Janet Reno went after Microsoft for something or another, and previously, their lobbying effort was pretty small, and the talk was that it was to spur MS to hire lobbyists, aka former congresscritters and other political hacks.
Not really up on what political contributions were personally or corporate, historically or currently.
e-Peat and the like are, in my mind, just shakedowns, appealing to the low information consumer, and just another economic barrier to innovation to protect big corporations from startups like Apple once was.
Protect the environment? There's reality, and then there's the "religious" view. A presentation years ago by a guy from Polaroid stated obvious that if you don't produce hazardous waste, you don't have to dispose of it.
New product development may have to be "less clean" in the beginning. That, the original ketchup squeeze bottle was made from something like seven different plastic layers that didn't recycle well, if at all. (I generally prefer glass over plastic for food, but plastic has its places and uses)
Likewise, finding the most practical energy efficient way to operate is also obvious, but flies in the face of the "environmental religion" on so many levels. Electric cars have a very large energy footprint. Biodiesel costs more for less energy, not to mention the extra energy costs hauling around less efficient fuel, and more fueling stops.
As for my "diverting funds", isn't Algor still on the board of Apple? I'd bet his pet scams are getting Apple money now.
Al Gore is still on Apple's Board. I would not say his "pet scams" are getting Apple any money. Apple has pretty much made all of their US facilities 100% self-powered by either solar or natural gas from the area and actually sell surplus power back onto the grid. The new headquarters building will also be 100% off the grid. . . Apple's total expenditure on such projects in 2012 was under $300 million. . . and eliminated power bills almost twice that. They are paying for themselves. I would assume that Apple IS taking advantage of the tax credits that are available under Federal Tax laws.
Jobs never had any impact on "employee charitable giving." He could not affect that. He did close down company charitable giving programs that were out of control. The employees were free to form organizations to give as they chose. . . and the Apple Employees' Political Action Committee remained in place. That had nothing to do with the corporation at all and could not be law. Employees were free to donate or not. The AEPAC general gave to Democrats v Republicans in about an 80/20 ratio. . . which is about the same as all Tech companies' employee PACs' ratios. Not much to see here. Same old same old.