Monday, March 02, 2020

Comcast Executives Give Big to Biden

>

(Click to enlarge)

by Thomas Neuburger

It's easy to make the obvious connection between MSNBC's owner Comcast and the deplorable (yes, that word again) behavior of its hosts and invited guests. It beggars thought not to make it.

Still, details — tangible connections — are sometimes lacking. Yes, there was the financing of the 2016 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. But what about this cycle?

Here to help inform us is Sludge (yes, a real name and a good site):
MSNBC’s Owners Shower Biden With Campaign Cash

94% of Comcast executives’ and vice presidents’ contributions to Democratic presidential candidates have gone to Joe Biden, a Sludge review of FEC records finds.

The most influential cable news channel among liberals, MSNBC, has a habit of taking cheap shots against one of the leading Democratic presidential contenders.

According to prime time host Chris Matthews, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) is not the type of person who would help you if you were lying on the side of the road injured. A self-proclaimed body language expert who was a guest of weekend host Joy Reid speculated that Sanders lied during the most recent debate because of the 78-year-old candidate’s slouched posture. “He turtles,” the guest said. “His eye level is below his shoulders. This is trying to hide in plain sight.”
The prime-time hosts have done much worse since this piece was written in January. But can we draw a line between the behavior of MSNBC and the behavior of its owner?

Yes, we can:
A Sludge review of Federal Election Commission records shows Biden is the preferred candidate of the station’s owners, the behemoth Comcast Corporation.

Biden has received 17 large campaign contributions from executives and vice presidents at Comcast, including eight for the legal maximum of $2,800. Of all the other candidates still in the race, only South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has received any Comcast executive contributions—Buttigieg received a single contribution from Comcast Managing Director Amy Banse.

In addition, Comcast’s top lobbyist, David Cohen, co-hosted Biden’s kick-off fundraiser in April and he is listed as a bundler for the campaign, meaning that he has collected at least $25,000 in contributions from others for Biden.
The chart at the top shows the full list of Comcast's executives' financial support of Biden's campaign as of the date of publication, excluding super PAC and dark money support, of course.

The reason for this all-for-Biden teamwork should also be obvious. Aside from the usual corporate animus (actually hatred) for Sanders and his policies, there's an issue dear to Comcast's cold corporate heart that Biden is particularly good on and Sanders is particularly bad on — net neutrality. Read the rest of the Sludge piece for the details.

All in all, Comcast love is a sweet deal for Biden and his campaign. He may have his own network again. All he needs now to do is look viable after the next few races and he's back in business.
 

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 31, 2020

No Time Like Now For Bernie To Start Planning For What He Can Do For The American People During His First Week In Office

>

Feeling The Bern by Nancy Ohanian

Bernie's polling has been going up, up, up. And Biden-- the status quo establishment's choice for the 2020 Hillary role-- has been watching his "inevitability" shatter. Biden-- not as corrupt as Trump, but too corrupt to be president-- is looking like a loser in Iowa and New Hampshire. The new Civiqs poll for Iowa State University shows Biden battling it out with Klobuchar, the other conservative with race problems in the Iowa contest, for 4th place.
Bernie- 24%
Elizabeth Warren- 19%
Mayo Pete- 17%
Status Quo Joe- 15%
Klobuchar- 11%
Yang- 5%
Steyer- 4%
Tulsi- 2%
Bloomberg- 1%
The latest NBC News poll by Marist of New Hampshire likely primary voters has Biden in third place behind Bernie and Mayo Pete.
Bernie- 22%
Mayo Pete- 17%
Status Quo Joe- 15%
lizabeth Warren- 13%
Klobuchar- 10%
Tulsi- 6%
Yang- 5%
Steyer- 3%
And the newest poll out of Nevada shows Bernie catching up to Biden, who now leads him by less than 2 points.
Status Quo Joe- 19.4%
Bernie- 17.6%
Elizabeth Warren- 10.6%
Mayo- 8.2%
Steyer- 7.6%
Yang- 4.4%
Klobuchar- 3.6%
The latest polling in California shows Bernie with double the support of Biden, who is in third place after Warren.
Bernie- 30%
Elizabeth Warren- 16%
Status Quo Joe- 15%
Mayo Pete- 8%
 Yang- 5%
Bloomberg- 4%
Tulsi- 4%
Klobuchar- 3%
Steyer- 2%
Even in Biden's Southern stronghold, Bernie is catching up. The new Texas Lyceum poll shows Biden ahead of Bernie by 2 points (28-26%) but shows that Bernie comes closer to beating Trump in a general election match-up. Biden's till has one state he's doing well in, South Carolina, but that looks like it could be the only state he wins-- a state where he wouldn't come close to winning in the general election.

