The Hidden Ties Between Corporate Power and State Attorneys General
A growing trend has emerged in the United States where state attorneys general, who are tasked with protecting consumers and enforcing laws against powerful interests, are being invited on luxury trips funded by corporate sponsors. These events, organized by the nonprofit Attorney General Alliance (AGA), have sparked concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the erosion of public trust.
Luxury Trips Funded by Corporate Interests
In 2023, a group of attorneys general from across the country was invited on an exclusive junket to South Africa. The trip included a safari, a stay at a five-star hotel, wine tours, and gourmet dinners featuring dishes like fresh prawns and Wagyu ribeye steak. While these experiences were free for the attorneys general, they were funded by major corporations such as Uber, Amazon, and Pfizer. The trip was organized by the AGA, which relies heavily on donations from companies to fund its activities.
The list of invitees was not meant to be widely shared, according to a text message sent from a staff member of the event organizer to an aide of one of the attorneys general. The message emphasized the need for discretion, indicating that the attendees were carefully selected.
The Role of the Attorney General Alliance
The AGA, formed in 2019, has been organizing trips and events for state attorneys general, including gatherings in foreign countries like Mexico, Israel, Morocco, and France. The group claims that these events foster bipartisan relationships and facilitate discussions on global issues such as human trafficking, drug enforcement, and organized crime. However, critics argue that these trips create an environment where corporate interests can influence the decisions of state officials.
Supporters of the AGA, including former Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, defend the trips as opportunities for bipartisan conversations that help improve America. They argue that the events provide valuable insights into global issues and allow attorneys general to learn about matters affecting their states.
Financial Ties and Sponsorship Benefits
The AGA has received nearly $27 million in sponsorships between 2019 and 2023, according to financial documents obtained by CNN. These funds come largely from companies that sponsor the events. In return, the AGA offers varying levels of perks to its sponsors based on their contributions. For example, donors who contribute $100,000 gain access to “invite-only events” and speaking slots at conferences, while those who give $30,000 receive fewer benefits.
Some of the companies that have benefited from these arrangements include law firms like Troutman Pepper Locke, which notes on its website that the events provide a valuable forum for communicating directly with attorneys general about specific client concerns. Other AGA sponsors include major corporations such as Amazon, Pfizer, and Uber.
Legal Action Against Major Sponsors
Despite the AGA’s claims of fostering beneficial relationships, some of its sponsors have faced legal action from state attorneys general. Amazon, for instance, has been involved in multiple lawsuits brought by states alleging anticompetitive practices. In September 2023, the Federal Trade Commission along with 17 states filed a lawsuit against Amazon, accusing it of using “anticompetitive” strategies to maintain “monopoly power.” Amazon has denied these allegations, arguing that its practices benefit consumers.
Pfizer, another major AGA sponsor, has also faced legal challenges from various states over drug pricing. Despite this, Pfizer representatives have attended multiple AGA events, including the South Africa trip.
Criticisms and Concerns
Critics, including former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter, argue that these trips undermine public trust in the actions of state attorneys general. Painter stated that the meetings between corporate representatives and state officials create a “game of getting the public officials together with the corporate people who in effect lobby to get what they want.”
However, supporters of the AGA, such as Tania Maestas, deputy director of the organization, defend the events as educational opportunities that allow attorneys general to engage with their constituents. Maestas emphasized that the AGA provides a forum for these interactions and does not act at the direction of private companies.
The Impact on Public Trust
The issue of transparency has also come under scrutiny. A January report released by an auditor in Utah found that the state’s former Republican attorney general, Sean Reyes, had not been “reasonably transparent” about his travels to AGA events. Reyes, however, denied any misuse of taxpayer funds, stating that auditors had access to millions of documents and affirmed there was no misuse.
Despite these concerns, many attorneys general continue to attend AGA events, citing the value of the interactions and the importance of understanding global issues. For example, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown both attended a trip to Normandy, France, which was described as a commemoration of the 80th anniversary of D-Day. The trip included business meetings, museum visits, and discussions on topics such as human trafficking and antisemitism.
The Future of AGA Events
As the AGA continues to organize trips and events, questions remain about the long-term impact on public trust and the potential for conflicts of interest. The organization has announced future events, including a trip to Rome, Italy, and a resort in Mexico. These events will likely continue to draw attention from both supporters and critics.
While the AGA maintains that its activities are focused on education and collaboration, the growing financial ties between corporate sponsors and state attorneys general raise important questions about the integrity of the legal system and the role of public officials in representing the interests of their constituents.
As the debate over these trips continues, one thing is clear: the intersection of corporate power and state governance remains a complex and contentious issue in the United States.
