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."

Comments

Seems logical to me that they all need to recuse

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[cheater512]

America is deluded that they were great to begin with. A super power? Maybe. But 'great'? Wtf.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[ShanghaiBill]

We lose our edge, because society gets hijacked and the money flows to the wrong places instead of spurring innovation.

There is a theory that Japan and Germany recovered and prospered so quickly after WWII because their profound defeat destroyed so many entrenched special interest groups that could no longer block progress.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MichaelMonaghan]

Many countries are great or have been great in their past which includes the US due to their contributions to the rest of the world. To say otherwise is simply being ignorant of the rest of the world.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[pitchpipe]

America is deluded that they were great to begin with. A super power? Maybe. But 'great'? Wtf.

Sorry. Our founding fathers were mostly a bunch of bad asses with really good ideas that they were willing to fight for, and the country that came out of that fight was great.

It's the money grubbing assholes who are fucking it up now by claiming that money = free speech and corporations are people. That means that the ultra rich have at least 10,000 times as much speech as most of us, and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all. Money should not be equivalent to free speech. Never. It's a fucking travesty that it is, and the people who made it so are destroying our country. I'm not being hyperbolic here.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Obfuscant]

and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all.

The reason those people have "no voice at all" is because ... they don't have the money to pay for it. That really does make the point that money is required for the full exercise of free speech. The days of standing on a soapbox on a street corner and reaching a significant number of people with one's speech are long gone.

Money should not be equivalent to free speech. Never.

Then it is a good thing that money isn't equivalent to free speech. Money is, however, as your own statements show, a requirement for full exercise of same. And by extension, telling people they cannot spend their money to pay for speech is equivalent to creating an even larger group of people who have no voice.

I realize that silencing opinions that one does not favor is a common goal these days, but removing the ability to exercise the right of free speech from more people isn't the solution.

As for your problem with that corporations are made up of people who still have rights, well, that's a topic for another day.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[pitchpipe]

and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all.

The reason those people have "no voice at all" is because ... they don't have the money to pay for it. That really does make the point that money is required for the full exercise of free speech.

In this country (the US), yes I'll give you that, but it shouldn't be that way. They've gamed the system so that the more money you have, the more speech you have, but it's a rigged system.

I'm saying that inherently money != free speech, and that the law should reflect that. If we had a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that money != free speech then we could talk sensibly about limiting its corrupting influence. As it is now it has taken pretty much all of the power away from the people. You say "ah, but go out and vote!" Okay, I'll go vote for asshole 'A' or asshole 'B'. Those are my realistic choices. Not much of a choice there, and the billions floating around in politics ensures that will always be the case.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[artor3]

America was and is great. How can you judge a country's greatness, if not by the quality of life it affords to its people? And the average person born in the US has a significantly higher quality of life than at least 80% of the world's population.

The US could certainly be a lot better, but to say it isn't and never was great smacks of knee-jerk cynicism masquerading as wisdom.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[F34nor]

The term of art you are looking for is "rent seeking behavior"

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[F34nor]

I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MarcoAtWork]

If you have that few settlers come into a continent as large, virgin and as rich as North America (compared to tiny European countries that had been exploited for millennia in most cases, with very few natural resources) it seems to me that the US standards of living should've been 10x what the rest of the world had, if you take into account that Europe suffered through two world wars on its soil (where the second one especially nearly destroyed it industrially for many years) the US standards of living should've been more like 50x higher for several decades afterwards.

By any metric you can think of unfortunately I don't see life in the US being 10x better than in the rest of the developed first world for the average person (life expectancy, happiness, schooling, health, ...), I mean, as far as you can find out the majority of personal bankruptcies in the US is due to medical expenses, where in the rest of the world getting sick does not automatically mean losing all you've worked for in your life.

Nowadays with the whole 'money = free speech' it seems the table is tilting even more towards large class disparities in the population, and a much bigger division by the haves and have nots. Despite this perversely, due to endless straw-manning by interested parties, a lot of people appear, from the outside at least, to vote for politicians that are actively out to make their life worse: it is of course quite hard to develop an informed opinion when large amounts of money, advertising and content are funneled towards muddying any issue and transforming it into either a partisan dilemma or a who-do-you-like-most uninformed decision.

The general culture of the land also seems to have an extremely strong sense of being defensive any time the country is criticized in any way shape or form, in all countries I've lived in or visited there is not as much animosity when it comes to recognizing their nation's shortfalls: ask any European in several countries, say, about bureaucracy or lack of competitiveness or the impossibility to fire people etc. etc. and you'll never hear the end of it, ask any American about health care (unless of course the ones that have gone bankrupt) and you will just get partisan talking points, these days usually about Obamacare.

