[epistasis]

Maybe 25-50%, or so?

The $65M denominator on that percentage is also very low compared to typical industries, so the combination of low percentage and low denominator sticks out. Though I tend to credit tech for not lobbying a ton, unilateral disarmament is not always viewed positively.

Also, the only reason this editorial/article is being written at all is that tech is viewed as "friendly" and amenable to persuasion.

Though I do find it offensive that the tech companies are members of the Chamber of Commerce without refuting the Chamber's bad actions. That would be free! In fact, that's probably the biggest red flag for me in the article.

It is not anti-business to support climate action, quite the opposite. Yet somehow the Chamber pushes forward ridiculous and outdated politics that will harm most business in the end, while only benefitting fossil fuel companies and investors.

Tech really needs to stand up to bad organizations, or drop their membership. Their membership is a political action that is in direct contradiction to their stated goals.

[SpicyLemonZest]

> Also, the only reason this editorial/article is being written at all is that tech is viewed as "friendly" and amenable to persuasion.

Well, I agree with that, but I think this implies that the article is disinformation. The author knows that millions of dollars spent on climate policy advocacy is pretty good compared to a lot of businesses; she writes "their engagement is almost nonexistent" not because that's an accurate assessment, but because she was paid to frame it this way by a climate policy group (https://www.theclimatepledge.com/us/en/Signatories) which four of the five companies haven't joined. (Did you see the sponsored content tag? I didn't the first time through!)