SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As Massachusetts becomes the latest battleground state in the fight for gig worker rights, advocates on Wednesday accused Lyft of attempting to purchase a law by giving over $14 million to a committee pushing a ballot initiative to prevent app-based drivers from being classified as employees.
"Remember when gig corporations bought a law in California for $200 million? They're at it again--this time, in Massachusetts."
The Boston Globereports Lyft gave $14.4 million to Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers, a coalition established to fund an upcoming state ballot measure to keep ride-hailing and delivery app drivers classified as independent contractors. Such a policy would free companies like Lyft from having to pay a minimum wage or provide certain workplace rights, protections, and benefits that employees receive.
Records reveal that most of Lyft's investment came in a single $13 million December contribution--by far the biggest ever recorded by the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
"Big Tech is trying to buy an election," tweeted Jerry Berger, a professor at Boston University's College of Communications. "The Legislature has the ability to prevent it. IF they act. Always a big IF."
\u201cRemember when gig corporations bought a law in California for $200 million?\n\nThey're at it again\u2013\u2013this time, in Massachusetts.\n\nWe're of the radical belief that corporations shouldn't be able to make their own laws.\n\nRT if you agree \u2935\ufe0f\n\nhttps://t.co/9CaqFBa2em\u201d— Gig Workers Rising (@Gig Workers Rising) 1642616268
Zephyr Teachout--a professor at the Fordham University School of Law in New York City and author of Break 'Em Up: Recovering Our Freedom From Big Ag, Big Tech, and Big Money--denounced Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash for "spending millions to make sure they can profit without responsibility."
While proponents of the Lyft-backed measure--which has also received more than $1 million in funding from each Uber, DoorDash, and Instacart--argue that it would protect driver flexibility and confer benefits including healthcare stipends and paid sick time, labor advocates counter that gig workers should already receive such rights under existing laws.
"Big Tech is trying to buy an election. The Legislature has the ability to prevent it. IF they act. Always a big IF."
In July 2020, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, sued Uber and Lyft for classifying drivers as contractors, alleging violations of state wage and labor laws while accusing the companies of getting a "free ride" and having "profited greatly" from "systematically" denying drivers "basic workplace protections and benefits."
Lyft's largesse has allowed Flexibility and Benefits for Massachusetts Drivers to hire some of the state's best political consultants, including the Dewey Square Group, described by the Globe as "a public affairs firm with deep roots in Democratic politics," and Conan Harris & Associates, which was founded by the husband of U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), who has argued that app-based drivers are "misclassified" as contractors, and "need benefits and full labor protections."
Opponents of the upcoming Massachusetts ballot measure are devising creative ways to try to overcome their tremendous funding disadvantage.
Bloomberg reports Massachusetts Drivers United is selling 50 $200 non-fungible tokens (NFTs) which let buyers play a game of whack-a-mole against a giant rat named Big Gig that tunnels under a map of the United States, popping up in states with proposed anti-driver legislation.
"We're using technology to fight back," Massachusetts Drivers United executive director Henry De Groot explained. "Uber, Lyft, and their peers have used technology to circumvent labor laws and deny app workers basic protections and benefits. We invite the crypto community to wage a campaign against the billionaires who control Big Gig."
\u201cA labor group of #Uber and #Lyft drivers is selling an NFT depicting companies as a big rat to fundraise against a potential Prop-22-like ballot in Massachusetts. @DriversUnitedMA \nhttps://t.co/xeuM7DfIWB via @technology #crypto #doordash\u201d— Jackie Davalos (@Jackie Davalos) 1642605476
The Massachusetts fight closely mirrors California's battle over Proposition 22, which was approved by voters in November 2020 and exempts app-based driver companies from classifying their workers as employees.
Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash spent a combined $160 million in support of the measure--more than 10 times the amount spent by opponents--making it the most expensive ballot initiative in California history. The companies also pressed drivers to vote for Prop 22, while prominent critics of the bill faced intense harassment.
Related Content
Last August, a California judge ruled Prop 22 unconstitutional, finding that the law "appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionized workforce."
Although the California Labor Federation hailed the decision as "a major and deserved win for drivers and gig workers," the ruling was appealed, and Golden State drivers remain classified as contractors.
As was the case with Prop 22 in California, some Massachusetts observers reacted to Lyft's mega-donation with calls for systemic reform. Kevin Connor, chief of staff to state Sen. Harriette Chandler (D-1st Worcester), tweeted that "there should be donor limits on MA ballot initiatives campaigns."
