The Washington Post

Defense contracts are hard to kill. Does that show up in lobbying totals?

Over the weekend, my colleague Marjorie Censer published a story that tells us a lot about why the U.S. military costs so much: Legislators won't let the people in uniform spend less money, even when expensive programs outlive their usefulness. In this case, it's the iconic tank, which BAE Systems has built in York, Pa., since the 1960s. Though modern warfare requires more long-range systems like drones and missiles than overwhelming force on the ground, Congress has continued to give the Army more money than it's even asked for to keep building expeditionary fighting vehicles.

Legislators say they don’t want the money they’ve invested in building up the country’s vehicle-making capability to go to waste. The several hundred million dollars it would cost seems to them a small amount relative to the billions spent on defense annually.

The industry, too, has pushed Congress to support its work. Last year, BAE convened its suppliers — it has 586 across 44 states — in Washington to storm the Hill, chatting up representatives about the jobs they provide and pushing for Congress to help the Bradley program.

So it appears, from this one example of procurement stickiness, that investments in lobbying can pay off for a long time. But does that show up in the numbers?

To find out, using the database, I compared money spent on lobbying with money awarded in contracts for the biggest arms manufacturers (for procurement totals, click on their names).

BAE Systems' contracts fell off sharply after 2008, but its lobbying declined more slowly: 

BAE Systems' lobbying spending. (
BAE Systems' contracts. (
BAE Systems' contracts. (

Northrop Grumman took a rest after 2008 but then tried to resuscitate its business:

Northrop Grumman's lobbying spending. (
Northrop's contracts. (
Northrop's contracts. (

Lockheed Martin actually did better than its lobbying expenditures would suggest:

Lockheed Martin's lobbying spending.
Lockheed's contracts.
Lockheed's contracts.

Same with Boeing:

Screen Shot 2014-02-04 at 4.18.33 PM

Screen Shot 2014-02-04 at 4.22.05 PM

General Dynamics, though, continued to spend even after its contracts declined:

Screen Shot 2014-02-04 at 3.55.10 PM

Screen Shot 2014-02-04 at 4.25.33 PM
Screen Shot 2014-02-04 at 4.22.39 PM

Same with Raytheon:

There's some variation, but overall it appears that the amount of money a company spends on lobbying correlates roughly with how much it pulls down in contracts -- and that lobbying continues even after contracting dollars start to fall, not the other way around. So while there may be lots of examples of programs sticking around because of resistance to taking away jobs, in the aggregate, it doesn't amount to contracts being renewed simply out of inertia (recognizing that these are very top-line numbers and lots of other factors may be at play, including the amount these companies spend on elections).

Lydia DePillis is a reporter focusing on labor, business, and housing. She previously worked at The New Republic and the Washington City Paper. She's from Seattle.



Success! Check your inbox for details. You might also like:

Please enter a valid email address

See all newsletters

Show Comments
Most Read



Success! Check your inbox for details.

See all newsletters

Your Three. Video curated for you.
Next Story
Brad Plumer · February 4, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.