Slashdot Mirror
Comcast PAC Gave Money To Every Senator Examining Time Warner Cable Merger
An anonymous reader writes in with news about money and politics that is sure to shock no one."It's no surprise that Comcast donates money to members of Congress. Political connections come in handy for a company seeking government approval of mergers, like Comcast's 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal and its proposed acquisition of Time Warner Cable (TWC). But just how many politicians have accepted money from Comcast's political arm? In the case of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held the first congressional hearing on the Comcast/TWC merger yesterday, the answer is all of them."
So let's see all of the Congress recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest, thus they can't do anything, thus...we're actually better off.
This is how America ceases to be great. We lose our edge, because society gets hijacked and the money flows to the wrong places instead of spurring innovation.
Bet on Comcast...Short VZ and T stock tomorrow...
If fact of donations will be confirmed, then Comcast lost in the court of public opinion. The merger should not be approved on the ground of anti-trust laws, unfair competition and reduced choice by consumers. At the minimum this should send a message to the future senators who will be tempted to take donations of the big business.
Why wouldn't they?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is all we know about. You'd be a fool to think that millions more didn't seep in to their pockets via other dark money laundering.
Yeah, I'm sure Comcast's management and investors totally feel bad about that whole public opinion thing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If fact of donations will be confirmed, then Comcast lost in the court of public opinion
Don't worry, there will be a squirrel event shortly and people will forget all about it. Then the merger will be quietly approved and by the time the rates go up, it will be too late.
If you rely on the general public you will always be disappointed, they are idiots and easily lead and/or distracted.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I work at the FCC (as an Engineer) I want some of that trickle down . . . . :(
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
It's not bribery, it's just a corporate person engaging in free speech. Indeed, our own dear supreme court asserts the view that this sort of activity does not even create the impression of impropriety...
We're very proud here. We have the best government that money can buy!
those donations can benefit comcast in ways other than the merger. such as limiting net neutrality legislation, and there is a large number of possible ways of net neutrality. congress could limit mergers with content providers. congress could force cable channel unbundling. congress could avoid encouraging municipal broadband...
the comcast and time warner merger is just simply too big of an issue for politicians to ignore. most households in america get cable, have to pay for cable, have to deal with cable customer service, and know who their cable provider is. comcast and time warner are regularly voted among the most hated companies in america. the average person will know the merger will be close to monopoly, and will be affected. if the merger goes through, there WILL be protests, and at least one person in congress will get fired.
Get money out of politics! http://www.wolf-pac.com/
It would probably be useful to specify the order of events in TFS, as the current summary implies they received campaign contributions after they started investigating the merger.
TFA is focusing on past campaign contributions - that is contributions before the investigation, seeing as how the investigation just started. Everyone on the committee has received a campaign contribution at some point in the past, even Al Franken. Which is more a statement on the fact that Comcast pretty much contributes to every incumbent's congressional campaign, rather than this being a case of where these senators were specifically targeted.
Which to be clear, still isn't a good thing by any means. This means everyone on that committee has received a contribution at some point. But it's not the same thing as giving contributions to someone when an active investigation is going on, something that would be far shadier.
This would happen anyway. As long as violent, coercive government exists with power over others it will always be corrupt. The answer is to take the power away.
*rubs nipples*
If fact of donations will be confirmed, then Comcast lost in the court of public opinion.
Lost public opinion? Maybe on /. but not to most of the voting public. Do you think CNN/NBC/Fox News will feature a story about this? And even if they did, would most people care? The only court of public opinion that matters is political candidates. Giving money to them means more campaign advertising for their candidate, thus is a win in the court of public opinion.
I do agree with you about calling it bribery. Why even bother using the term campaign contribution anymore? "Bribe" is a convenient synonym with fewer syllables.
There is no way that any business should be allowed to donate money to the world of politics. Each individual should be able to donate and that donation should be fully disclosed for all to see. But businesses should not be allowed to donate or lobby at all.