The cult of "rugged individualism" that seems to permeate American society is good for some things (very low barriers to starting a business, for example, a feeling of personal responsibility, etc.) but unless it's tempered by some sort of "compassionate government" it is not conducive to having a harmonious society where yes, there are still differences in social status, but they are not as extreme, and there is no risk of anybody in one of the wealthiest nations in the world ending up destitute because their genetic luck ran out and they were in an accident or became sick with an expensive-to-treat condition.

The US might be great from a military power standpoint, no doubts about that, and from a 'can-do attitude' as well, but society should be about a lot more than who has the most money, who can make more money, it's should not be a competition, as much as the gospel in the US seems to be that we are all born equal we really aren't: our parents' social situations are different, our genes are different, many of us have disabilities, everybody should not be held to the same standard in a win-or-die kind of situation.

People should stop thinking "I don't care if by doing X to prevent 'abuse' by that moocher society will be worse for everybody, as long as there are no 'moochers' it's totally fine if everybody is in misery but the really lucky ones", but the odds of that happening are pretty low, when interested parties will do their best to frame all policy decisions in a "you're against the 'moochers' or you are a 'moocher' yourself".

The best country in the world would be a country where everybody has the opportunity to excel, and nobody runs the risk of failing due to its inbuilt safety nets, the US could certainly afford this if there was the will to make it so, now that would be American Exceptionalism I would gladly stand behind.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Obfuscant]

In this country (the US), yes I'll give you that, but it shouldn't be that way. They've gamed the system so that the more money you have, the more speech you have, but it's a rigged system.

This "gaming" of the system is called "someone has to pay the bill". Neither print, online, nor broadcast media are free of cost.

I'm saying that inherently money != free speech,

Yes, we've already dealt with the concept that money isn't equivalent to free speech, but that it is a requirement to have it.

then we could talk sensibly about limiting its corrupting influence.

There are already laws dealing with bribery and graft. I suspect that since you are talking about "corrupting influence" in the same article that talks about money being necessary for effective free speech that you want to limit the money spent on free speech. That means you do think that the solution to some people not having money to pay for effective speech is to silence those who do.

Okay, I'll go vote for asshole 'A' or asshole 'B'. Those are my realistic choices. Not much of a choice there, and the billions floating around in politics ensures that will always be the case.

No, it is not the money that limits the number of candidates, it is the system. Both the two party system that results in one candidate from each, and the political environment where good people want to have nothing to do with the mudpit they'd find themselves in. Solving the former would be, well, pretty difficult. No party is going to dilute their own constituency voluntarily by putting up more than one candidate. Solving the latter? That's not going to happen soon, and silencing people you don't agree with won't solve it.

The answer would be viable candidates from other parties. Where are they? Well, they have the same sense of self-preservation that keeps good people off of the tickets for the major parties. And they have, apparently, insufficient message to draw significant voters. Would more money mean a better message? No, it would just mean more repetition of the same message that already doesn't draw voters.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[rsilvergun]

Actually we're the only country that wasn't blasted into the stone age during WWII. For a brief period of time fear of communists stealing factories kept off-shoring at bay (ironically it Marx used to warn that capital flowing to where labor was cheapest was a problem). A small group of progressives dragged the rest of our country out of the uncivilized mess it was mired in (the American South didn't exactly go along with the the whole Civil Rights thing quietly, and lately they've been pushing voter suppression hard).

I hate to say it, but I wouldn't so much as call us 'great' as I would very lucky. For most Americans prosperity was a temporary blip on the radar they're watching fade away...

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[artor3]

it seems to me that the US standards of living should've been 10x what the rest of the world had ... I don't see life in the US being 10x better

Has it occurred to you that maybe you just had unrealistic expectations?

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MarcoAtWork]

do you think that a country like the US with the vast, vast, vast natural resources it contains, its economic power, and the amount of extremely bright people that call it their home should not have 10x the standard of living of a small country in Europe with next to no natural resources, much fewer inhabitants, and an industry that was basically razed to the ground a generation ago?

If US society was geared towards making life as good as possible for everybody I am sure by now everybody would be on basic income with free healthcare (especially mental health, which is sorely underfunded right now) and education. People could be free to do what they wanted to do with their life without having to worry about becoming destitute, not being able to eat or have shelter. Of course some people would take advantage of that and live a life of videogames and idleness, but is that reason enough not to provide society at large the option of not being chained to a for-profit job if their don't want to? basic income would be just that, basic, a grocery allowance, a rent allowance for some sort of "government housing" apartment, a very minimal allowance for extras, that's it, if you want more you can always get a job just like now, it's just that if you don't have a job rather than ending up on the street you'll at least be taken care of.

