Novo Nordisk, Accu-Chek, Syntra. 
Xe (Blackwater), KBR, Diebold, etc.
OTOH, I would say that the question in the OP has been effectively answered in the negative. It is not true that all GOP lgislation is intended solely for the advancement of (large) private corporations.
Well, but neither of those bills directly benefited the companies you listed. The Homeland Security Act might have indirectly done so, because the Homeland Security Department went on to accept contracts from those companies, but it’s likely that the contracts still would have been handed out without the reorganization.
Benefits non-profit corporations by exempting them completely from the legislation. Benefits corporations by making the list “opt out” instead of “opt in.” Expiration of adding your number to the list. Wouldn’t it be better if you only had to call if you wanted telemarketers calling you?
Really benefits politicians as they are exempted as well!
Benefits corporations by not allowing states to impose tougher restrictions. Benefited each of the credit reporting bureaus as they get to offer upsells right along side the free credit report. Feel free to peruse the annual reports of Experian, TransUnion and Equifax… they have been rolling in the dough since this was legislated
Yeah, this didn’t benefit the insurance carriers or drug companies at all. Whatever. Medicare didn’t cover prescription meds, now it does, and you think that doesn’t benefit corporations???
Well, first of all, hoss, hold up, because the person you want to be arguing with is Tom Tildrum, and not me. I do want to take issue with your comments about the Do Not Call List Act, though.
Pre act-for-profits, not-for-profits, and politicians could cold call everybody. The bill was passed, and now for-profits can only call some people. That didn’t benefit any of the groups…it hurt for-profits and didn’t affect charities and politicians. not-for-profit organizations and politicians only benefited relative to for-profits because their status remained unchanged.
Here is the official fact sheet (pdf) from PEPFAR’s website.
It says that $18 billion had been spent through 9/30/2008.
The LA Times seems to accept the $18 billion figure and reports that 57,000 lives have been saved in Kenya through the program.
Presumably, of course, money has been flowing to drugmakers and condom companies.
I suppose it’s possible that Republican lawmakers were motivated by a desire to benefit non-profits at the expense of for-profit companies. But even if that’s true, that still fits the spirit of the OP, it seems to me.
Your proposal benefits corporations that advertise heavily.
But it also bars states from permitting looser restrictions.
All true. But if Congress wanted to legislate money for the credit reporters or the drugmakers, it could have done so in a way that didn’t provide benefits for seniors and consumers as well.
Look, Medicare Parts A and B benefit hospitals, device manufacturers, and drugmakers. Food stamps benefit Archer Daniels Midland. Civil Rights laws benefit diversity training companies. Sarbanes Oxley was a huge benefit to accounting firms. Legalizing gay marriage would benefit jewelers, hotels, and greeting card companies.
Perhaps Czarcasm could clarify what sort of legislation would not constitute a benefit to corporations within the terms of the OP.
How about the restriction on federal funding on embryonic stem-cell research? Or was that an executive order and not legislation?
Executive order.
Except non-profits are great ways for for-profits to get their messages out. Especially around election time. Especially with the disturbing amount of PAC money flowing around.
That’s being disingenuous at best. A national opt-in list would allow telemarketers to contact you, just as the opt-out list will preclude them from contacting you. So if one company gets you to sign up, every other company conducting telemarketing gets to contact you,
Again, disingenuous. Even if a state could loosen the restrictions (which they can’t) the Federal restriction would still be in place.
Well, this is where the points converge. I would argue it’s because special interest lobbyists manage to wrangle their mitts on just about major bill that floats through the house, and in some cases, write the actual legislation themselves. Maybe that’s because I’m cynical 
Tariff-reducing legislation, which Republicans usually support and union-backed Democrats oppose, harm domestic corporations and benefit consumers.
Although nothing was ever passed, wouldn’t the immigration reform pushed for by a number of Republicans be considered anti-business?
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were contemplating a system of opting in to inidividual companies.
The lobby would never allow it