Why would you care about public opinion if you're buying a monopoly? What is the cable company going to do if you tell them to fuck off? Lick their fingers and rub their nipples?
San Diego developers already use cable service as a criteria when house-hunting. You want to be in a Cox area! Unfortunately, most of the jobs are in Time Warner areas. Now the service will go from bad to worse...
-- a lucky South-of-Interstate-8 developer...
Donations aren't bribery, because donations aren't payment _for_ anything. A bribe is payment _for_ some political action. It's completely legal to give donations. That's why prostitution is illegal but high-end escorts are legal. The high-end escort asks for a 'donation' and no service is promised. Of course, it's pretty obvious she won't give any service if there's no donation. But she doesn't _promise_ service for a donation. It's just that her reputation as an escort will suffer if she takes the money and runs. If she does turn tricks and the police catch her, she gets off scott free under the story that she independently fell in love and wanted a night of romance wit the John, which had _nothing_ to do with with the "donation". Senators and other politicians are high-end escorts of a different shade.
Shouldn't all those politicians recuse themselves from voting? Or are rules for politicians different from normal.
Indeed, our own dear supreme court asserts the view that this sort of activity does not even create the impression of impropriety...
No, the view that they asserted was that it did not violate the Constitution, not anything about the "impression of impropriety".
For the most part, the Supreme Court doesn't rule on if things are right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust -- they rule on if they're allowed or prohibited by the Constitution (or other laws, but most of the time they seem to work based on the Constitution.)
Guys, money is free speech.
And LIRC bribery usually involves talking to someone first....
The ranking D on the commitee that will be "looking at" the merger had to recuse himself because his brother is in line to reap millions if the deal goes through.
Comcast isn't quite a monopoly, and won't be even if they've merged with Time Warner. That said, the number of choices for cable/internet/phone to a specific person tend to be pretty small ... and sometimes the number of choices is one, but often it's two or three. For example, I live in the suburbs of Austin, and can get service from Time Warner, AT&T, Direct TV and Dish Network. Now, the last two are really only good options for cable and not phone/internet, but even so, there's still two choices for that. And Grande is available in some parts of town (but not where I live), and Google is coming too.
And that said, if enough people get pissed off at a true monopoly, the government has been known to step in and tear them apart. They certainly want to avoid that.
Most regulations are simply not needed. In huge swaths of government regulation, you find the fingerprints of lobbyists and corporate titans (many of them long dead) who pushed rules to establish congressional oversight. A lot of airline regulation can be traced back to the early days of the fights between Pan Am and TWA (neither of which still exist). This corruption makes it more difficult to any person or company that comes along later. Members of congress are able to campaign on (and raise funds from lobbyists on) promises to (depending on political ties and party) remove/strengthen the regulations, or enforce/grant relief from the regulations. Corporations and their lobbyists work the levers of government to use these regulations as cudgels in competition. Members of congress and presidential administrations and the lobbyists all have a hand-in-glove relationship in this.... they're all using each other and hoping the general public never wises-up.
The only path to getting rid of this garbage is much smaller government... get the Democrats AND the Republicans AND the corporations (who buy them) AND the lawyers (who enable all the abuse) out of as much as possible. We need very few (very clear and basic) laws. Instead of thousands of pages of law on business fraud, we need a two-page law that simply defines fraud and then applies it to all business transactions. If a law takes more than 2 single-space typed pages, it probably has loopholes to enable the lawyers and lobbyists. Same thing for ownership of broadcast rights, etc. Simple and clear, loophole-free, laws.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Yes, because Comcast is already doing so well in the court of public opinion. They are #1 in fact!
http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-wins-worst-company-in-america/
Note that they didn't say - "Hey, we're going to do this merger, here's a check for $50k to help you do the right thing." Money that is considered for this "story" goes back to 2009, long before anyone was talking about a merger, or even the NBC/Universal acquisition.