As Holly Otterbein pointed out at Politico yesterday, Bernie is starting to be viewed-- and treated-- as the frontrunner, for better and worse. The darkest forces of the Democratic establishment has unleashed their Kraken against him-- barrages of ugly, vicious ads to kill his campaign. "Faced with the dilemma of how to respond in the face of bombs dropped on him," she writes about the Biden SuperPAC, "days away from the Iowa caucuses, the Sanders campaign is mostly sticking to pocketbook issues-- for now. Sanders’ TV ads in the state remain centered on Medicare for All, a major focus of his campaign, as well as women’s rights and his movement... The spots are designed to remind Democratic voters of one of Sanders’ key strengths: Polls show they trust him on health care more than any other 2020 candidate. But they also risk feeding into perceptions among some voters that he is too far left to defeat President Donald Trump, particularly as outside organizations amplify that message with negative ads... Sanders responded in an online video, using the attacks as an opportunity to underscore his populist message: 'It is no secret that our campaign is taking on the political establishment and the big-money interests who are now running negative ads against us in Iowa. The billionaire class is getting nervous, and they should.'"





On Wednesday AP's Will Weissert reported on a speech Bernie gave in Sioux City on Sunday: "You can tell how good I feel by how nervous the establishment is getting. We’re their worst nightmare." The far right of the Democratic establishment, stinking of putrid corruption-- what establishment media inaccurately calls "moderates-- "argue that Sanders’ liberal views, which include universal, government-funded health care under a Medicare for All program and tuition-free public college, are too extreme." But that isn't what voters think, just what the super-rich think, since they are well aware that their taxes will go up.

Donald Shaw broke a story for Sludge about how corrupt MSNBC, a pro-Biden operation, is. "A Sludge review of Federal Election Commission records," wrote Shaw, "shows Biden is the preferred candidate of the station’s owners, the behemoth Comcast Corporation. Biden has received 17 large campaign contributions from executives and vice presidents at Comcast, including eight for the legal maximum of $2,800. Of all the other candidates still in the race, only South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg has received any Comcast executive contributions-- Buttigieg received a single contribution from Comcast Managing Director Amy Banse. In addition, Comcast’s top lobbyist, David Cohen, co-hosted Biden’s kick-off fundraiser in April and he is listed as a bundler for the campaign, meaning that he has collected at least $25,000 in contributions from others for Biden." Does that matter? Well, MSNBC's on-air coverage of Bernie has been worse than Fox's! Bernie has received not only the least total coverage (less than one-third of Biden’s), but the most negative, with the multimillionaire status quo on-air shitheads like Chris Matthews going out of his way to insert snide anti-Bernie remarks and inviting on anti-Bernie self-servers as frequently as possible.


From a policy point of view, Comcast’s support of Biden makes sense. Comcast has been a leading force against neutrality rules, spending millions on lobbying against the issue, and, unlike Sanders and Warren, Biden’s record does not suggest that he would be a strong advocate for restoring net neutrality as president.

In 2006, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden said that he did not think net neutrality rules were needed. “[Biden] indicated that no preemptive laws were necessary because if violations do happen, such a public outcry will develop that ‘the chairman will be required to hold this meeting in this largest room in the Capitol, and there will be lines wandering all the way down to the White House,’” CNET reported. The next year, he declined to co-sponsor the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, a bipartisan bill that would amend the Communication Act of 1934 to include net neutrality protections. Sanders was a co-sponsor of the bill. Warren signed on as a co-sponsor of Sen. Ed Markey’s (D-Mass.) net neutrality bill in February 2014 just weeks after becoming a U.S. senator.

Comcast is the nation’s largest broadband provider, operating regional monopolies that give consumers no choice but to subscribe to their services or have no home internet service. About 68 million Americans have access to no broadband or only one internet service provider. For the majority of those with just one ISP option, that option is Comcast. In 2018, Comcast’s revenue from its internet division alone was more than $17 billion.

Sanders has called for Comcast’s regional broadband internet and cable monopolies to be broken up and Warren has called for aggressive antitrust action tech companies. Biden, on the other hand, has not put forth an antitrust platform and has a history of fighting against strong antitrust rules.

