State lawmakers seeking to regulate the tech sector face an arsenal of industry-funded trade groups that together comprise a formidable opposition front.
The full-court press in America’s statehouses aims to maximize the lobbying potency of an industry that includes some of the largest companies in the world, including Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta.
Pluribus News identified at least a dozen tech trade groups that engage at the state level, serving as a force multiplier for their member companies who often also have their own lobbying teams.
The groups are waging battle as lawmakers have increasingly sought to tackle issues such as consumer data privacy, children’s online safety and, most recently, artificial intelligence. They often say their role is not simply to oppose regulations, but to help state lawmakers pass workable and constitutional laws.
“There is more than enough for multiple organizations to work on, so quite frankly there’s a bit of zone defense going on,” said Matthew Schruers, president and CEO of one of these groups, the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
The tech association phalanx reflects the breadth of the industry itself. It spans an array of sectors including advertisers, app developers, software makers, hardware manufacturers, online marketplaces and social media platforms.
“There is no ‘tech industry,’” Schruers said. “Technology is so widely suffused across the economy that everything is part of the tech industry.”
While each tech lobby group has its area of speciality or focus, they often have overlapping membership rosters, creating a latticework of influence. Some groups represent specific sectors of the technology industry, while others have broader memberships that draw companies from across multiple sectors.
A couple of the organizations have staked out ideological orientations. NetChoice espouses a libertarian ethos of “free enterprise and free expression” and frequently sues to overturn state efforts to tax or regulate tech.
Chamber of Progress, founded in 2020 by former Google executive Adam Kovacevich, says it is “devoted to a progressive society, economy, workforce, and consumer climate.” Kovacevich said that in the current political environment where “a lot of politics is about culture, not economics,” it makes sense to approach policy through a partisan lens.
“My motivation of starting this, honestly, is I’m a pro-tech Democrat, and I want to join the debate that Democrats are having amongst themselves.” Kovacevich told Pluribus News.
Kovacevich acknowledged that Chamber of Progress, like other tech groups, spends a lot of time “fighting adverse bills.” The difference, he said, is his organization crafts arguments against tech regulations that are more likely to resonate with progressive policymakers. For instance, making the case that a delivery tax is regressive or a social media regulation could unintentionally harm marginalized communities.
Critics of the tech lobby say these are differences without a distinction.
“The political branding of these groups may be designed to appeal to Republicans or Democrats, but ultimately they are rowing in the same direction, which is to fight any form of tech regulation in Congress, state legislatures, and the courts,” said Katie Paul, director of the Tech Transparency Project, which recently released a database of advocacy groups, think tanks and nonprofits that receive funding from Apple, Amazon, Google and Meta.
Those companies did not comment for this story. On a webpage about its political engagement, Meta says its third-party memberships are a way to “participate in conversations about the issues that directly affect our company.” The company adds: “we do not always agree with every policy or position that individual organizations or their leadership take.”
Both NetChoice and Chamber of Progress say their member companies do not have a vote on the positions they take.
The tech industry trade group ecosystem experienced a realignment in 2021 with the demise of the once powerful Internet Association. Today, nearly 90 companies across the entire tech economy — from smaller startups to autonomous vehicle companies — are represented by TechNet, a bipartisan network of technology CEOs and senior executives founded in 1997.
In addition to its work at the federal level, TechNet boasts an unparalleled 50-state lobbying program. David Edmonson, TechNet’s senior vice president for state policy and government relations, said having multiple groups working on tech policy in the states is “additive.”
“It’s definitely beneficial to our industry when different groups that are involved in the legislative process are kind of rowing in the same direction, but we all have our own independent priorities,” Edmonson said.
The abundance of tech lobby groups is consistent with the nature of trade associations, according to Lynette Spillman, a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Notre Dame who wrote a book on the topic. Spillman said trade groups are relatively easy to form and generally have a low barrier to entry.
“There is actually no knock-down evidence anywhere that associations generally help their members’ bottom line directly,” Spillman said. “But the cultural production they do is relatively cheap, so big corporations can join any number as a sort of insurance policy.”
Read more: Tech lobbying spending surges in states
The tech lobby’s record of success in state legislatures has been mixed. After California enacted a comprehensive data privacy law in 2018, industry lobbyists helped craft an alternative model, versions of which were subsequently passed in more than a dozen states.
More recently, industry efforts to stop lawmakers in both red and blue states from passing social media regulations have generally failed. But NetChoice has delivered a counterpunch by successfully suing to block many of those laws from taking effect.
AI is the latest battlefront, with lobbying fights playing out this year in states from California to Connecticut and with more expected next year.
Industry groups have a built-in advantage because it is easier to stop or slow down a bill than it is to pass one. Lawmakers on the receiving end of the tech lobby this year attested to its potency.
A broad coalition of business interests, including tech groups, successfully fought Maine Rep. Maggie O’Neil’s (D) efforts to pass one of the toughest data privacy laws in the nation.
“Very rarely did we hear directly from a Facebook or a Google or an Amazon. … There were organizations that lobbied on their behalf,” O’Neil said earlier this year.
California Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D) teamed with Common Sense Media to pass what would have been a first-in-the-nation law to fine social media companies up to $1 million for harms to children. The bill sailed through the Assembly but hit turbulence in the Senate where the fines were cut down to $250,000 and the legal threshold for triggering the law was raised.
Tech groups had warned in a letter that if the bill was passed, social media companies would have to “dramatically restrict content or cease operations for kids under 17.” Rather than pass what he considered a weak law, Lowenthal shelved the proposal in the final hours of the legislative session.
Colorado Sen. Chris Hansen (D) sponsored legislation to require social media companies to verify the age of users and take additional steps to protect teenagers. It died in the House after critics said it could negatively affect online access to information about abortion care and support for LGBTQ youth.
“Those are two red herrings that the tech industry has used to try to kill bills,” Hansen said.
He plans to reintroduce a revised version of the bill next year and said he is confident he can overcome the arguments that killed it this year.
“There’s just a huge amount of support for protecting kids,” said Hansen, a father of two teenage boys. “I’m not scared of these tech firms. They need to be accountable for their products.”