Three of the lawmakers tasked with grilling big tech CEOs as part of a congressional antitrust investigation own stock in some of the companies being investigated, Business Insider has found.
The CEOs of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google's parent company Alphabet will give highly anticipated testimony before the House Judiciary Committee Monday.
Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Jim Sensenbrenner, and Steve Chabot are members of the committee that will question the CEOs Monday. Each member owns shares in at least one of those companies, according to their latest financial disclosures.
Sensenbrenner, the ranking member of the House Antitrust Subcommittee, owns nearly $100,000 in the four companies combined.
It's not illegal for lawmakers to own shares in individual companies, but the holdings could create conflicts of interest or undermine public trust in the investigation.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
Three of the lawmakers leading a sweeping antitrust investigation into Facebook, Apple, Amazon, and Google also own stock in one or more of those companies, creating potential conflicts of interest as the investigation nears a pivotal day of testimony Monday.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai of Alphabet, which owns Google and YouTube, will testify Monday before the House Judiciary Committee. Lawmakers are approaching the end of a monthslong probe into whether the tech companies misused their market dominance to unfairly stifle competition.
But Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner — who is the ranking member of the House Antitrust Subcommittee — and Reps. Zoe Lofgren and Steve Chabot also own stock in those companies, according to their latest financial disclosures. All three House Judiciary Committee Members will be tasked with grilling the tech CEOs on Monday.
It's not illegal for lawmakers to own shares in companies, even when an investigation into those companies is underway. But the holdings could create potential conflicts of interest or undermine public trust in the investigation.
Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and the top GOP representative on the antitrust committee, owns more than $98,000 of stock in the four companies combined. He owns $26,658 in Apple, $27,035 in Amazon, $37,384 in Alphabet, and $7,341 in Facebook, according to his latest financial disclosure.
Lofgren, a California Democrat, owns between $1,000 and $15,000 of stock in Facebook, Apple, and Alphabet each, according to her most recent financial disclosure. She reported that she sold some of those shares in each company in the past year, but did not specify the exact amount that was sold.
Chabot, a Republican from Ohio, owns between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in Facebook, according to his most recent disclosure.
A spokesperson for Sensenbrenner said the congressman's shares are in a trust set up by Sensenbrenner's late father and that he does not actively manage the portfolio. A spokesperson for Lofgren said her shares are in a rollover IRA managed by her husband and that she does not manage the holdings.
A spokesperson for Chabot did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
These aren't the first lawmakers to draw scrutiny for owning shares of companies they're tasked with investigating. Stat News reported Monday that Reps. Joe Kennedy and Michael Burgess are members of a House committee that will question pharma companies about COVID-19 research, despite the fact that both representatives own shares of those companies.
The Judiciary Committee investigation is meant to dig into whether the four tech giants have accumulated so much power that it's become impossible for smaller competitors to gain a foothold. The investigation is far-reaching and could be a pivotal moment in broader backlash against tech companies' power.
Monday's testimony is also hotly anticipated as the Justice Department is preparing a possible antitrust suit against Google, and both Amazon and Facebook are the subject of an ongoing Federal Trade Commission investigation.
r3dt4rget on July 23rd, 2020 at 16:58 UTC »
Are they individual stocks or mutual funds?
Are they in a blind trust or are these lawmakers making investment decisions with respect to individual stocks?
Those are two pretty important questions for me to judge on this. After all, who doesn't own stock in these companies? I mean I don't buy them directly but I own mutual funds with shares of these companies.
edit: It seems like the actual financial disclosures are linked in the article and the one I looked at indicates individual stock ownership. On the one hand, anyone who wants to invest their money is buying these big tech stocks one way or another, either through mutual funds or picking individual stocks. Most likely these guys have advisors doing their trading for them, and for the most part I don't really think anyone with a good portfolio really cares about one company enough for it to be a conflict of interest. On the other hand I see how it would be a conflict of interest in some cases. How can you effectively regulate these companies if you have a direct financial tie to their failure or success? Ethically you basically have to say it's a bad thing for these guys to own individual stock. Indexing is one thing, where you have a mutual fund that is market weighted and not about individual stocks.
If these guys had hundreds of thousands or millions tied up in these big companies I would be more alarmed. "Thousands in stock" as the article mentions isn't really that big of a deal. Anyone really think a lawmaker having $5,000 in Facebook on the line is really going to influence their policy or decisions?
rg25 on July 23rd, 2020 at 16:55 UTC »
I agree it's a conflict of interest, but I will point out those stocks make up a huge portion of the most popular stock indexes most notably the S&P500. I think it would be hard to find people that don't have these stocks in their portfolio.
That being said, there is way too much corruption in our government and we need a better system in which lawmakers cannot have financial involvement in industries that they're supposed to be regulating.
Kybrat on July 23rd, 2020 at 16:25 UTC »
No, it's not, but is it trustworthy? Is it ethical? The answer is also no.