That's not to say the whole system isn't corrupt - people and corporations buy influence with congressman all the time through donations. But this isn't a case of a bribe - it's buying recognition and face time. Something which is not illegal but should be as it skews the perspective seen by those who are making laws.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
We should be Comcast's management and investors. Instead of bitching cancel your cable contract and buy Comcast stock. It will drive the share price down increasing the rate at which we can buy the sock. At 51% we can kick the fucking board of asshole to the curb and stack upper management with consumer focused executives. At current prices it is $150 per household for about 1.5 years but that should rapidly shift as investors flee the possibility of coop vs. rape prices. Capitalism can be democratic.
Lost public opinion? Maybe on /. but not to most of the voting public.
This. Most of the voting public looks out into the world and sees that they have only one choice for cable, whether that's Comcast or Time Warner or something else. They realize that a TW/Comcast merger will leave them with exactly the same one choice, maybe with a different name is all ("Timecast"? "Comner"? "Timefinity"?). In this case, one plus one really does equal one. Where's the reduced competition? Same choice before, same choice after.
And costs going up? That's going to happen whether the merger happens or not.
No, there's just not much there for the voting public to latch onto as a serious issue.
Impropriety is the act of taking the bribe, not offering it. The issue should be the love of money, not the money itself.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
it probably won't be long until AT&T merge with Comcast
U.S. representatives now placing their votes up for sale on E-Bay ;)
This would have been news if Comcast didn't give every member of congress that had anything to do with their merger money.
People don't care anymore. The people in power have switched the conversation from us (regular people) vs them (those in positions of power) into us ("democrats") vs us ("republicans"). If you point out that huge corporations bribe congress someone will point out that huge unions bribe congress. If you point out that the oil/gas sectors bribe republicans someone will point out that hollywood bribes democrats. We can't have a conversation about how it is wrong for any special interest to have that much influence just because of $ because we are too busy beating each other over the head.
The argument people have now is: "my special interest should be lobbying, your special interest shouldn't".
This is another reason you should always vote against incumbents. Make these bastards get as little for each "donation" as possible.
Trying for a pump and dump are we?
But it is prima fascia absurd. If money is protected political speech and speech cannot be regulated than why can't I let Ben Franklin do the talking?
Anon as I modded here.
If donations are not bribery, then *why* did Comcast give money to the people involved in making the decision on it's merger?
I get your high end escort metaphor and I see how it applies, but as long as we are going to allow this, we will continue to move toward plutocracy.
We need to remove money from the election campaigning in it's current form.
The problem of US law in a nutshell. As long as you come up with a technicality it's ok, no matter that anyone with a shred of common sense sees there is no difference.
Hello America, Glad to See You
Yours,
Ben Dover
Democracy = Plutocracy
Impropriety is the act of taking the bribe, not offering it. The issue should be the love of money, not the money itself.
I can't speak for the US but in my country it's also illegal to offer a bribe to a person holding public office.
How is this not illegal?
Comcast says that the merger won't hurt competition because Comcast and TWC don't compete in the same market anywhere.
It may be true that there is no place where both companies offer service to the same customer.
This ignores the fact that a Comcast customer in region C can look at the cable rates in region T served by TWC and compare prices.
If Comcast charged 10 times as much as TWC, you can be sure that the folks in region C would be talking to their regulators about why they are paying 10 times more that the folks in region T.
Having TWC around to provide a price benchmark is a form of competition that will go away with the merger.
In this market served by so few friendly 'competitors', this isn't much, but it's about all that's left.
For Comcast to have managed to get to this position is a tribute to their lobbyists.
For the folks in govt to buy it is at best gullible.
The proper response is sure, you can merge,
and btw, welcome to long overdue common carrier status.
who the hell still pays for cable? cavemen?!
All the smart kids just stream games of throne on their smartphones. HA! You thought you had me there, but see, I didn't say on their itermanets!
The ONLY thing cable has to offer is live events (S P O R T S), and face it, this is slashdot.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
...should be considered a treasonous level of bribery.