Wouldn't society as a whole be improved by its citizens being able to do what they want instead of what they need to survive? In the end idle pursuits are hollow pleasures, and sooner or later people will tire of them, the vast, vast majority of people are happiest when they feel they are contributing to their well being and to society at large, and the most rewarding form of contribution is to feel you are doing a good job, whatever the "good job" is according to your inclination: some people like to build furniture, others to code, others to cook, etc.

In my opinion the majority of people would still work full time to have a better standards of living, and jobs would eventually have their pay rise based on the willingness of people to do them as opposed to how desperate people are to find one: if a job is rewarding and enjoyable it should pay a lot less than one that isn't, being a professional golf player is a lot more fun than being a dishwasher at a restaurant, why should it also be paying 100x more? just because if you are a pro golfer you can sell more stuff to people that they don't need so the corporations that produce it make more money? how does that help society as a whole?

If this meant that eating out would cost $500 because the line staff had to be paid $50/hour to work there and there would be very few restaurants less, well, that's what will happen: or is being able to go out to eat whenever you want (because you are lucky you have the skills to be in a high paying job) worth having a lot of people working at those restaurants be paid under poverty-level wages and have to have two jobs which makes it impossible for them to improve their situation?

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? and how fair a society is that idolizes the former and tries to remove as much help as possible from the latter because somebody somewhere might be "taking advantage of government handouts"? always with the focus towards the few that take advantage of things vs the may that would benefit from them?

This is getting way out of topic, but when you see decisions by the supreme court that corporations are people (who can't be put in jail, though, if a corp does something bad often the worst thing that happens is the CEO leaves with their golden parachute and then it's business as usual) and money is free speech (money that is not accountable, however, where "hate speech" in the form of attack ads is considered totally ok) it's hard to believe the US is as great a nation as it could be if its priorities were different.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[artor3]

do you think that a country like the US with the vast, vast, vast natural resources it contains, its economic power, and the amount of extremely bright people that call it their home should not have 10x the standard of living of a small country in Europe with next to no natural resources, much fewer inhabitants, and an industry that was basically razed to the ground a generation ago?

No, I don't think the US should have 10x the standard of living of a small European country. Why would you expect such a thing? We don't have 10x the resources per capita, and even if we did, there's the question of diminishing returns. Additionally, we're still people, with all the murder and rape and greed that entails. You have these absurdly high expectations, and then get all upset when we can't live up to them.

For what its worth, I think you and I are very alike in our politics. I agree with pretty much all your points, just not the conclusion you draw from them. For all its faults, America is still pretty great. I'm certainly glad I was born here, and all of the immigrants I know are extremely thankful to have been able to come here. It could be better, and we should strive to make it better, but acting like its some horrible place doesn't help. It only leads to people giving up.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Anonymous Coward]

Anon because I modded you up ( because you were rated "Troll" when I did, which I dont think was fair ).

"Then it is a good thing that money isn't equivalent to free speech. Money is, however, as your own statements show, a requirement for full exercise of same."

A distinction without much distinction.
If you cant really have speech without money, then allowing money to = speech means that people without money are removed from the exercise of same.

"And by extension, telling people they cannot spend their money to pay for speech is equivalent to creating an even larger group of people who have no voice."

No, telling people that there are no limits on what they can spend to buy an election creates a huge group of people without voice. I'm really not sure how you cant see that.
I have sympathy for the concept of "its mine, I should be able to use it as I like", but there comes a time when "using it as I like" injures others, and that ought not be allowed.

"I realize that silencing opinions that one does not favor is a common goal these days, but removing the ability to exercise the right of free speech from more people isn't the solution."
Ending the treatment of speech = money would not silence anyone's opinions. ( name one person who would be silenced ( no, having to "endure" having the same voice as a poor person for the wealthy is not being silenced ) ).
It would end the "I'm powerful because I have lots of money, so you have to listen to me and run your campaign ( quietly, so the election boards don't see it ) as I like". I believe there is plenty of documentation of the notion that power ( and money = power to an extent ) will influence others.
Why is it OK to silence the less wealthy? That, ultimately, is what is happening.

Corporations are made of people who have rights. And those people already have sufficient ( and for some, more than sufficient ) voice. There is absolutely, positively no need for corporations to add in this mix.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Anonymous Coward]

Anon because I modded you as above.

Paying the bill: there are other ways. If you say that the wealthy and corporations will not participate in equal election funding, then answer why they wont. I strongly believe it is because they will not have the influence that their moneys currently give them. Which is corruption and bribery in my mind. And this money silences many many many more than no money ever would.

Requirement to have money to have speech: see above, and why does it *have* to be that way?

