Our story earlier this week about Stratasys’ government lobbying efforts got me thinking.
If Stratasys is paying lobbyists to influence the US government’s plans — albeit in a very minor way — what are the other major 3D print companies doing?
We did a bit of research through the online sources where such information is published. Note that US law requires disclosure of expenses paid to lobbyists, and in particular if the lobbying is on behalf of non-US organizations or companies.
Of the major companies we examined, it seems that only Stratasys and 3D Systems have been officially lobbying, with 3D Systems expenses being about half of what Stratasys has been spending. And Stratasys’ expenses are quite low for this area.
What about the rest? We found no official records posted for Formlabs, Carbon, Markforged, Velo3D, Desktop Metal, Materialise, EOS, Ultimaker, Prusa Research, Bambu Lab, or Raise3D. It’s very likely other 3D print companies, which are even smaller than the above list, don’t do lobbying either.
That said, there are some complications here. For example, GE, HP, Siemens, and a few others are giant mega corporations that do perform significant lobbying — sometimes into the millions per year. However, since these companies are diversified, it’s totally unclear how much of their lobbying is directed to 3D print-related activity, if any at all.
Then there’s the indirect route. A 3D print company might lean on an industry advocacy organization to perform the lobbying on their behalf. However, our searches didn’t reveal any lobby filings on behalf of the usual advocacy groups.
Another issue could be spending thresholds. Companies are allowed to spend up to US$16,000 per quarter and not require any official filing. So there might be some lower-level lobbying taking place among the non-filers.
The lobbying that seems to be taking place is not so much about 3D printing itself, but instead is more about program inclusion, getting appropriated funding, positioning additive manufacturing as a defence solution, getting additive approaches mentioned in programs, and similar work.
All of that makes sense; it’s simply businesses ensuring that the US government knows they are an option.
So, only a small portion of the additive manufacturing industry appears to maintain a visible Washington lobbying presence, and the companies that do are concentrating heavily on defence appropriations and government-supported adoption.
The question I have is this: why aren’t the other companies lobbying? With the tide turning on the use of additive manufacturing technologies by industry, now is the time to ensure it’s known by government programs.