In the 1970’s, Biden broke with his Democratic colleagues to oppose legislation that would have blocked corporate mergers based on the total size of the resulting company. Biden voted with Republicans to exempt soft drink companies from antitrust legislation and he voted against a bill from Sen. Ed Kennendy (D-MA) to ensure consumers had authority to sue companies for antitrust violations.

“The Biden-Kennedy split carried symbolic connotations beyond the policy implications of their individual votes,” HuffPost reported. “Where Kennedy wanted to use the Judiciary Committee to continue the old New Deal-era attack on corporate power, Biden became an advocate for corporate interests that had previously been associated with the Republican Party.”

Last year, Comcast spent more than $13 million on lobbying the federal government. In 2014, the company’s PAC  donated to nearly every member of the congressional committees reviewing its bid to take over TimeWarner Cable, according to Politico. Former Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) told Politico that the company had “an army of over 100 lobbyists ready to swarm Capitol Hill.”


Yesterday, writing for the Washington Post, Jeff Stein and Sean Sullivan reported that while Biden and his team are working with the plutocracy to undermine Bernie, he "is considering dozens of executive orders he could unilaterally enact on a wide range of domestic policy issues if elected president, including immigration, the environment and prescription drugs. The document reviewed by The Post shows how the Sanders campaign has already begun extensive planning for how the senator would lead the country in his first days as president if he won the Democratic nomination and defeated Trump in November. Many of the proposals Sanders has floated on the campaign trail do not have support from congressional Republicans and are opposed by some Democrats, so a willingness to move forward without congressional approval could determine whether many of his policies are enacted."

And by the way, yesterday the American Postal Workers Union, whose membership is close to a quarter million, endorsed Bernie. APWU Secretary-Treasurer Liz Powell: "Senator Sanders was a champion of workers’ rights long before he became a candidate for president. Like those who make up the core of the APWU, he is a firm believer in social and economic justice for all. It’s no wonder that he is ranked as the most popular member of the U.S. Senate. Union president Mark Dimondstein emphasized that Bernie's campaign "is boldly uplifting the goals and aspirations of workers. Simply put, we believe it is in the best interests of all postal workers, our job security and our union to support and elect Bernie Sanders for president... [W]when we judge candidates by their long-term and consistent actions, Bernie Sanders stands out as a true champion of postal workers and all workers throughout the country. Bernie Sanders has proven he is a fierce advocate on the side of postal workers. He has opposed the closures of postal facilities and reduced service standards. He has been a leader in the fight for expanded postal financial services and was the lone senator who stopped postal privatizers from appointments to the Postal Board of Governors."




Labels: , ,

Friday, August 30, 2019

MSNBC's ConservaDem Approach To Bernie: "But At What Cost? Oh God, At What Cost!!!"

>





When I say "MSNBC," I don't mean Chris Hayes and Ali Velshi. I mean talking empty heads, like the blond lady, in the video above. They asked Jonathan Swan what the biggest story of the day is and he started answering that it was a story about "Bernie Sanders' sweeping vision to transform nearly every aspect of American life" in a way that hasn't been done since FDR. When Swan started sounding even slightly pro-Bernie ("I don't think he gets nearly enough credit for that"), the talking empty head-- sorry I don't know her name, nor is there any need to-- freaked out with every ounce of emotion she could muster: "But to what cost? How many trillions of dollars..."

Comcast broadcasting isn't as bad as Fox News. But Bernie as president? That is a step too far for Comcast-- and its on-air employees don't even have to be explicitly told what the boss' boss wants. She moved Swan into the "How You Gonna Pay For It?" lane. "The energy plan alone is $16 trillion," without mentioning the cost of not implementing it. And without mentioning what the transformation of life will be like if the Climate Crisis is just allowed to go its merry way like all of our geriatric leaders-- from Trump and McConnell to Biden, Pelosi and Schumer-- are perfectly content to see happen.



Comcast broadcasting wants to emphasize high taxes if Bernie's plans are implemented and Swan obliges, although with a caveat: "certainly on the wealthy," something that is supported overwhelmingly by the American people, particularly the Democratic Party American people. Half a year ago a poll from Morning Consult in Politico showed how prevalent is that support: "Support for raising taxes is widespread, according to a new poll, which found that 76% of registered voters want the wealthiest Americans to pay more. Americans also have a preference as to what a tax increase should look like, according to the Politico/Morning Consult survey. Politico found that 61% of Americans are in favor of a “wealth tax”proposed by Democrat presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, which would increase taxes on those with a net worth of $50 million or more... Politico notes that a recent poll from Fox News shows 70% of Americans supporting increased taxes for those earning more than $10 million-- a proposition that gained support among 54% of Republicans as well. While Republicans are generally less in favor of tax increases on the wealthy, some of the wealthiest Americans are warming up to the idea. Just last week JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said, 'I believe that individuals earning the most can afford to pay more. And I have no problem paying higher taxes to address some of the fundamental challenges and inequities in our society.'" From CNBC in early June:



