Why no one spent more than Google to lobby California officials this summer

Google’s payments to influence state government surged to almost $11 million from July through September, nearly 90 times more than the same period last year, making it the highest-spending lobbyist employer in California in the third quarter.

Its lobbying blitz came as the tech giant engaged in a fierce battle at the state Capitol during the final months of the legislative session over whether it would have to pay news outlets for publishing their content.

Google’s lobbying expenses never previously topped $1.3 million in a single quarter, according to state records, and are typically far less. During the first two quarters of 2024, Google spent on average of about $261,000 on lobbying — 41 times less than its $10.7 million bombardment this summer.

The company did not respond to questions about its lobbying, which last quarter was ahead of more typical titans of influence in Sacramento, including the Western States Petroleum Association, the California Business Roundtable and the California Hospital Association.

Keep up with LAist.

If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.

Subscribe

During that period, which included the end of the legislative session in August and the governor’s bill signing period in September, Google reached the conclusion of a contentious two-year battle over journalism funding.

The search behemoth could have been on the hook for tens of millions of dollars or more annually under Assembly Bill 886, a proposal to require major tech platforms such as Google to either pay a fee or negotiate with California news outlets for using their work. Introduced by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat, the measure passed the Assembly last year before Wicks shelved it to negotiate directly with the industry.

Instead, in August, she announced a deal for Google to provide $55 million over the next five years for a new fund for local newsrooms and $70 million for an artificial intelligence accelerator. Under the deal, the state will also kick in $70 million over five years for the newsroom fund, while Google will continue $10 million in existing annual grants that the company had threatened to pull if the bill passed.

“That agreement was an escape clause for Google,” said state Sen. Steve Glazer, an Orinda Democrat who was pursuing another proposal, approved by the Senate in June, that he estimates would have raised $500 million a year for California news outlets by charging major tech platforms a mitigation fee.

Google spent more on lobbying in 2024 than the last 20 years combined

The company spent $6.2 million to persuade state officials between 2005 and 2023. It reported spending nearly $11 million between July 1 and Sept. 30 this year.

(

Chart: Jeremia Kimelman, CalMatters

/

California Secretary of State

)

Google had to ramp up its lobbying this summer to offset renewed momentum for the journalism funding bills and secure a deal with more favorable terms, said Glazer, who did not support the final agreement. “Their spending was a reflection of the cheaper alternative.”

Wicks, who did not respond to an interview request, has previously called the deal the best of what was possible.

The millions of dollars spent to push Google’s point of view was largely funneled through two other organizations, according to its lobbying disclosure report: The tech giant paid $7 million to the Computer and Communications Industry Association and $2.75 million to the California Taxpayers Association during the third quarter. The groups ran advertisements on television and social media opposing the Wicks and Glazer bills.

Both organizations have previously lobbied state officials, but the summer payments from Google resulted in budgets hundreds of times greater than in the spring. Their spending in the third quarter was directed almost entirely to hiring Washington, D.C.-based advertising firms, according to their disclosure reports.

Google’s record lobbying payments last quarter far exceeded other major tech companies that would have been forced to pay up under the Wicks and Glazer journalism funding proposals.

Amazon spent more than $918,000 during the third quarter, its largest lobbying quarter on record and triple the amount in the same period last year. Meta, which threatened to remove news posts from its Facebook and Instagram platforms if it had to pay for them, spent nearly $366,000.

Google didn’t just pour money into persuading lawmakers. It also contributed a small fortune to the campaigns of 40 elected officials on a single day, campaign finance disclosures show. On Sept. 13, two weeks after the Legislature adjourned, the company cut checks totaling $107,500 to 39 legislators, including Wicks, plus Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis — more than a third of the $301,800 that Google contributed to state campaigns since last January.

Google funded 40 elected officials on the same day

On Sept. 13, the company contributed $107,500 to 39 sitting legislators and Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis.

(

Table: Jeremia Kimelman, CalMatters

/

California Secretary of State

)

Google’s financial disclosure for the third quarter mentions lobbying the Legislature on more than 30 bills, as well the governor’s office and several state agencies, without providing a breakdown of its spending.

Another priority this summer was Senate Bill 1047, which would have required testing large-scale AI models to determine whether they harm society. Big tech players, including Google, vocally opposed the regulation and it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in September.

But Sen. Scott Wiener, the San Francisco Democrat who carried the measure, said Google’s lobbying appeared to be more focused on the journalism funding legislation. While the company was a leading voice against his AI testing bill, he said, its efforts there seemed to be directed outside of the Capitol.

“It was not a tidal wave of activity,” Wiener said. “It was much more online and on social media.”