Bribery and graft: Those laws are not really working and the wealthy are working hard to dilute them further, ( Citizens United, the recent ruling on overall contribution limits ). And again, you are silencing way more people in treating money as speed than if you dont.

For someone who is so adamant that silencing people is bad you seem very in favor of policies that do exactly that. Do you think it is OK for the wealthy to have a disproportionate voice?

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MrBigInThePants]

I have seen the term "free speech" used in a lost of stories lately and am horrified by the number of people who do not even understand the term. It appears that the term "free speech" is hijacked to mean whatever the hell the poster wants it to mean at the time.

It is truly staggering and I am at a loss as to why people make this huge mistake? It is honestly and very interesting social phenomenon to me.

Is this just an American thing? Has your schooling system and/or corporate media engrained some arbitrary and/or politically convenient (yet utterly incorrect) definition or something?

Freedom of Speech == right to convey almost any idea and opinion free of government interference. (with the exception of things like libel/slander/hate speech depending on the country)

How on EARTH is "donating" money to politicians ANYTHING to do with free speech?!

My god people: wake the fuck up. This is nothing more than legalised corruption. Plain and simple.

Regardless of whether or not you believe "donations" should be allowed (and all arguments I have seen to this end have been extremely weak) it has NOTHING to do with free speech and never has.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[L4t3r4lu5]

They were certainly part of something great, at one point.

Sincerely,

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[B33rNinj4]

Pretty much. Sadly, as long as voters get their one or two ideological issues supported their representatives in the legislature can do whatever they want.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[TheRaven64]

I was thinking about this the other day. The core problem is not lobbying, because it's perfectly sensible that people with an interest in a particular topic would want to talk to their elected representatives about it. The problem is unequal access to lobbying, and that comes from the massive wealth inequality in the USA and the fact that lobbying is expensive. Perhaps a better solution would be for each member of the electorate to have allocated a certain amount of their representatives' time.

For example, each member of the House of Representatives is responsible for approximately 500,000 people. Assume that they spend on average two hours a day talking to their constituents and the rest is spent in committees, or on holidays (since we're talking about an average). That's 2628000 seconds per year, or around 5 seconds per constituent per year (10 seconds per term). If you want to have a five minute conversation with a representative, then you must find 60 people all willing to give you their time allocations. Or 300 all willing to give you 20% of their allocation. If you want to have an hour-long meeting, then that's 720 people who must give up all of their allowance, or 3600 who must give up 20% (or any breakdown).

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Gr8Apes]

The easiest way to solve the 2 party issue is to disallow party affiliation on all ballots. Only names for the position, listed in alphabetical order on first or last name ascending or descending decided randomly per spot, and ideally per ballot with electronic voting. You either know them, or you don't. Voters can't just pull a red or blue lever. Instant destruction of the 2 party system for many of the lower level positions. As soon as that happens, you may see it bubble on up the hierarchy, as people realize that their segment of the party doesn't really match up with the "national" party view, and diversification ensues. Or so I would hope.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[dcw3]

I'd like to challenge your use of the word progressives here. How do they compare to those you would call progressive today?

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[pnutjam]

Too bad this was anonymous, it's an excellent post.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Lord Lemur]

While plagued with opportunities for abuse, this is a very intresting concept.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

The people the Right are dismissing as being "progressives" and "liberals" today are to the right of Everett Dirksen. I'm not sure Strom Thurmond would pass one of today's conservative litmus test suites.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MarcoAtWork]

this is what I was getting at above when I was talking about how any time there is any criticism of the US its inhabitants will often respond with "we are doing the best we can" or "if you don't like it here leave" or "it's better here than in a 3rd world country" or "since you don't live here you are not allowed to comment" etc. the vast majority of people are glad to be born where they were, if you removed economic incentives very, very few people would emigrate and leave behind their family, friends and memories: I have left my country many years back, and not a day goes by I don't miss it and wish I could go back, even after having made for myself a life here in North America now with new friends and so on it still is not the same. Most people from every country feel the same way, we all love our country of birth, and that despite all its warts and problems it's still the best place to be, it's just basic human nature.

This said just because in my opinion the US is on a wrong path from a societal standpoint and its priorities are not serving the majority of is citizens well, I don't think that the US is a horrible place to live like some truly bad places on our planet, having seen first hand how some people live in slums in the 3rd world even the worst place in the US cannot compare. This said to me the situation is akin to "living off the table scraps of the kings sitting on the floor under the table in the warm castle is better than being starving to death outside in the cold", of course it is better, but is it really all that should be aspired to?

