What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
from the how-government-work-gets-done dept
Let me start out by pointing out that I'm on the record thinking that people are severely overreacting to the Comcast/NBC merger. I think that it's likely to be a bad business decision, but I see no reason why the government should block it. If anything, it seems like it'll just be a modern updating of the AOL/Time Warner catastrophe, as management won't really know what to do and will just make things worse off. That said, the companies have been fighting hard against opposition to the merger, and one way to fight is with money. So it comes as little surprise to find out that 84 of the 97 Congressional Reps, who signed a letter urging that the FCC approve the merger without conditions, received campaign contributions from Comcast.Now, this is not to say that those 84 are corrupt. But, as Larry Lessig has pointed out, whether or not there is actual corruption here obscures the point that it certainly looks corrupt, and certainly decreases citizens' willingness to trust that their government is acting in the interests of the people they're supposed to represent.
If anything, this brings more support to the idea that if our elected officials are going to accept large donations from companies and then legislate in their interests, it would make sense to require those elected officials to wear patches indicating who's funding them, a la Nascar uniforms.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: contributions, corruption, politics
Companies: comcast, nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Genius idea!
I'd love to see that happen. For a start it'd make John Stewart happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius idea!
But more to the point, do these $1,000 to $25,000 token amounts really count as "being sponsored by". I have to imagine there's more significant influences than that on our Congressional Representatives. Or do we just assume that those reported dollars are indicators of larger arrangements/kickbacks/campaign drives or whatever?
Or is it true I really could buy a congressman's signature for a thousand bucks? If so I think I've got a few letters I'd be willing to write up to have them sign ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Genius idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Genius idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Genius idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It could be "funded by the white powder associates" or something like that.
Rather than "firearms" likely it'll be "funded by liberty enablers"
..and so on, you get the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'Fear no man of any size, call upon me to equalize'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds like the other 13 got ripped off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmmm, to me this sounds like Mike wrote the same thing.
Unless we were playing throw out the TD buzz phrases of the week, in which case I think there must be more to this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey look, everyone, AJ, didn't read the second half of the post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Had you considering the simple concept that comcast tends to donate to people who support the same things they do? Example, if the 84 happen to be pro-business, anti-govenrment Republicans, perhaps they would have issued the same sort of statement anyway. Perhaps they are from districts where Comcast operates and they see more jobs in the future for their electors.
You see, you don't know. You are taking one aspect and attempting to arrive at a conclusion by ignoring other possilbities. Then you write a title that leaves no margin: this is what corruption looks like.
Further, what about the other 3? Are they just stupid? Did they fail "bribe taking" class? Are they so stupid as to support anything without getting paid?
I think the entire post is rather dishonest and misleading, and that was your intention from the get go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry if you read more implication into it. I sure didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast
little disclaimer in second paragraph: "Now, this is not to say that those 84 are corrupt.". Even that is followed with the word "But..."
The headline says X, the disclaimer attempts to negate it. By then it is really too late, the impressive is given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And since the story talks about how this whole thing --looks-- like corruption as a description of the perception created by the data, I don't really see how the headline is all that misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a neat tactic, people who are just title surfing down the page are likely to get heavily misinformed. What is really funny is that I realize that TD (and to a less extent Lessig) are using this sort of thing to create FUD, because it benefits them. You only have to read some of the defensive comments on posts like this to realize that some people have bought it hook line and sinker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, they could think it's some sort of conspiracy to fool us (even though it didn't).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest that even though they've read the whole post, they still haven't twigged as to what the title actually means. When I originally read it I took it to be a statement suggesting that there is evidence of corruption. Obviously, reading the article, I now know that it is meant to literally mean 'what corruption looks like (even if it isn't really)'. Of course, had they given Mike the benefit of the doubt then they might have noticed the real meaning of the title after reading the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The pro's leading the amateurs a merry jig. Dance AJ, DANCE for TD!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Stop posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While we may not always agree, the debate is welcome and he has pointed out some things worth reading. I welcome friendly debate. Its the TAMs and angry dudes who I wouldn't mind going without.
On his original post, I would not consider this blog FUD as it is a fact I did not know until it was posted. I am so used to elected officials not representing the people (Democrats and Republicans both) that I automatically assume they are getting paid for their votes when I see news such as this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then you didn't understand it. Which is worse.
It's not FUD. The point is that whether there's actual corruption or not, just the appearance of such situations lead people to trust their government less. That's not FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By ignoring or failing to disclose that a significant number of members (about 75%) accepted contributions from Comcast in the year, the post attempts to make the 87% look outrageous. With the full facts on the table, it looks more like a non-issue, unless you want to deny all companies and anyone who works for a company the right to donate to political campaigns.
