Top companies and organizations lobbying Congress and federal agencies

April 21, 2015 -- Monday, April 20, marked the deadline for companies and organizations to file their 2015 first quarter federal lobbying disclosure reports. Below is a list of the top ten organizations and how much they spent lobbying Congress and federal agencies between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2015. DATA: MapLight analysis of the money spent by companies and organizations lobbying Congress and federal agencies between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2015, on all issues. Data Source: Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. Lobbying Organization Amount Spent on Lobbying Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A. $13,800,000 National Association of Realtors $7,700,000 American Medical Association $6,720,000 U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform $5,720,000 Google, Inc. $5,470,000 Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America $5,440,000 General Electric Company $4,750,000 National Association of Broadcasters $4,720,000 American Electric Power Company, Inc. and affiliated corporations $4,685,670 American Hospital Association $4,630,000 The top spender, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, spent $13.8 million on lobbying Congress and federal agencies during the first quarter of 2015. The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce, spent another $5.7 million on lobbying. Google spent $5.5 million on lobbying during the first quarter of 2015, the most it has ever spent in one quarter. To see how much each company has spent on lobbying since 2008, please click here to viewMapLight's Federal Lobbying Database. Lobbying Methodology: MapLight analysis of federal lobbying disclosure filings from the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2015. Lobbying totals represent money paid by an organization to each lobbying firm for services on all issues. Organizations report total lobbying expenses as a lump sum, which includes both in-house lobbying expenses and amounts paid to (and reported by) lobbying firms that they employ. MapLight calculates a given organization's in-house lobbying expenses by subtracting the total income reported by the lobbying firms that it employs from the company's total reported expenses. In general, filers may round their spending and expenses to the nearest $10,000, and we treat the designation of "Less than $5,000" as a value of $0. MapLight updates its lobbying database daily to capture amendments. Full reports are due on the 20th day of January, April, July, and October. Editor's note: Please cite MapLight if you use data from this analysis, "A MapLight analysis of federal lobbying disclosure filings show.." (or something similar - thank you!) A link to this report can be foundhere. MapLight is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan research organization that tracks money's influence on politics.

Coke/Pepsi Money Behind Soda Tax Opposition Spending in CA

November 4, 2014 --  American Beverage Association California PAC is spending millions of dollars to defeat sugar tax initiatives in both San Francisco and Berkeley, California this election. MapLight, a nonpartisan research organization that tracks money in politics, conducted an analysis of California Secretary of State data that shows how much money soda companies have contributed to American Beverage Association California PAC over the past *election cycle:

AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION CA PACTOP CONTRIBUTORS	AMOUNT
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY	$5,840,940
PEPSICO INCORPORATED AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES	$4,416,235
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC./MOTT'S LLP	$1,871,594
RED BULL NORTH AMERICA	$139,669
SUNNY DELIGHT BEVERAGES COMPANY	$39,303

Daniel G. Newman, the President and Co-founder of MapLight, said,

 "when one side has 10 times more resources than the other, it makes a mockery of what our democracy is supposed to be like. The side that has 10 times more money can send more mailers, hire high powered political and marketing consultants, advertising agencies, and people to walk door to door to deliver their message to voters. It creates distorted conditions for voters to effectively make decisions about laws they want and ultimately have to live by."

Daniel Newman is available for interviews throughout the evening and all day tomorrow to provide commentary on Measure D in Berkeley and Measure E in San Francisco. Note: MapLight is based in California, PST.

Methodology:

MapLight analysis of campaign contributions to the American Beverage Association California PAC, a 501(c)6, from The Coca-Cola Company, Pepsico Incorporated and Affiliated Entities, Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. / Mott's LLP, Red Bull North America, Sunny Delight Beverages Company from *January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2014. Data source: California Secretary of State

Should Paula Deen have apologized?

Fox News' Sean Hannity asks "Should Paula Deen have apologized?"

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2503654756001/should-paula-deen-have-apologized?intcmp=related?playlist_id=929831930001

Coombs wrote:

"Apology is the most complex and perhaps controversial of the crisis response strategies. It is critical to differentiate between full and partial apologies. A full apology must acknowledge the crisis, accept responsibility, include a promise not to repeat the crisis, and express concern and regret (Kellerman, 2006). A partial apology is typically just an expression of concern and regret. Why the split? The answer is legal liability. Accepting responsibility results in organizations losing lawsuits related to the crisis. If an organization says it is responsible, it must pay in court. As noted earlier, the expression of concern or regret does not carry the same liabilities (Cohen, 2002). A person must be careful when using the term apology. That is why full apology is specified and treated as separate from an expression of concern."