You don't think that at the end of WW2 the US did not have over 10x the resources per-capita of, say, Austria? In 1945 the US had 150 million inhabitants, Austria had 7 million, the US is 10 million square km, Austra is 83000 square km, this makes it so the pop density for them in 1945 was 15/sqkm vs 85/sqkm so even if Austria and the US had the same amount of natural resources per sqkm in their country, the US would have had already nearly 6 times as many on a per-capita basis.

Now, I don't want to spend quite some time researching hard data, but I think you will agree that the natural resources available in the US (in terms of arable land, minerals, metals, oil, coal, ...) are much larger in abundance: I don't remember ever reading about Austria as a net oil/coal/food exporter for example... Austria's industry after WW2 was not exactly in great shape either.

Now look at available data about education, schooling, life expectancy, and general quality of life among the two countries: do you think the US is doing as good a job as it could be? by a long shot? The US was on a trajectory where it could definitely have become the greatest country in the world on all metrics, but it seems all the tremendous energy generated in the 50s-60s and to a certain extent 70s was harnessed towards making the powerful as powerful as possible, and the rich as rich as possible, as opposed to making society as livable for everybody as possible.

The great tragedy is that this trajectory change was sold, and is still being sold, as somehow good for the country as a whole while if you, for example, look at the recently proposed republican budget, with all its cuts to social programs, cuts to taxes for rich individuals and increases in military expenditures without a partisan hat on, it seems pretty obvious it is only good for the few and very, very bad for the many: but this issue is of course framed in a "us vs them" "job creators vs moochers" "socialists vs americans" metaphors and so half the country would still vote for it if they could, when a country's population is not given the tools they need to develop critical thinking and instead is taught that opinions and beliefs should carry the same weight as scientific theories and facts, it is a lot easier to sway with emotional pleas as opposed to reasoned arguments.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Obfuscant]

Anon because I modded you as above.

Having your cake and eating it too.

Paying the bill: there are other ways.

No, there are no other ways. It costs money to run radio ads. It costs money to run a website. It costs money to run print ads. SOMEONE has to pay for that. There is no other way.

If you say that the wealthy and corporations will not participate in equal election funding, then answer why they wont.

If I say what? That if you prohibit the use of money to pay for effective speech the rich won't be able to participate in speech? That should be obvious. If the poor cannot buy airtime because they don't individually have the money and you prohibit them from forming groups (like CU) with the intention of pooling their money, and you prohibit the rich from using their own money to buy airtime, then yes, you've silenced both groups. You haven't made it easier for the poor to speak.

Or that silencing people you don't like isn't the solution to people you do like not being able to pay for their speech? That should be obvious, too. But I don't know what this "participate in equal election funding" nonsense is, or how it is supposed to remove the requirement for money to have effective speech from the system.

Requirement to have money to have speech: see above, and why does it *have* to be that way?

I love "see above" arguments, because they are so meaningless. What "above" shows that money isn't necessary for effective speech? Nothing. You simply declare "there are other ways" and don't quite get around to saying how you'd cover the costs of the speech. It has to be that way because newpapers and TV stations and websites don't get free electricity and newsprint and servers, and the people who run those media don't all donate their time.

Bribery and graft: Those laws are not really working and the wealthy are working hard to dilute them further, ( Citizens United, the recent ruling on overall contribution limits ).

What utter and complete nonsense. CU wasn't about bribery or graft or anything in furtherance of either. CU was about a corporation that was CREATED FOR THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF BUYING AIRTIME FOR A MOVIE still being allowed to buy that airtime because the people who made up that corporation HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. Just as the Sierra Club has the right to dump $200,000 into a campaign against a conservative. And the Teamster's Union spent their member's money on a hatchet job on the same candidate:

However, the special Senate election took an interesting turn a few weeks before election day A union group ran a radio ad that accused Smith of murder ...

Now, maybe you were vocally opposed to that use of money, too, but I don't know many people who were. Wyden slid out from the mess by claiming the people who were spending money on his behalf weren't under his control. Apparently Ron Wyden doesn't think money is corrupting or buys influence because he relies on it for his campaigns.

For someone who is so adamant that silencing people is bad you seem very in favor of policies that do exactly that.

Nonsense. CU being allowed to buy airtime for a movie is hardly how one silences anyone. It means that more people can speak because more people can join with others to pay for that speech. A movie that shows Hillary Clinton in a bad light doesn't stop you from buying an ad that shows her to be the Next Coming of the Messiah.

That's the real way to counter that speech that you are so opposed to. Not silencing people because you don't like what they say or how they pay for the media to say it. Making your own speech and banding together with others of like mind to make your single voice more effective.

But the one fact remains: it costs money to have effective speech in these modern times. There is no way around that. Someone has to pay for it.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Obfuscant]

A distinction without much distinction.