The Politico piece by Jim VandeHei that Swan was discussing on MSNBC referred to the new Quinnipiac poll showing that if he gets the nomination, Bernie would beat Trump by a landslide: 53% to 39% (14 points). When's the last time a president's elected with a 14 point general election margin?
2016- Trump over Hillary with MINUS 2.1 points
2012- Obama over Romney with 3.9 points
2008- Obama over McCain with 7.2 points
2004- Bush over Kerry with 2.4 points
2000- Bush over Gore with MINUS 0.5 points
1996- Clinton over Dole with 8.5 points
1992- Clinton over Bush with 5.6 points
1988- Bush over Dukakis with 7.8 points
1984- Reagan over Mondale with 18.2 points
Three and a half decades ago! And what gives Bernie that kind of lead over Trump (aside from Trump's own toxicity among voters)? Back to VanderHei's Politico piece: "A Sanders government," he writes in a scare tactic manner, "would take control of...
Your energy choices: His Green New Deal would spend $16 trillion to force you to stop using the energy mostly used today-- oil, gas and nuclear. He promises cleaner power and air in return.
Your house and car: The Sanders government would pay to weatherize homes and small businesses, and to upgrade gas-powered cars for electric ones. He would mandate the end of conventional gas car manufacturing in a decade.
Your health insurance: He would eliminate private insurance and put you on a government plan more generous than Medicare. No more copays, deductibles or premiums, too.
Your current student debt: He would eliminate it for everyone.
Your kids' college: Everyone gets free tuition at public universities, community colleges, trade schools and apprenticeship programs, too.
Your teachers: He will hire more teachers, pay them more, and fund better school supplies.
Your job: He promises full employment.
Your wage: He would guarantee you at least $15 per hour.
Your rich friends: They'll be paying for much of this with a fat tax increase.
Your own taxes: Sanders has been vague on this one. But the total cost of just the programs listed above are $20 trillion-plus at the lowest possible end over a decade, excluding Medicare for All, which experts say could at least double the total.
Josh Orton, Bernie's policy director: "Bernie will continue to fight for proposals that save American families money and hold giant corporations accountable... [T]he cost of doing nothing is significantly more expensive for average Americans."


Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Deadline: Friday-- Net Neutraility Is On The Line... Who To Call NOW

>


On Friday, the House goes home for the year and this Congress is over. The Resolution for "Restoring Net Neutrality" (H.R. 873) will die. On May 7, Paul Ryan sent it to die in the Rules Committee, where it has languished ever since. Ten days later, Mike Doyle (D-PA), backed by Jerry McNerney (D-CA), moved to discharge the Rules Committee from consideration of the bill and just move it right to the floor of the House for a vote ("Restoring Internet Freedom"). Democrats started signing onto the discharge petition in droves. By the following day, 90 had signed on. By the end of May, the number was 124.

In the last few days, I talked about this quite a bit with Ro Khanna, who represents much of the Silicon Valley, and who is pushing very hard for the discharge petition and the urgent issues behind it. He seemed frustrated that some of his colleagues don't seem interested in helping. "This is such a fundamental issue," he told me yesterday. "To support net neutrality is to support the freedom of expression for everyone on the internet and to prevent the internet from being hijacked by monopolies and oligarchs. Every Democrat should be for this principle."

It's important to remember that by this point, the Senate passed-- with the help of 3 Republicans (Collins of Maine, Murkowski of Alaska and Kennedy of Louisiana)-- legislation to repeal the FCC’s dismantling of net neutrality regulations and reinstate net neutrality, 52-47.

By the end of June it was 175 signatures (all Democrats). Finally on July 17th, Doyle got his first Republican-- Mike Coffman of Colorado, the 177th member to sign. In November there were special elections to fill seats of Republicans who've already left the House. Unlike other freshmen, they can vote and they can sign discharge petitions. Joe Morelle (D-NY), Susan Wild (D-PA) and Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA) signed on. There are now 182 of the 218 votes needed to save Net Neutrailty. 36 to go. Do you want to help? It rarely happens that just plain ole citizens can make the difference, but this time is different.

