&gt; Depending on the industry, ROI is anywhere from 5,000 to 77,000 percent.<p>That is clearly not true. If that sort of ROI existed in anywhere near the general case, a lot more people and companies would spend a lot more money on it, and they don&#x27;t. Perhaps there exists lobbying opportunities with these kinds of ROIs, but they are limited, and there definitely isn&#x27;t a 5,000% <i>floor</i> on it.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-fix&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;04&#x2F;americans-spend-more-on-elections-than-antacids-but-less-then-they-spend-on-halloween-so&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-fix&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2015&#x2F;05&#x2F;04&#x2F;am...</a><p>I think the problem with the zerohedge article (and the report it summarises) is that, first, they seem to assume that all corporate welfare benefits the businesses doing the lobbying locally (not to businesses in general, which is probably more the case -- Ford lobbying against foreign competition will help Chevrolet equally, regardless of how much either firm spends on lobbying), and second, that corporate welfare only exists because of lobbying: Politicians still need to get elected, and creating industry, jobs and high-profile ribbon-cutting opportunities in their districts (regardless of whether businesses lobby them for it or not) is likely to remain a popular tactic in the absence of lobbying.