An important distinction not because of the final effect but because of the difference between trying to claim that money is equivalent to speech and the truth that money is necessary for whatever speech is being made. "I spent $1000" says nothing of any meaning. "I believe X" and spending $1000 for airtime does. That is the difference.

But you're right on one part: banning money mean you effectively ban the speech. Because the former is a requirement for the latter, banning the former effectively bans the latter, whether you understand the difference between "requirement" and "equivalence" or not.

No, telling people that there are no limits on what they can spend to buy an election creates a huge group of people without voice. I'm really not sure how you cant see that.

I can't see that because it isn't true. First of all, you have a very cynical view of the voter. How does my spending $1000 to say "I believe X" "buy" an election? It doesn't. People who don't agree can vote 'no'. People who do can vote 'yes'. My speech doesn't profit them either way, they've gotten nothing from me in exchange for their vote.

Second, my spending $1000 to say "I believe X" doesn't in any way stop you from spending your $1000 to say "X is wrong". It doesn't silence you. Now, you may not have $1000, but your lack of money isn't a result of my spending $1000, you'd not have the money whether I spent that $1000 or not. My speech isn't silencing you, it's your own lack of a way to pay for your own speech that does that. I'd suggest in that case you band together with others of like mind and pool your limited resources to pay for your speech, but you seem opposed to that solution.

I have sympathy for the concept of "its mine, I should be able to use it as I like", but there comes a time when "using it as I like" injures others, and that ought not be allowed.

Clearly, if I say something you agree with you have suffered no injury at all, so you can't claim that the simple act of speech is what created the injury, it has to be the content of that speech. "I don't like what you say" isn't sufficient grounds to claim that you've been injured by my speech. You not being able to buy your own airtime to rebut my statements isn't sufficient grounds to claim that you've been injured by my speech, because it reverts to "I don't like what you say so when you say it I'm injured".

Ending the treatment of speech = money

Speech is not equivalent to money. Money is not equivalent to speech. If it were, the hefty sum in my IRA would be making some kind of statement, and it isn't. You can't end what doesn't exist.

It would end the "I'm powerful because I have lots of money, so you have to listen to me

You know what I do when I hear an ad from a "powerful" person I don't agree with? I turn it off. I don't have to listen to him. He's got no gun held to my head.

and run your campaign ( quietly, so the election boards don't see it ) as I like".

You've missed the point that people who spend the money on ads for candidates don't have to tell the candidate how to run their campaign, they simply buy the ads and say what they want. I've linked to two references that talk about the unions and special interests who dumped huge amounts of money into ads for their pet candidate (Teamsters, Sierra Club, and Ron Wyden), running horribly negative ads (accusing his opponent of murder, for one thing) and how did Wyden solve this negative campaign problem? "I don't control them". That's it. He didn't have to run his campaign their way, they ran their own campaign for him. And NOBODY ever said "this is bad, they shouldn't be allowed to spend their money that way."

Corporations are made of people who have rights. And those people already have sufficient ( and fo

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[Obfuscant]

How on EARTH is "donating" money to politicians ANYTHING to do with free speech?!

"I like what you said and I want to help you say it to more people that you otherwise wouldn't be able to." It's akin to the idea that setting aside "free speech zones" is a bad idea because it tries to limit the amount of "free" speech someone has based on his ability to get to and stay in that zone.

But the problem is that the issue is much larger than just giving money to a candidate. CU wasn't about giving money to a candidate.

My god people: wake the fuck up. This is nothing more than legalised corruption. Plain and simple.

Is it your opinion that anything anyone says to support a candidate for election is also "legalized corruption, plain and simple"? I mean, if I make a public statement in support of, say, Ron Wyden, mightn't Ron Wyden feel compelled to act in a way I want him to? I've not given him any money, but I've perhaps helped sway some undecided voters his way and he gets to keep his posh office, public servant salary, numerous other perks, and position of power. Doesn't he owe me something for that? Don't you expect him to pay back the debt? So shouldn't I be prohibited from speaking in support of him? He MIGHT do something good for me in return.

And then, what if I donate a lot of my time to his campaign. Say I RUN his campaign. Mightn't he feel some reason to do good things for me after I've helped get him reelected? Should I be prohibited from working on his campaign because of that? Shouldn't EVERYONE be prohibited from working on his campaign? (Raum Emmanuel got a lot of perks back for running a certain politician's campaign, you know.)

The idea that anything that anyone does to help someone get elected to public office is "legalized corruption" is pretty silly, and yet the same fears over potential corruption exist. The solution to this "legalized corruption" is to prohibit all such potential, which is also a pretty silly (and patently unconstitutional) restriction.

