Comcast Mega-Corp Shoveling Money At FCC Subcommittee
from the making-it-rain dept
For a long time, people have argued over whether or not corporate lobbying was legalized bribery or protected speech. It's a fascinating argument to me, personally, mostly because I don't understand why we're arguing over such a silly question. Let's just pretend I came up with some kind of awesome prose that dutifully began with a reference to the fact that NSA supporters in our government were paid off by defense contractors, deftly moved on to mention that roughly half of our proud public servants in Congress jump ship for lobbying gigs, and finish it all off with me just shouting the name Chris Dodd at you, and we can all get back to the business of not doing anything to stop this obvious bribery. Or, rather, we can get back to it in a moment, right after I tell you all about how Comcast gives the subcommittee controlling the FCC roughly all of the money.
Comcast has been among the top corporate donors to members of Congress, and following the money shows that they have been focusing their giving on members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, which has jurisdiction over the Federal Communications Commission.These numbers may not seem staggering, but you're thinking about them in terms of corporate levels, not government bribery. In the game of bribing the folks directly involved in overseeing the overseeing body that Comcast has to worry about with their Time Warner merger, they're amongst the top contributors. That's all that matters, not the totals. Anyone else see a problem with this?
-House members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology received $853,525 from Comcast from January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2012.
-Contributions from Comcast to House members serving in the 109th, 110th, 111th and 112th Congresses total $6,678,446 from January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2012.
-Representative Greg Walden, R-Ore., Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology has received $53,000 from Comcast from January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2012.
-Representative John Dingell, D-Mich., has received $100,775 from Comcast from January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2012 more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He is a member of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Now, what everyone is really waiting for is to see if the Justice Department is going to get involved and scream "antitrust." However, please, please keep in mind that this subcommittee we're talking about was elected to represent the people of their districts and the nation as a whole. And Comcast is outbidding you. And tons of companies are outbidding you. It's difficult to see how corporate lobbying doesn't create a massive conflict of interests, with this serving as a prime example.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good luck, consumers!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Proportional
As a citizen of the United States that exercises their right to vote in order to obtain the /privilege/ of 'complaining' about it I must admit that I don't even know where to begin (aside from a search engine) to look up this information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Proportional
http://www.opensecrets.org/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
(apologies for the pedantic bad joke)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Too bad the rest of us would probably get wiped out as well.
(been watching reruns of Walking Dead on Netflix lately)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Proportional
The House -> Energy and Commerce Committee -> Communications and Technology
http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/profiles.php?cycle=2014&cmteid=H07&cmte=HE NE&congno=113&chamber=H&indus=B09
The table here appears to be (unhelpfully) sorted by Last Name. Sorting by Donation Quantity, state, or 'seniority' (loosely years in federal political service seems like a good guess).
At a quick glance:
Greg Walden (R-Ore) $42,250
Mike Rogers (R-Mich) $22,600
Doris O. Matsui (D-Calif) $20,500
Anna Eshoo (D-Calif) $20,500
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash) $17,700
Fred Upton (R-Mich) $17,750
Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) $17,750
However most unhelpfully this list does not tell me whom they are on 'the take' from. If money is freedom of speech should I know who's 'speaking' with my representatives (and the magnitude with which they are being spoken at)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Proportional
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000461
It's probably not entirely unreasonable to assume that just about all of them are "on the take" (at least in the sense that you mean), but that would be awfully cynical, and cynicism is one of the things the powers that be count on to maintain the status quo. Having the detailed information is helpful if we ever hope to do anything to fix this corruption of our democracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
At least there will be some competition left
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buy shares in Comcast.
If the corporation DOESN'T deploy lobbyists as part of maximizing your share-holder value, then yes the corporation is conflicted about it's otherwise one-eyed mission: keeping investors well-heeled.
Half your local electorate is on your side if you think it "unfair" (inequitable) that only investors currently have greenbacks enough to invest, whilst today's non-investors literally cannot afford to take such financial risks.
Unfortunately for you, that half holds 1% of the wealth.
Good luck fighting the good fight to redistribute an others' inheritance. Most wont agree that's fair. And essentially zero trust-fund babies will be convinced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]