First, keep in mind, this is about the outgoing Congress, not the newly elected one that starts in January. If, for example, you live in AZ-09-- Mesa, Chandler, Tempe, or the Camelback East section of Phoenix-- you might think, oh, this will be easy; I can just call Greg Stanton and ask him to sign... Unfortunately, even though vicious reactionary psychopath Kyrsten Sinema was elected to the Senate, you still have to get the vicious reactionary psychopath to change her mind on this. That's right... it's still Sinema, not Stanton whose signature is needed. So far she's refused. (She's a monster. Schumer should be tarred and feathered for engineering her rise to the Senate, but that's another story.)



As far as I can tell, aside from the vicious reactionary psychopath there are 11 other Democrats needed to save this-- and some Republicans. Let's start with the Democrats. These are the ones who could save net neutrality but who have refused. for one reason or another. In a few cases money has changed hands, but all of the Democrats need to hear from their constituents starting today and for every day until the end of the week:
California Blue Dog Jim Costa-- Fresno, Merced, Madera, Chowchilla, Los Banos, Atwater
Illinois Blue Dog Brad Schneider-- North Shore Chicagoland from Glencoe and Northbrook all the way past Highland Park and Waukegan to Zion and the Wisconsin border and island to Niles, Mundelein, Vernon Hills, Lindenhurst, Deerfield and Wheeling
Indiana Democrat Pete Visclosky-- Gary, Hammond, Portage, Michigan City, Valparaiso, Cedar Lake, Winfield
New Jersey Blue Dog Josh Gottheimer-- northern Bergen County from Hackensack, Paramus and Bergenfield, across Passaic, Sussex and down into Warren County.
North Carolina Democrat G.K. Butterfield-- Durham, Greenville, Rocky Mount, Tarboro, Littleton, Lasker, Henderson
Pennsylvania Democrat Matt Cartwright- Lackawanna, Wayne, Pike counties and most of Monroe and Luzerne counties (Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Milford, Honesdale)*
Pennsylvania New Dem Brendan Boyle- Philadelphia (northern and eastern)
retiring Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Brady- Philadelphia
Pennsylvania Democrat Dwight Evans- Philadelphia (southern and western)
retiring Texas Democrat Gene Green- east Houston, Pasadena, South Houston, Galena Park
Texas Blue Dog Filemon Vela-- Brownsville, east McAllen, Harlingen, Weslaco, San Benito, Kingsville, Alice, Goliad, Beeville, Cuero
So what about Republicans? Maybe some of the ones who are not coming back in January? Anyone living in Arizona could try persuading Martha McSally since she was just appointed to the Senate but can still sign the discharge petition, something that would probably help her with independents and moderates in the special election she's going to have to face. Approachable Republicans who lost and might be persuadable:
Jeff Denham (CA-10)- Modesto, Turlock, Tracy, Mateca, Patterson
David Valadao (CA-21)- Bakersfield, Fresno, Wasco, Delano, Hanford, Coalinga, Kerman
Ed Royce (CA-39)- Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, La Habra, Diamond Bar, Buena Park, Yorba Linda, Fullerton, Placentia, Chino Hills
Mimi Walters (CA-45)- Irvine, Mission Viejo, Rancho Santa Margarita, Lake Forest, Villa Park, Anaheim Hills, Lake Forest
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48)- Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Laguna Beach
Darrell Issa (CA-49)- San Diego, San Clemente, Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, Encinitas
Carlos Curbelo (FL-26)- South Florida
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27)- South Florida
Pete Roskam (IL-06)- Chicago collar counties Lake, DuPage, Kane, McHenry
Randy Hultgren (IL-14)- further out Chicago collar counties McHenry, Kane, DeKalb, Will, Kendall
David Young (IA-03)- Des Moines, Indianola, Winterset, Clarinda, Omaha suburbs
Kevin Yoder (KS-03)- Johnson and Wyandotte counties (Kansas City and suburbs)
Bruce Poliquin (ME-02)- Lewiston, Bangor, Farmington, Caribou, Presque Isle, Millinocket, Ellsworth, Skowhegan, Rumford, Bar Harbor
Mike Bishop (MI-08)- Lansing and all of Ingraham and Livingston counties
Dave Trott MI-11)- Detroit's western suburbs- central Oakland and northern Wayne counties
Erik Paulsen (MN-03)- Minneapolis suburbs- Bloomington, Minnetonka, Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Eden Prairie
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02)- south Jersey including Atlantic City, Millville and Wilmington suburbs
Leonard Lance (NJ-07)- Somerset, Union, Hunterdon counties
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11)- Essex and Morris counties
Dan Donovan (NY-11)- Staten Island and South Brooklyn (from Ave P and E ast15th Street through Gravesend, Bensonhurst, Bath Beach, Ft Hamilton, Dyker Heights and Bay Ridge
John Faso (NY-19)- Central Hudson Valley and the Catskills-- Oneonta, Fallsburg, northern and western Poughkeepsie suburbs, Kingston, Brunswick
Steve Russell (OK-05)- Oklahoma City
Ryan Costello (PA-06)- suburbs west of Philly
John Culberson (TX-07)- west Houston
Mia Love (UT-04)- suburbs south of Salt Lake City and southwest of Provo
Barbara Comstock (VA-10)- Loudon and Fairfax counties-- Manassas, Chantilly, McLean, Leesburg, Winchester
Dave Reichert (WA-08)- outer suburbs of Seattle and Tacoma, Ellensburg, Wenatchee, Leavensworth
Each pitch has got to be tailored to the member leaving the House. Some might want to run again (like Mimi Walters in her old district or Darrell Issa in a neighboring district); some might want too run statewide; some are just sick of it and hate Trump and the GOP. Some might just want to do the right thing for people so they don't get spat on in the grocery store. Anyone who took big bribes from Comcast, might pose a special, though not insurmountable, problem.




