House of Cards is not the only way Netflix flexed its presence on Capitol Hill in 2013. It’s also using money.
The rental and streaming company rapidly built up its lobbying efforts in 2013. Just four years ago, the company spent $20,000 on lobbying. Last year, it dropped $1.2 million, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. It’s still ranked well below many other computer and Internet companies on lobbying dollars, though.
Netflix is making money for some lawmakers, too. As the Center for Public Integrity points out, a handful of members on the Hill have money invested in the company. Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas owned between $16,002 and $65,000 in company stock, while Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey owned between $15,001 and $50,000.
The company’s lobbying has focused on net neutrality, which would keep Internet providers from giving preferential treatment or fining sites based on how much bandwidth they use. Netflix has a lot to lose or gain in the policy debate. At peak times, Netflix accounts for roughly one-third of North America bandwidth.
A January federal-court ruling has left the status of net-neutrality rules in limbo. The White House, for its part, reaffirmed its support of net neutrality in response this week to a whitehouse.gov petition. And newly proposed legislation in Congress would temporarily keep the rules in place.
Newly proposed bills means a lobbying bonanza, right? Well, it’s unclear which tech companies will actually throw their weight behind the legislation this time around. Google, which has become an Internet provider in its own right, isn’t a lock to put its massive support behind the latest neutrality efforts. But Netflix, with all the cash it dropped in 2013, could position itself as a major power player.
What We're Following See More »
The Supreme Court announced "that it would consider a challenge to President Trump’s latest effort to limit travel from countries said to pose a threat to the nation’s security." The case concerns Trump's most recent attempt to make good on a campaign promise "tainted by religious animus" and only questionably justified by national security concerns. The decision to take the case, called Trump v. Hawaii, comes almost exactly a year after Trump issued the first travel ban. The ban under consideration affects Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea.
Trump wants to move the two grants, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas grant and the Drug Free Communities Act, to the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, respectively. This would result in a $300 million plus reduction in funding, about 95 percent of the cost of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "'I’m baffled at the idea of cutting the office or reducing it significantly and taking away its programs in the middle of an epidemic,'" said Regina LaBelle, who served as ONDCP chief of staff during the Obama administration. This is the second time the Trump Administration has proposed gutting the agency.
A new report assembled by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has identified more than 500 potential conflicts of interest in President Trump's first year. First, the report notes, Trump spent 122 days at his properties during his first year. He has been accompanied by 70 federal officials and 30 members of Congress. "Second, far from this signaled access to power being an empty promise, those who patronize President Trump’s businesses have, in fact, gained access to the president and his inner circle." Lastly, about 40 special interest groups and 11 foreign governments have held events at Trump properties.