Even disclosing to their employees who they're giving money to as campaign contributions would be a start. At the moment they have to find this out from @pinboard: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/1053804655602528256
It's one thing to issue a statement supporting LGBT+ rights (cost: $0) but donating $5000 to a Republican candidate is a much more significant action in terms of making the world worse for trans people.
The only solution would be comprehensive campaign finance reform. And due to Supreme Court precedent that would probably require a Constitutional amendment (not likely to happen).
But I think it's more proactive than "donating to whatever candidate supports a piece of legislation favorable to them as an enterprise". I think it's more like "donating so that the candidate will support legislation (not just one piece!) favorable to Google as an enterprise". That is, I think it's more proactive than reactive. Google wants politicians to like Google before they're deciding which legislation to support.
I'm definitely willing to concede that in many cases it's a little bit of column A, and a little bit of column B. Probably.
That statement needs multiple hours of writing from VP level approval etc. The cost is not 0.