\u201cGig companies like @lyft and @Uber spent more than $220 million to push Prop 22 -- the 2020 voter initiative that sought to keep gig drivers in CA low-paid and without basic rights. \n\nSo expect them to spend tons on this clone voter measure in Massachusetts. \n\nWe must fight this.\u201d— California Gig Workers Union - SoCal (@California Gig Workers Union - SoCal) 1642554347
The nonpartisan advocacy group We the People Massachusetts called for a more sweeping solution.
"We need the #WeThePeopleAmendment to overturnCitizens United and other SCOTUS decisions that have gutted campaign finance regs and have made 'buying a loophole' in our laws possible," the group asserted, referring to a constitutional amendment introduced by U.S. House Democrats to end the controversial 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that affirmed unlimited corporate political contributions.
"The Facebook Papers" on Monday prompted longtime critics of Big Tech to renew demands for policymakers within and beyond the United States to crack down on and even break up the social media giant.
A consortium of 17 American news outlets--along with a separate group of European newsrooms--on Friday began publishing articles on internal documents obtained by former employee and whistleblower Frances Haugen, though much of the reporting was released Monday.
"It's an important day to read the news," said the American Economic Liberties Project, pointing to the Facebook Papers and reiterating its call to break up the company.
\u201cToday, a consortium of 17 news organizations are reporting on a trove of internal @Facebook documents, providing new insight into @Facebook's toxic business model.\n\nIt\u2019s an important day to read the news. It\u2019s also a good day to break up @Facebook.\nhttps://t.co/VUB8KhLN2i\u201d— American Economic Liberties Project (@American Economic Liberties Project) 1635169538
The reporting shows Facebook prioritizes growth and profit over trying to prevent and contain problematic content. As The Vergesummarized, key findings include that Facebook "was caught off guard" by Covid-19 vaccine misinformation, it struggled to handle efforts to delegitimize the 2020 U.S. election, and Apple threatened to ban its apps over online "slave markets."
Echoing reactions to a second whistleblower submitting a complaint about the company to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Friday, Evan Greer, director of the digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, declared that "Facebook can't be reformed."
"We can and should push for policies that reduce its immediate harm to marginalized communities in the short term," she said Monday. "But in the long term, we need policies that reduce its power, so that we can build alternatives to fully abolish and replace it."
\u201cExpect dozens of think pieces this week along the lines of "how do we fix Facebook."\n\nI'd love to see just one that attempts to imagine a world without / beyond Facebook.\u201d— Evan Greer is on Mastodon (@Evan Greer is on Mastodon) 1635167959
"Before it was acquired by Facebook, Instagram actually tried to improve quality instead of just increasing virality at all costs," tweeted Fordham University School of Law professor Zephyr Teachout. "Break them up!"
Facebook bought the photo- and video-sharing platform Instagram in 2012 then acquired the messaging service WhatsApp two years later. The company is also responsible for the highly popular Messenger application.
The Real Facebook Oversight Board (RFOB) framed the new reporting as vindication of Haugen's recent public comments.
"Today's avalanche of leaks, revelations, and reporting blasts apart Facebook's spin that Frances Haugen was 'cherry picking' documents," the RFOB statement said. "Across 17 news organizations, dozens of journalists, and thousands of documents, the Facebook Papers and Frances Haugen's continued testimony have laid bare the extreme harm and devastating impacts of Facebook."
Related Content
"In breathtaking detail, the Facebook Papers show a company that is in the thrall of right-wing extremists, so afraid of looking 'partisan' that they welcome insurrectionists, racists, and disinformation artists onto their platforms under the guise of free speech," the RFOB continued. "Ignoring house on fire warnings from their own staff and lying to regulators and their own oversight board, we now see Facebook for what it really is: an international criminal enterprise."
The RFOB called for an independent investigation:
The Facebook Papers also reveal the absolute inadequacy of Facebook's oversight board, fiddling while Rome burns and begging the company to stop lying. As MP and RFOB member Damian Collins said today in Parliament, the "hindsight board" lacks the independence and mandate to hold Facebook accountable when it needs oversight the most. As new allegations cascade down around Facebook, the oversight board by design has no authority to intervene.
We reject the premise that the Facebook oversight board can ever be considered independent.
Instead, at this defining moment of crisis for Facebook and democracy, we call for a full, independent, outside investigation of Facebook and the allegations raised in the Facebook Files, the Facebook Papers, and recent SEC filings. In the U.S., the U.K., and the E.U., policymakers should fast-track legislation to ensure permanent, independent oversight of Facebook. No criminal should appoint its own judge and jury, as Facebook has done with its oversight board.
Haugen's testimony to the U.K. Parliament on Monday resembled what she recently told U.S. lawmakers about Facebook: that it "fans hate," the "current system is biased towards bad actors, and people who push people to the extremes," and the company has been "negligent" in terms of addressing concerns raised internally by its own data scientists for years.