It is classical trying to create something where nothing exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you, AJ, and anyone else keep saying it's FUD because there's accusations of corruption going on, then it's your doing. No one else here is saying "hey look! proof of corruption!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What was caused is the increased perception of corruption. That was caused by the data showing who got money and who voted which way.
Mike was right... you missed the second half. Or ignored it. But hey, you get to drop your favorite meme, so all's good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure why FUD seems to be such an issue with you, but not everything is FUD... it's not out to get you, you know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the rest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the rest?
If you are arguing that the appearance of impropriety does not necessarily mean impropriety is happening, then you don't understand the threat.
The problem is not (necessarily) that democracy is at risk. It is that democracy's credibility is at risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about the rest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty...
Actually, lots of people I know are at the point of voting for one party just because they dislike the other more. However, I would not say this is representative of the whole populace without a proper survey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dirty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dirty...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty...
Please, please do not be fooled: For any level above, say, your local park board or school board, you have NO VOICE WHATSOEVER in this "democratic republic". None, zilch, nada, you may as well be Marcel Marceau on the phone.
It won't be long now before everything completely implodes here. Wife and I are saving pennies like crazy to pack up and move to NZ or Australia or Costa Rica or somewhere sane. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions
Also, what are the min, max, mean, and stdev of all of Comcast's campaign contributions?
87% of reps who voted received contributions from Comcast. What % of all reps receive campaign contributions from Comcast?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Questions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Although I agree with you that it is a huge mistake for Comcast to purchase NBCU. It is for a different reason. GE is selling NBCU because it sees the trends, and knows that over the next 5-10 years, the networks will go the way of the record album. TV shows will become "singles" making the NBC, ABC, CBS brands far less valuable.
Add to that several trends converging in 5 years, cord cutting, ever increasing fees for cable, pay by byte for broadband, consumer dissatisfaction and discontent, internet access being required for daily life, and you have them ending up with broadband reclassified under Title II.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Statistics are your friend
Further than that, what explains the 13 who signed but didn't get any money. If there really was corruption, you'd expect 97 out of 97 signers to have received money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Statistics are your friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Statistics are your friend
So. Assuming that the mix of people signing is the same as the overall house (and it never is), approximately 74 of them would have received campaign contributions from comcast no matter what. So the question now is only 10 members difference. Put it another way, there is about an 11% shift from the overall group, which could easily be explained by political alignment, states or districts covered, etc.
Basically, it's a non story. But by not mentioning how many members (76% overall) received campaign support from comcast, they leave out a very significant piece of data, and leave the reader to think that the members who signed are the only ones who received comcast contributions, which is not the case.
FUD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Statistics are your friend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cheney has no heartbeat, and that's OK, because we already knew the prince of darkness has no heart. LOL.
Iraq for sale.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any differences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm, Not Enough To Draw Conclusions
1. This doesn't imply that those members who voted to push the merger through were only doing so because they received contributions. People tend to support politicians who support them. That's not necessarily corruption.
2. It says nothing about the % of other senators who received money and did not sign the letter.
I know where you're trying to go, but this:
whether or not there is actual corruption here obscures the point that it certainly looks corrupt
Strikes me as a bit silly. Statistics can be used to support any position you like, depending on how you frame it and define your terms. Therefore, any statistic can be made to make an arbitrary group of politicians look corrupt.
I'm not saying politicians aren't corrupt, but this kind of simple correlation adds nothing interesting to the debate on its own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fixed that for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
People who go beyond the spending caps, or try to work around them by getting someone else to spend the money, are automatically disqualified, or otherwise penalized.
Mind you, that raises 1st amendment issues when someone wants to advertise their political position by backing a politician.
Nevertheless, I'm of the opinion that spending caps on political campaigns are a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Supreme Court says that a business has no spending cap.
Guess what has happened to our Democracy now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
please no
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gov't funded campaigns
That's why corruption, once established, is very hard to get rid of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption of the Soul
these Rep's remind me of Sgt Schultz. By not asking any questions they can truthfully say "I know nothing!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I bet Comcast and NBC give a lot of money to a lot of people. I would like to see a more detailed analysis of the money trail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Election Funding
I propose a constitutional amendment to State Constitutions and the United States Constitution that limits candidate campaign financing to donations from only those citizens that are registered to vote in the election of the candidate. If an individual is running for dog catcher in a county, then the candidate may only spend money on his campaign raised by county registered voters. This same law would apply to all elections in a state to include the Presidential election. Funding for national campaign advertising aired or distributed in a state must come from registered voters in that state. This needs to be a grass roots effort in each state.
