Lobbying

  • |

    The AI Revolving Door Has Entered Its ‘Let Them Cook’ Era

    ByPhil McCracken

    Phil McCracken here, checking the kitchen pass in Washington, where the national AI strategy is being prepared by people whose professional networks already know the technology industry’s preferred recipe. A recent Revolving Door Project report focuses on Sriram Krishnan, describing his technology and venture-capital background, his role as a White House AI adviser, and his continued advisory connection to the administration. That is not proof of misconduct. It is, however, a reminder that the revolving door now spins fast enough to generate its own electricity.

    The administration’s AI Action Plan calls for faster deployment, expanded data-center construction, permitting reform, government procurement, and reduced regulation. Each item can be defended as a national priority. Each can also produce very agreeable weather for technology companies, investors, contractors, and the lobbyists who help translate public urgency into private opportunity. When the same policy menu serves the public mission and the industry ecosystem, the public deserves more than a chef’s hat and a promise that nothing is burning.

    Then comes the invoice-shaped detail. A 2024 lobbying disclosure reports $100,000 in lobbying income for Cornerstone Government Affairs work on behalf of Andreessen Horowitz, covering technology, blockchain, cryptocurrency, energy, and related issues. That filing does not prove a particular policy was purchased, and nobody should turn alignment into an ethics verdict by vibes alone. But it does establish the kind of money trail voters are entitled to inspect when public officials are shaping rules that can affect private investment.

    This is the practical problem with calling every acceleration “necessity.” Data centers require land, power, water, roads, permits, workers, and eventually somebody else’s utility bill. Procurement decisions determine whose systems enter public agencies. Deregulation determines who bears the risk when the promised miracle arrives with a maintenance contract. The country may need serious AI policy, but seriousness includes disclosing the relationships around the recipe, not merely announcing that dinner is patriotic.

    “Let them cook” is the only slogan honest enough for this arrangement. Fine—but let taxpayers see who supplied the ingredients, who wrote the menu, and who receives the catering bill. Public service should not be disqualified by an industry résumé, yet industry influence should never be hidden behind national urgency. Follow the invoice, and the kitchen gets less mysterious.

  • |

    The Public Gets the Bill, Defense Contractors Get the Toast

    ByPhil McCracken

    Phil McCracken here, following the invoice from the gas pump to the grocery aisle and finding the public assigned every unpleasant line item: human cost, rising bills, debt, and worker anxiety. Meanwhile, the defense-contract approval arrives with a little more ceremony—pressed suits, tax dollars, and the sort of toast usually reserved for winning a casino you do not own. The point is not that one contract magically sets every household price. The point is who gets told to sacrifice and who gets to call the spending a success.

    In Washington’s favorite accounting system, patriotic duty travels downward while procurement access travels upward. Families receive minimum due, late fees, interest, and a lecture about resilience; the connected class receives an approved invoice and another reason to clink glasses. Companies such as Lockheed Martin may be lawful contractors, but the public still deserves to know whether the machinery serves security or simply keeps private revenue ahead of public accountability. Follow the invoice long enough and the punchline writes itself: taxpayers get the past-due notice, while somebody else gets the champagne receipt.

  • |

    The Grand Nagus Trump Hotel Has One Rule: First the Lobby, Then the Favor

    ByPhil McCracken

    I follow invoices the way a diner waitress checks a fake coupon: politely, and straight to the fine print. At the fictional Trump Ferengi Prime Hotel, the concierge calls pardons, lobbying, donor upgrades, and presidential access “premium service.” The contradiction is doing cartwheels in a gold lobby: calling influence customer service does not make it conflict-free. It makes public power look like a loyalty program for guests who can afford the presidential suite.

    Downstairs, ordinary voters do not receive a gold keycard or a fast-track favor. They get the building, the bureaucracy, and the bill, while money and proximity are dressed up as hospitality. Follow the invoice far enough and the room service starts looking like private influence billed against public trust. The hotel promises that everyone wins—well, everyone with a reservation. For the rest of us, gratitude is strongly encouraged, and the only complimentary item is the taxpayer’s bill.

  • |

    When Power Has a Cover Charge

    ByPhil McCracken

    I followed the invoice into Washington’s VIP room, where a few lobbyists and big donors can treat public power like a discount membership club: campaign cash at the desk, favors in the coat check, and the pen available by appointment. The access economy calls this efficiency. That is a lovely word for keeping the customer list short.

    Millions of ordinary people are less convenient. They ask questions, remember promises, compare receipts, and refuse to fit neatly inside a catered meeting. Broad participation does not make corruption impossible, but it makes concentrated influence harder to purchase quietly and harder to disguise as public service. The money trail wore cologne until the whole country walked into the room. Suddenly, democracy had an invoice nobody could quietly expense.

  • |

    The Loophole Is Math Until the Lobbyist Gets the Bill

    ByPhil McCracken

    I followed the invoice, and it leads to carried interest: a tax preference that could be treated more like ordinary income, with a cited Yale Budget Lab estimate putting potential ten-year revenue at $87.7 billion. That is apparently when private equity lobbyists discover arithmetic is radical. Suddenly, investment, jobs, and billionaire geography are summoned like emergency witnesses.

    Ordinary people are routinely told the tax code is just math, especially when the bill lands on their kitchen table. But when the invoice reaches private equity, the calculator becomes a panic button. The argument is not necessarily that every warning is impossible; it is that a favored tax treatment gets dressed up as the load-bearing wall of the economy. Follow the invoice long enough and the outrage looks less like national peril than a class-specific billing dispute.