Related Content
Employing language often used by critics of Big Oil's climate lies, U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said Monday that "there's a lot to discover in these papers about how the platform promotes extremism and hurts our communities, but here's what is clear: Facebook knew."
"For too long, tech companies have said, 'Trust us, we've got this.' Now the extent to which Facebook has put profits over people is becoming more and more clear," said Klobuchar, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee's antitrust panel.
"The time has come for action from all sides to rein in Big Tech," she asserted, calling for modernizing competition laws, holding companies accountable for spreading disinformation, and federal privacy legislation "with rules of the road for tech platforms to protect user data and ensure that algorithms stop promoting toxic and dangerous content."
Progressive advocacy groups that have spent the past several months urging President Joe Biden to step up antitrust enforcement, particularly with Big Tech, applauded the U.S. Senate's Tuesday confirmation of Lina Khan to serve on the Federal Trade Commission.
After senators' 69-28 bipartisan vote--which included all Democrats present--in support of the 32-year-old "antitrust trailblazer," the White House said that Biden has named Khan as the FTC's chair. The president announced his nomination of the Columbia Law School associate professor in March, winning widespread praise from opponents of corporate consolidation.
The groups and individuals who, since the March announcement, have pushed for Khan's confirmation celebrated what they hope is the beginning of a new era for the regulatory agency--and beyond, including at the Federal Communications Commission and U.S. Department of Justice.
\u201cI\u2019m so grateful to the Senate for my confirmation. Congress created the FTC to safeguard fair competition and protect consumers, workers, and honest businesses from unfair & deceptive practices. I look forward to upholding this mission with vigor and serving the American public.\u201d— Lina Khan (@Lina Khan) 1623775209
"Lina Khan has proven herself as one of the fiercest and most effective critics of Big Tech," said Demand Progress executive director David Segal. "She not only understands the threat these monopolies impose, but how to utilize the tools of government to hold them accountable and break them up."
"We need strong champions like Lina throughout the government--most notably at the FTC, FCC, and DOJ--and hope this is a sign that the administration will move to fill these other key roles in a timely manner," he added. "We look forward to working alongside her to hold Big Tech accountable, and we encourage the Biden administration to swiftly fill out the commission with a strong fifth commissioner, so that the FTC can fully wield its power."
The development was also welcomed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who voted for Khan, and Zephyr Teachout, an antitrust expert and Fordham University associate professor of law.
Alex Harman, competition policy advocate for Public Citizen said that "the overwhelming bipartisan vote for Lina Khan speaks both to her qualifications that made her the ideal nominee to serve on the FTC and the recognition by both parties that concentrated corporate power is a crisis that needs to be urgently addressed."
"As a commissioner, Khan will take on corporate barons in Silicon Valley and throughout our economy," Harman predicted. "Greedy and abusive corporations should be on notice that the FTC will no longer look the other way as they amass power to hurt consumers, treat competitors unfairly, and take advantage of workers."
The advocate applauded Biden and the Senate for "recognizing the urgent need to address runaway corporate power" and said Public Citizen looks forward to "seeing a similar approach to filling the other antitrust vacancies with like-minded progressive leaders who will stand up to corporate abusers."
\u201cthis is by far the biggest news of the day\u201d— Samuel Rubenfeld\ud83d\udd25 (@Samuel Rubenfeld\ud83d\udd25) 1623794328
"Biden's choice to nominate Lina Khan demonstrated that Democrats understand the imperative of turning the page on a failed era of antitrust enforcement, and her bipartisan confirmation illustrates policymakers' hearty appetite to rein in Big Tech," declared Sarah Miller, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project.
"Her presence on the FTC marks the beginning of the end of an era of lawlessness for powerful corporations that they've enjoyed at the expense of workers, smaller businesses, and democracy," Miller added.
Highlighting that support for Khan goes beyond advocates of breaking up tech giants, Family Farm Action recently led a coalition of 33 groups in sending a letter (pdf) to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in support of Khan, whom they described as "a leading scholar and voice in antitrust with a bold legal and policy vision for protecting farmers and ranchers, workers, small farms and businesses, and bolstering an economy where all have a right to share in the prosperity they help build."
Family Farm Action president and CEO Joe Maxwell was among those celebrating her confirmation on Tuesday.
"Establishing fair market opportunities in the food system will require a strong leader with knowledge and experience in antitrust work, and Ms. Khan's proven skills and priorities position her as an ideal candidate," he said. "Family Farm Action looks forward to working alongside Ms. Khan to dismantle concentrated power in agriculture and realize a more just, equitable food system."