While there are always unintended consequences, I firmly believe such an amendment would remind legislators at all levels that they work first for their voters, improve legislative accountability and greatly reduce campaign spending making opportunities for those not wealthy or endowed by special interest able to run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Election Funding
Where you really need to look is the PACs, where money slushes around and is often used for some of the most misleading and dishonest advertising you will ever see. That is the real issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Run for Office
1) first thing the professional campaign managers tell you: you spend time with the people who give you money, the more they give the more access and time (phone calls, luncheons, meetings, letters, what ever, the higher the $ the more time you spend with them listening and speaking, greasing the wheels for more money).
2) If you spend a lot of time with your supporters (Money people) you tend to take on their lines, because you must keep them happy to get the money for the Campaign.
3) I managed to stay clean and I feel honest, people generally didn't care... they cared about what kind of hand outs, what i looked like, and what big names said about me and the campaign.
4) if good people and ideas won, the average person would approve of Congress (yet they celebrate a 34% approval rating because its up from 10%).
5) the best way to run is targeted TV and to get your people to vote, while pushing the people who oppose you to not vote at all (negative adds are run not to hit the other guy but his base). HENCE BIG DOLLARS.
6) if the system really worked we would have about 10 political parties, or 3 large ones and 5 smaller ones and all would be viable... but the 2 today have made laws to regulate and hamper others from playing (sounds like any country we used to know Comrade?)
for a job that paid 60K a year, my opponent spent 200K, i spent 10k and for the record I lost...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Run for Office
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Run for Office
It seems to me that one point Mike was making that really hasn't been discussed is that this wasn't a vote where members were supposed to vote one way or the other. This was a letter sent to try to influence a different branch of the government.
Personally if I was asked to sign such a letter and had received a contribution from one of the parties involved, I would feel uncomfortable and would have to decline.
But then I have some integrity it seems most members of congress do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content creation and distribution channels should remain separate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New International Version (©1984)
"Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds those who see and twists the words of the righteous.
New Living Translation (©2007)
"Take no bribes, for a bribe makes you ignore something that you clearly see. A bribe makes even a righteous person twist the truth.
English Standard Version (©2001)
And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"You shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of the just.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress...
They call it "election campaign contributions" when in reality it is simply a bribe. It's not just the election campaign contributions, it's the "gifts" from lobbying groups plus the money that gets slipped to Congres in other forms such as jobs for family members and friends, drugs, hookers, and free vacations.
We obviously have the worst government money can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@The eejit
Meanwhile I'll be hooking up with the hottest girl from your direct genepool for fun.
U mad?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @The eejit
great troll by the way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corrupt if one takes money, then votes in favor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption in politics
Believe it or not, there are large numbers of people who would believe it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/f2q3p/its_shit_like_this_reddit/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not what corruption looks like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is not what corruption looks like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is not what corruption looks like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is not what corruption looks like
The point is that perhaps the numbers are probative of corruption, or perhaps they're not. Saying here's "what corruption looks like" is FUD because the same numbers also could be what corruption doesn't look like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not what corruption looks like
This could be said for anything. A criminals fingerprints at the crime scene could be what guilt looks like, but maybe the criminal was there for some other reason. His fingerprints at the crime scene could be what being guilty doesn't look like. and maybe ten eye witnesses who saw him at the crime scene, at about the same time that the crime probably occurred, was what him being guilty doesn't look like. Maybe he want to the crime scene to defend the victim. Maybe the criminal was coincidentally passing by. So it's possible that all this evidence is what his innocence looks like and what his guilt doesn't look like. But at the very least the possibility of his guilt should be discussed and considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not what corruption looks like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take away private funding?
Or allow corporations to spend their monies directly advertising the candidates they support but kill the contributions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Take away private funding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is (one way) corruption looks - there are many others
Maybe the 13 that did not get paid did not like Keith Olberman; maybe they will get favorable profiles on MSNBC, or maybe that unfavorable one will get spiked. The process is complex and opaque - but be sure of this: those who pay, less than 1% of the population profit enormously at the expense of the rest of us. The only way causation could be proven - rather than mere correlation - would be to effectively stop the money flow that has been largely unchecked since 1976 when in Buckley v Valeo the Supreme Court mandated the system of money in politics we now have. If, after we cut of this flow of money, the top 1% stop getting profits from purchasing policy and increasing their share of national income and wealth as they have since 1976, and our cumulating national problems get solved, we will have the on-off switch than proves causation.
Until then we will have to rely on common sense that corporations do not pay - as shown here - to both parties without expecting something of value in return. As a consequence we all lose, as we have increasingly since 1976 while the political/corporate class has fluorished.
Do you think it is time to do something about it?
http://moneyouttapolitics.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]