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

[F34nor]

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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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!

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: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.

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

[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/

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.

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.

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.

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?