Source: W. Timothy Coombs. (2012). Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Influential Seniors Group Launches "Equal Time" – an Online Media Education Project

Advocates Seek Balance Currently Missing in Deficit Debate Coverage

Contrary to the headlines and soundbites coming from America's newsrooms, Social Security and Medicare aren't to blame for our nation's fiscal woes or our deficit.  In fact, without these vital programs our economy would be in even worse shape and millions more American families would be threatened with economic insecurity. Why do so many journalists and news/talk-show hosts ignore the facts in favor of one-sided propaganda?  Why won't they allow all sides to weigh on these important issues?  Whatever the reasons, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare believes the public deserves more balanced research and discussion.  The truth about our nation's most successful and revered programs deserves EQUAL TIME.

Our new project, EQUAL TIME, will bust through the myths and misleading statements in the news about Social Security and Medicare. We will find and correct the factual errors and politically charged perspectives. We'll use social media like Facebook and Twitter to inform the reporters, pundits and anchors when they've been the subject of an EQUAL TIME correction. In this way, we hope to influence the mainstream media to use facts, not fiction, in their coverage of these important programs.  An online form will also provide an easy way for advocates and citizens nationwide to submit news stories in which the media got it wrong and NCPSSM will track it down to provide the truth about Social Security and Medicare.
EQUAL TIME is at http://www.ncpssm.org/equaltime

Here is an example of an Equal Time post:

Quote: “Entitlements are squeezing out public investments”

“This shift in public resources is dramatic and growing. While 14 cents of every federal dollar not going to interest was spent on entitlement programs in 1962, the amount is 47 cents today, and it will reach 61 cents by 2030, according to an analysis of government data by Third Way, a centrist-Democratic think tank.”

Source: The Associated Press, Entitlement Programs Thrive Amid Gridlock, Shifting Money from Younger Generations to Older

Reporter: Charles Babington

Date: May 10, 2013

Correction:

This Associated Press story reads like a news release written by the multi-million dollar austerity lobby offering readers zero balance, zero analysis, zero context and plenty of factual errors.

Social Security is an earned benefit paid for with the FICA contributions of generations of American workers.  Suggesting that repaying the Social Security Trust Fund for the trillions of dollars in contributions already made by those workers is a “shift in public resources” or that it squeezes “out public investments” shows a complete lack of understanding of how the Trust Fund works.   It’s also the core message in a Wall-street funded intergenerational warfare propaganda campaign which attempts to pit young versus old while ignoring the real challenges facing young people – income inequity, joblessness and a stagnant economy. The fact that more benefits will be paid to the large baby boom generation (who also built up the $2.7 trillion—and growing -- trust fund to pay for it) than to a smaller retiree cohort in 1962 is the classic case of how to manipulate the truth with statistics.

Had this reporter talked to just one Social Security or Medicare expert, he would have seen the fallacy of the propaganda offered by Wall Street backed groups, like the Third Way, which advocate for cuts to Social Security and Medicare to pay down the deficit.

Deepwater BP Oil Spill: Presidential Press Conference

The BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill occurred April 20, 2010. President Obama met with the press on May 27.

Media coverage negative on Romney

The Washington-based Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism found that “positive stories about Obama (29%) outnumbered negative ones (19%) by 10 points in the week leading up to the voting” on Nov. 6.

The survey of 59 news outlets found that Romney got considerably more negative coverage, both at the end of the campaign and in the period dating back to the nominating conventions, beginning in late August.

Journalism ethics an obvious problem in presidential campaign

The Blaze reported two examples today of a failure of journalists to act ethically.

One was in the questioning of VP candidate Paul Ryan by a local reporter. Ryan had explained the need for economic development and education to cut crime.

Out of nowhere the reporter asked: “And you can do all that by cutting taxes? With a big tax cut?”

“Those are your words not mine,” Ryan responded.

One of the basic principles of good reporting is neutrality.  Another is that you don't ask loaded questions.  This reporter like many on the campaign trail needs a lesson in Journalist 101.

The other incident was more serious because it was perpetrated by Associated Press editors. The AP released to papers a picture without context that seemed to show a young girl's surprise while looking down at presidential candidate Mitt Romney's backend. The next pictures of the girl and Romeny showed it was not surprise, but rather excitement.

Steve Manuel, senior lecturer at Penn State’s College of Communications and an award-winning photojournalist, said the AP would have known how the image would be perceived.
“In this photo, while it may appear funny, AP knows exactly what viewers are thinking,” he wrote in an email. “It’s not legitimate news. AP knows that viewers are going to chuckle and imagine what the little girl is seeing, and it makes Gov. Romney appear a bit foolish. That isn’t the purpose or mission of photojournalism. … Candidate or not, it is not the mission of a news organization to place anyone in a position to be ridiculed or made fun of. Reporting the news is, and this is not newsworthy.”

The National Press Photographers Association code of ethics offers some guidance in the selection and presentation of photos: “Treat all subjects with respect and dignity,” it says. And also, “Be complete and provide context when photographing or recording subjects.”