The fact that you don't see how money is required for effective speech doesn't change that fact.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MrSome]

It has to do with free speech because the Supreme Court ruled that anyone should be able to give any amount of money to anyone they want, and their reasoning for allowing this is because they believe giving that money to anyone you want is defensible because it is free speech. So, while I understand your confusion, and I agree that the two have nothing to do with each other, the point the Supreme Court made is...

Giving money to politicians = Free Speech. Essentially saying we have no right to infringe on this freedom with rules or regulations because it would be contrary to the 1st Amendment.

So people like me, who think that money should play no part in how someone gets elected, just got kicked in the nuts and told to go home. Because a guy with $1,000,000 to blow, will be able to afford a lot more "free speech" (media exposure, staffers, etc.) than my $100.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MrBigInThePants]

Because it undermines the democratic process and thus should be outlawed. QED. There are 100's of rules about what is and is not allowed when it comes to the democratic process (e.g. advertising) to stop it being undermined.

This obvious, insidious and blatant abuse of the democratic process should be

Before anybody even begins to stamp their foot and blubbering about being able to "do whatever they want" they will have to first conclusively argue how these "donations" are not hurting democracy and creating conflicts of interest.

You cannot make this argument because both the common sense and the evidence is the the contrary.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[perceptual.cyclotron]

Sorry. Our founding fathers were mostly a bunch of bad asses with really good ideas that they were willing to fight for, and the country that came out of that fight was great.

It's the money grubbing assholes who are fucking it up now by claiming that money = free speech and corporations are people. That means that the ultra rich have at least 10,000 times as much speech as most of us, and that there are a lot of people that have no voice at all. Money should not be equivalent to free speech. Never. It's a fucking travesty that it is, and the people who made it so are destroying our country. I'm not being hyperbolic here.

Except that most of the founding fathers were wealthy, mercantile types. You may recall that at the outset, most states had minimum property requirements to be eligible to vote. It took quite some time to achieve even universal white male suffrage. And, for every increase in suffrage (removing property restrictions, racial restrictions, gender restrictions), and for every increase in the rights of the common class over the monied class (e.g., collective bargaining, minimum wage, abolishing child labour, the 14, 12, 10, and 8 hour working days, etc.), the legislature (at all levels) sided against democracy and against economic equality at every turn. Indeed, even the cherished bill of rights was something seen as superfluous pandering to the majority of the founding fathers. It was only when they realized they could never ratify otherwise that they wrote it (hence their being amendments).

The view of freedom loving founding fathers and a great dawning of liberty and freedom in the americas is, quite simply, a myth. A lovely idea – but historically baseless...

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, I'd kinda like to think that the quid pro quo was between the politicians and the voters.. But that's just me

I don't know why people make such a big thing out of speech. It's just words, and when they conflict with observation, they can be discarded as false. Nobody is required to believe what they see and hear.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MrBigInThePants]

It was not about "stupid Americans" - I was merely pondering where the meme has come from and whether it was an American meme.

From what I have seen so far your supreme court leaves a lot to be desired (e.g. their highly politically motivated appointments and lifetime membership) despite the fanatical devotion to what they have to say.

They most certainly do NOT get to redefine words to mean something completely tangential to their original meaning.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MrBigInThePants]

You arguments are waffling around the core point: corporate and other large donations undermine democracy and cause conflicts of interest and the appearance of corruption. Their intent is to override the will of the people and it has been EXTREMELY successful in your country.

Thus we have the exchange of money to vote/legislate against the will of the people.

THIS IS CORRUPTION.

You can dress it up and put lipstick on it as you have done above but the fact will not change. Even using your own logic a candidate is given significant advantage by these donations. So by your very own words the democratic process is being subverted by such.

Until you prove that this is not the case everything else around this is a distant second in importance. You have not and could not make this argument especially in the context of US politics.

There are many ways to fund a democracy they do not result in the above. Other countries use them.
Corporations donate for a purpose. That purpose is to get face time, advance their legislation and influence votes. The only silly thing here is your lack of understanding of how the money-go-round that US politics works.
The money is there to subvert the will of the people - EVERYBODY knows this, including you when you are being honest and not sticking your head in the sand.

And your argument weakly assumes that all this extra money helps in any way this process. It does not. Cold calls, robot calls, armies of lawyers and PR advisers, attack/PR adverts etc etc do NOTHING to advance democracy in your country.
Not to mention if there was not so much easy money sloshing around people would naturally find other ways to achieve their ends as happens in other countries.

Donations of time, speech and ideas are NOT covered because these actions are part of the democratic process for god's sake! Being able to hire an army of lackies to make cold calls is not.

Your arguments are extremely weak and have nothing to do with making your democratic process stronger - which should really be the ONLY consideration when it comes to the democratic process.

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[MrBigInThePants]

Thanks for the explanation. :) I was honestly scratching my head over this bizarre meme.

