Apple beefs up lobbying at U.S. state level ahead of Arizona App Store bill vote

Tech companies including mighty Apple are turning their lobbying attention to statehouses across the country as a wave of local bills opens a new frontier in the push to limit Silicon Valley’s power.

Apple Park, Cupertino, California
Apple Park, Cupertino, California

Sebastian Herrera and Dan Frosch for The Wall Street Journal:

Arizona, Maryland, and Virginia are among states where lawmakers are seeking to limit the power of tech companies… Google, Apple and others are hiring local lobbyists and immersing themselves in the minutiae of proposed legislation, according to state representatives. Tech companies face potential rules that would curb the reach of their platforms, crimp revenues with taxes or force them to facilitate additional privacy disclosures.

In Arizona, a closely watched bill regarding app-store payments has cleared the state House and is expected to be debated in the Senate in the next several weeks. The legislation would free some software developers from fees that Apple place on apps, which can run up to 30% of sales from paid apps and in-app purchases. App developers would be able to charge people directly through the payment system of their choice. The bill would apply to Arizona- based app developers and consumers yet could set a wider precedent.

MacDailyNews Take: This would be great since we really want to sell MacDailyNews.com T-shirts in Walmart, Target, etc. using their physical stores, heat, cooling, electricity, floor space, staff, parking lots, parking lot maintenance staff and contractors, online stores, server capacities, storage, more electricity, more staff, etc., etc., etc. while keeping 100% of our sales. That’s fair, right?

Technology companies have stepped up legislative spending at different levels of government recently. Facebook and Amazon outspent all other U.S. companies in federal lobbying last year, The Wall Street Journal reported in January. Facebook spent nearly $20 million, up about 18% from the previous year, while Amazon spent about $18 million last year, up about 11%. Apple disclosed $6.7 million in lobbying spending, down from a record $7.4 million in 2019, and Google also reported a drop, spending $7.5 million. Google and Facebook are facing multiple antitrust lawsuits, and Amazon and Apple have been the subject of preliminary inquiries…

MacDailyNews Take: Again, using exceedingly simple logic that even a five-year-old could understand, the Arizona App Store bill and others like it are ill-conceived and likely unconstitutional. It sounds like something a video game company lobbyist would scribble out, as they did in North Dakota, before hooking some gullible politician ignoramuses to sponsor it.

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would steal them away. — Ronald Reagan

9 Comments

  1. I love idea on MDN tee shirts at Target and while you’re at it please make a designer line for Nordstroms. Letting those stores eat all the costs of doing business while you take 100% of the profits is brilliant.

    Hmmm, maybe I need to inform McGraw-Hill that I will be changing the terms of our agreements on the % of my books. Thank you MDN and the idiots in AZ.

  2. I haven’t visited MDN for a year or two, came back and read their take on this.
    I’ve really missed their scathing sarcasm and I didn’t even know it. <3 <3 <3

  3. Citing Pres. Reagan as a wise and reliable authority is faulty. Even Wiki lists his economic and social faults that are vindictive toward the middle and lower class while forgiving to the upper.

    1. No, it is your Marxist ideology spewed constantly that is “faulty.” No real use for it in a constutional republic beyond personal belief. Standing up and firm to Russian Communism Ronald Reagan famously said, “tear down this wall” which freed a lot of people and led to an Eastern European revolution. Reagan was a great president and thankfully your “faulty” OPINION cannot change history…

  4. Being “vindictive” has no place in a politician’s policies…whether the recipient is “up” or “down.”

    From your past opinions, I’ll venture to say, you see vindictiveness as ok, when directed to those that have wealth.

    I’ll call that simply bizarre. Vindictiveness, or penalizing ANYONE based on some measurement is bent thinking. But…it is consistent with Marxist thinking. So, should anyone be surprised with how you think vindictiveness should be allotted?

    1. So you’re saying that Reagan’s (alledged) vindictiveness towards the poor is “consistent with Marxist thinking”? Uh, no. Calling something Marxist or Communist whenever you disagree with it is not accurate, and certainly not helpful for furthering the conversation.

      Let’s face it, most Republicans and many Democrats have clearly written laws and enaacted policies to the benefit of the wealthiest Americans, and to the detriment of the poorest — and have done so for the last 50 years. That some Democrats are trying to push the needle back towards the middle — to the tax policies of such noted liberals as Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower — is not Marxist or Communist. We progressives believe in private property, personal owership and capitalism. We just think the balance of power has shifted way to one side, and some reforms are long overdue.

      1. “Let’s face it, most Republicans and many Democrats have clearly written laws and enaacted policies to the benefit of the wealthiest Americans, and to the detriment of the poorest — and have done so for the last 50 years.”

        Name ONE. And if you are going to write tax breaks, REMEMBER the minority of the wealthiest citizens already pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, for over 50 years.

        “That some Democrats are trying to push the needle back towards the middle” What middle? Euphemisms are worthless.

        “We progressives believe in private property, personal owership and capitalism.” You could have fooled me.

        “We just think the balance of power has shifted way to one side” All Democrat control of Washington for at least the next two years, if not longer, I TOTALLY AGREE.

        “and some reforms are long overdue.” Again, WORTHLESS generalization euphemism and nothing specific or detailed. But then again, the empty dogma slogans of the progressives are all that counts in your neck of the woods.

        Practical presidents like businessman Trump showed the world how to grow an economy in a remarkable short amount of time. Enacting smart policies and removing onerous government regulations the swamp and lobbyists love to line their pockets with, and now the 50-year swamp king in charge, reversing progress and burdening us with more.

        I don’t call that progressive. I call that regressive. God help us…

  5. I repeat….”vindictiveness” has no place in any political policy, no matter the kind. You apparently missed that.

    My statement references Dingler’s clear and long-held position that those with assets deserve a type of vindictiveness. He’s a typical Marxist that advocates abolishing those that have wealth…or at least he would like to have their wealth apprehended and or, legally limited.

    They (wealthy) deserve it, apparently and befuddlingly so, to this mind. When “fairness” is the active policy, someone is ALWAYS experiencing unfairness, as a result. Some are ok with living within this contradiction.

    Please…it doesn’t take an economist to acknowledge that the D’s min wage advocacy actually hurts “the poorest.” As with ANYTHING in economics…the pricier something is, the fewer of that item is sold. It translates to employment in the exactly the same way…companies employ fewer at higher wages.
    That leaves those least educated and least trained in a high min wage enviro, less likely to be employed. Again, this isn’t rocket sci and it’s documented.

    The poorest are MOST hurt by such a policy…so much for the “needle in the middle.”

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.