actium LLP, not lobbying. Uber reported a similar $30,000 payment to Jeremiah Hallisey, a San Francisco attorney and Democratic fundraiser. Uber's lobbying targets were also similar to those of Lyft.
Quarterly lobbying payments by other tech giants—Facebook Inc. ($37,962), Google Inc. ($61,279), Apple Inc. ($27,406)—were largely in line with past spending for similar three-month periods.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readOpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
Meta Seeks Declaratory Judgment in VR Eyewear Tech Patent Infringement Case
Trending Stories
- 1AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 2Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
- 3Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 4'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 5Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250