IRA BOOK TAX REMAINS IN FLUX: “It was a simple idea: Major U.S. corporations should pay at least a 15 percent tax on their income, ending an era when some of the country’s most profitable firms owed the federal government little or nothing at all. Instead, the policy championed by President Biden remains bogged down in Washington amid growing legal uncertainty — and a barrage of fierce lobbying by companies that don’t want to foot the bill,” The Washington Post’s Tony Romm reports. — “Nearly a year after its enactment, the U.S. government still has not yet fully implemented the new corporate alternative minimum tax, as the Biden administration races to finalize a complex and critical element of Democrats’ broader economic agenda.” — “In a fiscal review of the policy, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last year that about 150 corporate taxpayers could be forced to pay the new tax, later finding it could generate more than $222 billion in federal revenue over the next decade. But exactly which firms pay — and how much money the government takes in — hinges on a series of unresolved legal issues that stem from a law written in haste.” — “In the meantime, major lobbying organizations that represent companies like AT&T, Amazon, Duke Energy, Ford and FedEx have seized on the uncertainty to press for changes that may reduce their tax bills. One group representing gas utilities even warned they could raise prices on customers depending on how the administration implemented the tax rules.” — “The developments have raised fears among some watchdogs that savvy corporations could end up paying far less than Biden envisioned, skirting a policy that explicitly aims to prevent profitable firms from dodging taxes.” IDEMIA’S CLEAR SHOT: “Two companies that help fast-track passengers through airport security lines are pushing for Congress to aid each of them in their battle to dominate the market, a fight that could lead to longer wait times as travel surges,” POLITICO’s Alex Daugherty and Oriana Pawlyk report. — “That power struggle is part of a recent effort to require all travelers to submit to TSA ID checks — even those who have been pre-screened by CLEAR, which allows its paying customers to cut to the front of security lines with a biometric scan instead of presenting an ID.” — “CLEAR is under increasing scrutiny for recent security breaches — including an incident where a passenger got through security with a boarding pass dug out of the trash. Now CLEAR’s biggest rival — a company called Idemia that performs background checks for TSA PreCheck and makes the TSA’s ID-scanning machines — is seizing the moment to urge lawmakers to make ID checks mandatory for CLEAR’s members, which could cut into CLEAR’s business model.” — “The skirmish is just the latest in a long-running competition between the two companies, who’ve been using lobbying campaigns to win increasing shares of the lucrative market to speed up airport security.” — Adding to the battle is the fact that “CLEAR’s investors include some airlines but not others,” with a member of the latter faction teaming up with Idemia to pitch Senate Appropriations staffers “on language, seen by POLITICO, that would have required all travelers to submit to TSA ID checks” — though final language in the 2024 DHS spending bill didn’t go quite as far as the coalition wanted. — “Also tucked into the spending bill is language that would require TSA to brief the committee on potential security incidents involving CLEAR and a plan to address any security vulnerabilities ‘created by [Registered Traveler] service providers’ — a nod to at least three security incidents involving CLEAR that have alarmed lawmakers and regulators alike.” MEANWHILE, IN CALIFORNIA: As part of POLITICO’s major new expansion in the Golden State, our colleagues out West are up with two new looks today at how business and labor interests are seeking to shape policy in the state on issues that supporters and opponents alike see having potentially national ramifications — for better or for worse. — Our Jeremy B. White dives into how legislative fights in Sacramento have become merely the first stage of a yearslong battle between workers and wealthy interests like corporations, thanks to California’s ballot initiative process. “Like never before, the business of lawmaking in Sacramento is intertwined with a ballot initiative industry that churns through hundreds of millions of dollars each cycle — and policy battles loop from the Legislature to the streets back to the Legislature again,” Jeremy writes. — “By going to the ballot, proponents can win — even if they ultimately lose the election — by freezing the law until voters weigh in.” Case in point: A showdown between unions, fast food workers and restaurant chains over working conditions that could result in the nation’s first unionized fast food workers. — The prospect “has unleashed a ferocious counteroffensive from a franchise industry determined to protect its business model and confine the threat to California,” Jeremy writes, with opponents already having qualified a referendum for next year’s ballot. “Sacramento’s escalating, multi-year fight over fast food labor has led corporations to spend more than $80 million since 2021 to block efforts to regulate pay and address health and safety concerns.” HISTORY LESSON: Our Jasper Goodman reports that “Mark Zuckerberg has a lesson to offer archrival and potential cage-match opponent Elon Musk: Beware of Washington when trying to build an ‘everything app.’” — “Lawmakers are warning that Musk could face scrutiny if he pushes ahead with plans to turn X, the social media giant once known as Twitter, into a financial services provider. It’s a key step to achieving Musk’s long-held goal of building a mega-app that serves as a hub for messaging, payments and more.” — “Musk, the world’s richest man, will need to avoid the political and regulatory pitfalls that killed Zuckerberg’s plan to launch a cryptocurrency payments system alongside Facebook. Zuckerberg and his partners scrapped the project following resistance from Capitol Hill, banking regulators and European officials.” — “Zuckerberg’s experience revealed broad concerns in Washington and Brussels about the intermingling of social media and finance that still linger. He faced fatal opposition even as he pledged to delay the project and address officials’ objections. It’s questionable whether Musk, who has long taken a more combative approach to dealing with regulators — and who has also become a political lightning rod — would fare any better.”
| 