Looks like USA needs to invade itself to bring democracy. Buying off Senators is not democracy, just in case there's some doubt. Shouldn't all those Senators be struck off for accepting bribes, or are bribes fine in the USA.
I have absolutely no love for Comcast.
But you would have to be amazingly ignorant to think that this is, at all, unusual. This is the way the US works.
Monsanto, Microsoft, etc. all work the same way.
The non-wealthy are not powerless, because the non-wealthy can organize, raise money, and hire lobbyists. It's difficult, but not impossible.
In many places it's illegal, but the only real offense is taking the bribe. We shouldn't vote for people who can't resist the temptation, and if they fall while in office, they should be removed post haste. No "punishment" is necessary.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Actually we're the only country that wasn't blasted into the stone age during WWII
Canada and Australia say hi...
Corporate Oligarchy.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
We nerds have a responsibility to escape the cycle of complaints and do something that may actually influence things. Politicians are afraid to lose their seat before Comcast has given them assurances of lucrative positions for playing ball. We have to at least make one phone call to our senators.
In an ideal world, yes.
In the interim, I like what Larry Lessig has to say.
Under the US Constitution, the people, including in this case corporations, have a right to "petition the government", and that is what these contributions are. They are a way that Comcast makes known to politicians its priorities. People who oppose Comcast's priorities can also contribute and petition the government. Typically, however, those better organized get their way more frequently. The open Internet is over. The Internet has turned into a corporate and profit driven shake-down racket.
Why has there not been a story posted here about the McCutcheon case? Looking at the current list of stories, i.e. shielding for the undercarriage of a car, worrying about the decline of 'deaf' culture, a new french law about overtime... seems like a lot of marginally relevant filler for a slow news week.
How can you run stories about the HP scandal and the Comcast merger while looking the other way on a landmark SCOTUS decision? Tell me that isn't deliberate.
This is why the Move To Amend group is so important.
It takes away the corporations 'personhood'. It removes money as 'speech'. It doesn't allow our elected officials to get money from corporations.
https://movetoamend.org
Corporations are NOT people.
Money is NOT speech.
Democracy is NOT for sale.
Join up, let your voice be heard as thunder from the heavens down upon D.C. - may our elected officials tremble and quake when they realize we mean business. (pun intended)
Rules for politicians? I understand all those words, just not in that order.
Yeah, I'm sure Comcast's management and investors totally feel bad about that whole public opinion thing.
Public opinion doesn't matter much when you engineer local monopolies.
No a pump and hold. Drive the stock own to allow send user to buy 51% and vote in new management. If the government won't regulate natural monopolies than why don't we just buy them out?
But they didn't rule on if it was absurd or not. They ruled on if it was prohibited by the Constitution and other laws, and found the answer to be "no".
It already owns a sizable chunk of the broadcast medium. Now it and other big companies want to own the politicians too. With of course, the full acquiescence and enthusiasm of those politicians.
We wonder why it costs money to reach people. It's because the marketplace is tightly controlled.
The people who direct the corporate construct are the actual people. Not the construct.
Except Maybe Alan Grayson, and it's all he can do to hold onto his seat. Back when the health care debate was raging he pointed out that the right wing's answer was If you get sick, die quick. They moved in with so much money he lost his seat, and since they own the media they also stopped covering anything he said.
I don't have anything to compare to. Anyone who is even remotely progressive just gets destroyed...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
>> why does your genetic luck in terms of your hand-eye coordination and your luck in being born to the right parents at the right time have to make it so that you will have an amazingly easier life than somebody who due to a small genetic abnormality was born blind? how fair is that?
Because why should that person who "won" the generic lottery be forced to pay for someone who didn't win?
Yes, I understood what you said. What I was implying was that your post could be read as a cover story for a pump&dump scheme.
"The LA Times story notes that Franken was using his opposition to the Comcast/NBC deal to raise more campaign funds. A Franken spokesperson told the newspaper at the time that there were no plans to return the donation, saying, "He campaigned pretty clearly that he was going to stand up to special interests."
Helped with his anti-comcast campaign