Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Ghost-Writes Politician's Letters To Support Time Warner Mega-Merger
WheezyJoe writes: As the FCC considers the merger between Comcast/Universal and Time-Warner Cable, which would create the largest cable company in the U.S. and is entering the final stages of federal review, politicians are pressuring the FCC with pro-merger letters actually written by Comcast. According to documents obtained through public records requests, politicians are passing letters nearly word-for-word written by Comcast as their own. "Not only do records show that a Comcast official sent the councilman the exact wording of the letter he would submit to the FCC, but also that finishing touches were put on the letter by a former FCC official named Rosemary Harold, who is now a partner at one of the nation's foremost telecom law firms in Washington, DC. Comcast has enlisted Harold to help persuade her former agency to approve the proposed merger."
Ars Technica had already reported that politicians have closely mimicked Comcast talking points and re-used Comcast's own statements without attribution. The documents revealed today show just how deeply Comcast is involved with certain politicians, and how they were able to get them on board.
Ars Technica had already reported that politicians have closely mimicked Comcast talking points and re-used Comcast's own statements without attribution. The documents revealed today show just how deeply Comcast is involved with certain politicians, and how they were able to get them on board.
When companies can "effectively" just "buy laws" (and/or Politicians) corruption knows no bounds for price gouging.
This is blown way out of proportion. Companies are made of citizens who get to persuade officials like anyone else.
I (insert Senator's name here) stake my reputation on it!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
glad to see we have the best government money can buy!
Where's the forum letter I can sign and send to the FCC against the merger as well as one to my state reps (OH) telling them not to do this shit? If someone does the work of making good arguments against them I'll add my name to it, but I'm not motivated enough to write a well researched letter on my own and figure out where to send it.
And I support Cable!
Gently reply
...get your fucking shit together...create a new political party that actually represents the people...use social media to spread the word and fucking challenge both your shitty corporate owned parties.
What the FUCK are you waiting for???
If every household in America bought $150 in Comcast stock each month instead of paying their cable bill it would take ~3 years to buy them out. If everyone canceled their account and bought stock it would take less time. Kickstarter's limit is too small for this idea btw. Then we vote out the current board and replace them with Lessig, Nader et al. and BAM gigabit bidirectional IPV6 with al a carte channels.
Too communist for you? Go fuck your self.
I see their pro-merger ads on TV and the web. Why are there no anti-merger ads? The public is only hearing one side.
It would be nice to crowd-fund some ads that describe how we need more competition and more competitors rather than huge bribe-heavy oligopolies. I'd donate $10 or so to such.
Table-ized A.I.
Of course everything is fucked, etc....but does anyone else find it surprising how cheaply these guys will bend over?
10 grand to whore yourself?
Seems almost like you could troll for fun at those prices: "Hey, whore, here's the money. Now sign this petition to outlaw ostriches."
Like it or not, the corporations have more or less rigged the game.
There is no chance in hell we get what we want, because the politicians have all quite literally been bought and paid for, and are little more than corporate shills.
This is precisely why all of those people who bray about deregulation and the free market are either deluded, or in on the scam -- because these systems will always become horribly corrupt, and be sold to the highest bidder. And it's a lie to believe that system is self correcting -- because the system is rigged.
American politics (and, indeed, much of the world) is a cesspool of cronyism, and rich assholes cutting through the laws which prevent other rich assholes from raping the system.
Corporate lawyers and lobbyists have far more clout than "the people".
Welcome to the dystopian future where the corporations and the surveillance state work hand in hand, but the state is on the corporate payroll -- at least, the ones who hold any real power.
This is the reason why the bankers who ripped us all off in the housing meltdown never saw any charges -- because they all advise the fucking presidents on economic policy.
It really is time to eat the rich, because they're not in the least concerned about us in this equation.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
If every household in America bought $150 in Comcast stock each month instead of paying their cable bill it would take ~3 years to buy them out.
That only works assuming that every single share of Comcast stock is available to purchase. That is not necessarily true. Do you even know how the stock market works?
Not that I'm disagreeing with your point, but it should be noted that the Koch companies are somewhere around #15 on the list of top donors. The top 10 are names like Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Merrill Lynch who give millions to Hillary Clinton. The cable industry also spends more on Clinton than the Koch brothers spend opposing her.
