As Big Tech Gears Up for the 2026 Midterms, Its Lobbying Operations Continue Unabated

Nearly one year before the 2026 midterm elections, Big Tech’s influence machine shows no signs of slowing or shrinking. The industry’s largest players are growing their war chests, fine-tuning their political tools, and finding new ways to protect their industries in Washington.

According to an Issue One analysis of newly filed federal reports, seven of the largest tech, artificial intelligence (AI), and social media companies spent a combined $50 million on federal lobbying during the first nine months of 2025 — an average of nearly $400,000 for every day that Congress has been in session.

This total includes spending by:

• Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube
• ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok
• Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram
• Microsoft
• OpenAI, the company behind the AI tool ChatGPT
• Snap, the parent company of SnapChat
• X, formerly known as Twitter

Between July and September alone, these tech giants spent roughly $16 million on lobbying — the highest total ever recorded for these companies combined during this time frame in any year since they began lobbying in Washington.

A Growing Political Machine

Big Tech’s influence is increasingly expanding beyond K Street. Alongside their lobbying investments, which Issue One has documented for years, tech firms are moving deeper into electoral politics. At least three new super PACs funded by major tech players launched during the past quarter alone. Meta has pledged “tens of millions of dollars” to fund “Meta California” and “American Technology Excellence Project,” while prominent AI investors, including OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman, have invested an initial $100 million into the “Leading the Future” super PAC.

These moves mark a growing tactic in Big Tech’s influence strategy: Spending to shape who writes the rules, not just how they’re written — a playbook taken directly from the crypto industry’s success in recent elections.

As Issue One detailed in today’s exposé on tech lobbying tactics, this is part of a wider ecosystem of influence — one that pairs hard-dollar lobbying with “soft power” efforts (like academic partnerships, philanthropic giving, and media investments) that help steer policy from every angle.

Amplified Lobbying Efforts

Among all Big Tech companies, Meta continues to dominate when it comes to lobbying expenditures. During the first nine months of the year, Meta spent a record $19.7 million on federal lobbying. This marks the most the company has spent on lobbying during the first three quarters of a year since it first hired federal lobbyists in 2009 and a 5% increase from what it spent during the first nine months of 2024. So far this year, Meta has hired 87 lobbyists — roughly one for every six members of Congress.

Other major tech players have also increased their lobbying footprint during the first three quarters of the year:

• Alphabet spent $12.2 million — an increase of 11% from the same period in 2024.
• OpenAI spent $2.1 million — an increase of 68% from the same period in 2024.
• Snap spent $800,000 — an increase of 3% from the same period in 2024.

Toned Down Lobbying Operations

Three companies slightly reduced their lobbying budgets during the first nine months of 2025 compared to the same period during 2024, though most still maintain extensive operations in Washington.

• Microsoft spent $7.5 million — 5% less than it spent during the same period in 2024.
• ByteDance spent $7.2 million — 11% less than it spent during the same period in 2024.
• X spent $530,000 on lobbying — 5% less than it spent during the same period in 2024.

Despite its reduced spending, ByteDance — which has had its deadline for Chinese divestment repeatedly extended by President Donald Trump — still maintains an army of 42 lobbyists in Washington, or roughly one for every 12 members of Congress.

The Bigger Picture

This year’s wave of congressional hearings, whistleblower disclosures, and lawsuits has forced Big Tech companies into a state of damage control. In response, they have announced numerous commitments to improve user safety and parental oversight, framing them as “new features.” In reality, these measures are belated responses to public pressure — and such promises are routinely underdelivered or not kept at all, as Issue One’s newly updated Broken Promises Tracker documents.

The raw dollar figures and broken promises are just a piece in Big Tech’s immense influence operations. As Issue One’s accompanying Tech Policy Press series explores, these same companies are also quietly shaping the research, journalism, and policymaking ecosystems that influence regulation long before legislation reaches a vote.

“Big Tech has spent years shaping public narratives and manipulating the policy conversation to preserve its own power,” said Issue One Vice President of Advocacy Alix Fraser. “Through lobbying, public relations campaigns, and strategic philanthropy, the tech industry has built an echo chamber that protects its profits and masks accountability. One of its most effective tactics has been distorting the truth about Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act — convincing lawmakers that any reform would destroy innovation, when in fact the law has been stretched so far that tech companies now enjoy near-total immunity for the harms caused by their own design choices.”

Fraser continued: “Our new analysis reveals how the tech industry’s influence machine works — from funding research and newsrooms to flooding Congress with money — all to keep real reform off the table. Congress must act to restore balance by updating Section 230, maintaining protections for good-faith moderation while ensuring that powerful platforms can no longer use it as a shield from responsibility. Americans deserve stronger safeguards online, and Congress must act now to provide them.”

Taken together, Big Tech’s lobbying, soft influence, and political spending paint a clear picture of an industry determined to control both the message and the messengers — and to keep accountability perpetually out of reach.