  • |

    The Drug-Price Mystery Has a Lobbying Budget

    ByPhil McCracken

    Patients receive a prescription bill written like a ransom note from an accountant, while the pharmaceutical industry’s Washington invoice arrives in plain English. Bloomberg Government reported that PhRMA spent $7.4 million lobbying in the second quarter of 2026, bringing its year-to-date total to $19.6 million. I have seen less money spent renovating an entire Capitol Hill office, although admittedly fewer people were trying to influence the rulebook.

    That spending does not, by itself, prove that lobbying caused any particular drug price or defeated any particular proposal. It does reveal something less mysterious: the trade group representing major pharmaceutical interests has a very clear budget for being present while everyone else debates why medicine costs so much. When an industry spends millions to participate in the policy conversation, “expertise” starts looking a lot like a reserved seat with better coffee.

    The timing is the whole money trail. Washington continued debating Medicare negotiation, most-favored-nation pricing, and other proposals aimed at lowering costs. Those are policy arguments, not settled outcomes, and they deserve scrutiny on their details. But patients are routinely told that drug pricing is too complex for ordinary people to understand, just as the people affected by the bill are asked to wait outside the room while well-funded representatives explain the machinery.

    That is the access economy in its natural habitat: the public gets a maze of rebates, formularies, negotiations, and carefully polished explanations; lobbyists get calendars, meetings, and a professional vocabulary for turning private interests into public homework. The pharmaceutical lobbying total reported by Bloomberg Government is not the entire industry’s spending, and it is not evidence of illegal conduct. It is simply a large, legible number attached to an argument that is often presented as impossibly complicated.

    So Washington keeps searching for the missing answer to drug prices. Meanwhile, the money trail has already found the billing department. Patients get the mystery, lobbyists get the appointment calendar, and taxpayers get another explanation for why reform remains under review.

    Sources

  • |

    Follow the Money: The “Suspicious Trading” Money Trail (Not a Legal Conclusion)

    ByPhil McCracken

    Here’s the “Suspicious Trading Money Trail” setup: in the second Trump administration timeline the poster is pointing at, policy timing and portfolio gains supposedly line up—Nvidia, Dell, Intel, Amazon, Microsoft, Vistra & Eaton, “625 ‘Unsolicited’ Trades,” and “Inflation / Fed Timing”—and then it waves a “Not a legal conclusion” receipt like that ends the conversation.

    The contradiction is the same every time: it’s marketed like a scandal-list pattern, but it’s protected like financial astrology. Voters aren’t asking for a legal conclusion—they’re asking for the receipts: disclosures, records, and daylight, because coincidence shouldn’t require a straight face.

  • |

    Drain the Swamp? Cool—Here’s Your Invoice

    ByPhil McCracken

    I file this under Lex Luthor government billing practices: STEP 1 is sue the taxpayers, taxpayers are on the hook, and the “big threat, big number” is a ten-billion-dollar lawsuit stapled to Trump Tower paperwork. Then Step 2 arrives with a straight face: call it “fiscal responsibility,” like the country just got a receipt for being wronged.

    Because the magic trick isn’t draining anything. It’s turning public money into private leverage and informing you—nicely—that you’re the payment method: taxpayer funds, paid for by you. He didn’t drain the swamp / He sent it an invoice.

  • |

    He Sued the Country, Settled with Himself, and Sent the Invoice to ‘Us.

    ByPhil McCracken

    A “settlement” is supposed to stop the bleeding, not turn it into a branded billing cycle. But in the pretend checklist it goes like this: TRUMP GETS FORMAL APOLOGY, PAST IRS AUDIT SHIELD, and a POLITICAL PAYOUT MACHINE with a tidy $1.176 BILLION line—and, naturally, MORE DONOR MYTHOLOGY.

    Then the other column taps the glass: TAXPAYERS GET THE BILL, HIGHER COSTS, WEAKER DEMOCRACY, and ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY. If they’re calling it accountability, it sure looks like accountability arrives as paperwork… delivered to us.

  • |

    Transparency Still Works Like a Paperwork Escape Room

    ByPhil McCracken

    I keep hearing Washington say “transparency” like it’s a universal solvent, but the Lobbying Disclosure Act feels less like a ledger and more like a paperwork escape room: you can fill out the forms and still not reach the accountability exit. Follow the invoice, sure—if the invoice came with missing pages and a help desk that answers in sunsets.

    GAO’s report GAO-26-108486 puts numbers on the vibes. It found potential non-disclosure issues in roughly 22% of LD-2 reports related to required “covered positions.” And on enforcement, GAO says the U.S. Attorney’s Office received 12,391 referrals for failure to file from 2016–2025, with only about 46% resolved as compliant by December 2025. That’s not “all clear, citizens”—that’s “the system is still processing your certainty.”

    This is where the revolving-door PR line starts selling a magic trick: if influence is disclosed, then influence is fully knowable. But GAO is describing a disclosure pipeline that depends on accurate “covered position” reporting and timely follow-through on failure-to-file referrals. When transparency depends on whether paperwork was correctly completed and whether referrals get resolved fast enough, the experience for ordinary taxpayers stops being legibility and starts being roulette with forms.

    So yes, transparency exists. But what the design really delivers is a choose-your-own-adventure version of governance—where the accountability ending depends on compliance quality, referral volume, and processing timelines rather than voter consent. If the public’s “read the receipts” plan comes with missing labels and an aging stack of unresolved referrals, don’t call it transparency; call it procurement jazz hands for the donor class—done in a broom closet labeled “public access.”

End of content

End of content