Time Warner is the largest contributor to Hilary Clinton other than Wall Street firms, which make up her top six.
Cablevision is #10 on the list of top Clinton owners^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H contributors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pol...
The best proposal I heard was to require members of Congress to wear the emblems of their major sponsors, the way Nascar Drivers do. At least then we can easily see who's paying for them.
The money in politics is a problem, obviously.
Also, I think I should be able to write about why I think this merger is bad and distribute flyers. Copying those flyers costs money. Therefore, in order to make my voice heard, I have to spend money to influence politics. If we're not allowed to spend money on politics, that means I can't print a flyer, I can mention politics on my blog that costs $5/month for hosting. A MAJORITY of Slashdot users think it should be illegal to make a video criticizing the current goons. Citizen's United did so, and most Slashdot users think that should be illegal. Fine for Michael Moore to do it, though.
Many people have said the solution is that COMPANIES shouldn't be allowed to spend money commenting on political issues. So for example Tesla shouldn't be allowed to talk about franchise laws? SpaceX can't make a YouTube video criticising the administration's handling of space contracts? Uber and Lyft spend money on their web sites, so it should be illegal for their sites to mention the taxi cartels' relationship to incumbent politicians?
If you decide that Tesla, Uber, and SpaceX should be allowed to have their voice heard, but it should be illegal for Citizens United to have their voice heard, I guess the rule is "it's illegal to disagree with me"?
It's a hard problem, with no obvious solution.
That makes logical sense, and the law reflects that distinction. However, if during the 2014 election season you had encouraged people to vote for the guy speaking out against H1-B fraud, that's almost the same thing as contributing directly to his campaign. Any many places, police and firefighter unions run ads for local candidates saying "candidate X will keep you safe". That's virtually indistinguishable from from handing the money to the campaign to spend on making ads.
Similarly, if in 2012 you talked publicly about bad things Obama has done, that has virtually the same effect as contributing to his opponents campaign.
So it's largely a distinction without a difference. I haven't heard any proposals that really make that much difference without making it illegal to talk about politics - loudly. Are you going to make it illegal for Comedy Central to bash Boehner, because they spend millions of dollars doing so. If you allow that, it matters little whether they actually send money to to his opponent or not - they've done his opponent's bidding.
Smithers: [over intercom] Principal Skinner, this is your secretary. There is one last student here to see you.
Skinner: That's odd. I don't have a secretary...or an intercom. But send him in.
[Burns enters dressed like Jimbo]
Burns: Ahoy, there, Dean. I understand you're taking suggestions from students, eh?
[sits on desk; groans as his knee bends painfully]
Well, me and my fourth form chums think it would be quite corking if you'd sign over your oil well to the local energy concern.
Skinner: [clears throat] Mr. Burns?
Burns: Buh!
Skinner: It was naive of you to think I would mistake this town's most prominent 104-year-old man for one of my elementary school students.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Why is Comcast cast as the villan? This is SOP for any major letter writing campaign I've ever heard of - outside group offers supporters 'sample' letters to send to those making the decision, supporters simply copy-and-paste the 'sample' letter, and everyone pretends it means something.
The anger should directed at the compliant and lazy politicians that never learned how to copy someone else's work and avoid detection.
Ken
I'm not 100% clear on what you're suggesting. As I read it, you said one thing, then said the opposite. Maybe you can clear this up for me.
Consider the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who describes themselves thusly:
About EFF
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. We work to ensure that rights and freedoms are enhanced and protected as our use of technology grows.
Let's apply this sentence to the EFF and an example so I can understand you:
> Also any organization whose members seek to influence a political outcome cannot use the
> resources of that organization in any way to influence that outcome [list of possible ways to seek change]
The EFF is of course an organization "whose members seek to influence a political outcome". You propose that the people "must not use the resources of that organization in any way to influence that outcome". So you're proposing it should be illegal for the EFF seek to get rid of NSA dragnet spying, correct?
Dr. Martin Luther King's group was called the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The purpose of the SCLC was to organize black churches to effect political change. That would be illegal under your proposal, because I might donate a car to SCLC, that car may not be used to drive MLK to a rally - that would be "to influence a political outcome" and therefore illegal. Do I understand you correctly?