BTW: The supreme court (i.e. the gaggle of mummified political cronies) does not get to change the meaning of words.

So to rephrase in a more harsh wat: Your supreme court legalised corruption and attempted to redefine the term free speech to include a tangential concept of bribery. The devastating results to your democracy are blatantly obvious to everyone around the world to see.

Would that about cover it? ;)

Re:This is how America ceases to be great

[pitchpipe]

The devastating results to your democracy are blatantly obvious to everyone around the world to see.

Obvious to everyone except our lunatic conservatives. Or maybe it is obvious to them and this is their goal.

If this is not a bribery then I don't know what is

[Trachman]

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.

Broken incentive system

[Dukenukemx]

Why wouldn't they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Peanuts.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[MightyMartian]

Yeah, I'm sure Comcast's management and investors totally feel bad about that whole public opinion thing.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[nurb432]

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.

Damn, I want my piece!

[228e2]

I work at the FCC (as an Engineer) I want some of that trickle down . . . . :(

Re:Damn, I want my piece!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I work at the FCC (as an Engineer) I want some of that trickle down . . . . :(

Have you tried discovering that the merger would cause *some sort of treknobabble apocalyptic issue involving scary RF terms and America losing its god-given right to TV*; but expressing a willingness to 'review your preliminary results in collaboration with industry experts' for a modest consulting fee?

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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...

Welcome to America!

[mmell]

We're very proud here. We have the best government that money can buy!

Re:Welcome to America!

[Errol backfiring]

You forget that the USA is a capitalist state. You have the cheapest government that money can buy, not the best.

Re:Welcome to America!

[MrNemesis]

Oblig. Onion

One dollar, one vote!

Wolf PAC

[Great Big Bird]

Get money out of politics! http://www.wolf-pac.com/

Order Of Events

[rsmith-mac]

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.

Re:Order Of Events

[Anonymous Coward]

The famous saying "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country". I'm just an American fucking citizen so there's nothing I can fucking do except keep my guns ready for that day we take this mother fucker back.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[NoKaOi]

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.

Need Law

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[viperidaenz]

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?

Dumb and Dumber

[jtara]

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...

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[Lobachevsky]

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.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[dougmc]

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.)

supreme court says

[recharged95]

Guys, money is free speech.

And LIRC bribery usually involves talking to someone first....

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[dougmc]

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.

And, in other news, Ars also reported that:

[sconeu]

• Water is wet
• The Sun is hot
• The sky is blue (except for where it's gray)

Re:And, in other news, Ars also reported that:

[MitchDev]

The weather tonight, Darl.

Continued mostly dark overnight with widely scattered light towards dawn...

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

Because it isn't

[Overzeetop]

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.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[F34nor]

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.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[fustakrakich]

Impropriety is the act of taking the bribe, not offering it. The issue should be the love of money, not the money itself.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[viperidaenz]

it probably won't be long until AT&T merge with Comcast

News?

[EMG at MU]

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".

Re:News?

[zarthrag]

Sigh....outlawing lobbying is like getting a 4yo to agree to abolishing cookie jars ... while his/her hand is in it. I don't see a solution to the problem at all. The USA is run by money to the point where it isn't proper to call it anything but an oligarchy.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[DarwinSurvivor]

Trying for a pump and dump are we?

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[F34nor]

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?

Oswald Spengler Was Right -

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy = Plutocracy

Re:Oswald Spengler Was Right -

[MitchDev]

America never was a Democracy, it was and is a Plutocracy disguised as a representative republic.

This sort of thing...

[MitchDev]

...should be considered a treasonous level of bribery.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[fustakrakich]

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.

The only country?

[phorm]

Actually we're the only country that wasn't blasted into the stone age during WWII

Canada and Australia say hi...

Re:The only country?

[Krojack]

Who?

Two words:

[fyngyrz]

Corporate Oligarchy.

The Internet as a shake-down racket

[Edoko]

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.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[N0Man74]

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.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[F34nor]

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?

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[dougmc]

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".

Comcast consolidates control of marketplace

[Beeftopia]

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.

Corporations are logical constructs

[Beeftopia]

The people who direct the corporate construct are the actual people. Not the construct.

There's no one I would call progressive today

[rsilvergun]

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...

Re:There's no one I would call progressive today

[dcw3]

Interesting. I'll agree with you that they don't compare. I'll disagree regarding the right wing's answer, and counter that Grayson was making shit up for political fodder. I'll also disagree that they own the media...and are far from it, but then maybe your definition of "right wing" differs from mine.

Re:If this is not a bribery then I don't know what

[DarwinSurvivor]

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.

lol I like this line in the article

[nhat11]

"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