* Since I used to live in the district and because Matt is a friend and because Blue America helped him win his primary against a reactionary Blue Dog, I followed up on this one myself. This is what he told me: "I support net neutrality 100%. What I do not support is the use of the Congressional Review Act. The CRA, which was enacted as part of Newt Gingrich‘s Contract on America, was designed to be a tool to do nothing but benefit corporations and attack the rights and safety of ordinary Americans. In practice, that is exactly what the CRA has been used exclusively for-- to remove environmental protections, stymie investors’ rights, damage labor rights, eviscerate consumer product safety safeguards and repeal all sorts of regulations that were properly enacted and in place to benefit the people of this nation. I am a proud cosponsor of the House version of Sen. Booker’s bill, the SCRAP Act, which would end the use of this pernicious anti-regulatory device. My own view is that we should not sully our efforts to ensure net neutrality by becoming complicit in the use this terrible thing, the Congressional Review Act."

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Why Did Gillibrand Really Chase Al Franken Out Of The Senate?

>


The other day a friend of mine in Congress told me I missed an important part in my Gillibrand vs Franken coverage. "You're not following the money, Howie," he told me. "Franken was leading the charge on Comcast, right? Check out the Comcast money flowing into Gillibrand's campaign." So I did. Comcast spends an immense amount of money bribing corrupt politicians from both parties-- both in lobbying (last year alone: $15,310,000) and in campaign contributions (last year: $2,627,152). The 2012 cycle was huge for them-- over $34 million in lobbying and $5,431,065 directly to politicians. And guess who the two top Senate recipients were: Bob Casey (D-PA, where Comcast is based) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). They gave her $48,850. That's a lot-- and way more than any Senate leaders. So far Comcast has given Gillibrand a hefty $83,254. Why?

The only senator really leading the charge against the Comcast's number one legislative priority, their merge with Time-Warner was Al Franken. Roll Call: "In attacking the proposal, no lawmaker was a bigger player than Franken, the Minnesota Democrat who sent three letters to regulators and caught a Comcast executive in embarrassing obfuscation at a Judiciary Committee hearing... He argues that media consolidation, and in particular combinations of content providers and content creators, disserve consumers by raising prices and diminishing the quality of the content."
Franken says he’s an advocate of net neutrality for a similar reason. It prevents Internet providers from favoring some content over others.

When the merger was announced in February 2014, conventional wisdom had it that Comcast’s lobbying, along with its generosity to members of Congress, would ease the path to completion. Comcast’s nearly $5 million in contributions to candidates in the last election cycle placed it among the top corporate donors. Its political action committee was more generous than those of all but five other firms. Its $17 million in lobbying expenditures in 2014 were No. 1 among corporations.

...He also argued that regulators should scrutinize Comcast’s compliance with the conditions it accepted when it was allowed to merge with NBC Universal in 2011.

Franken said he was confident that regulators would find that “Comcast has a history of breaching its legal obligations to consumers.”

According to reports this week, the proposed merger fell apart after the Justice Department raised questions about Comcast’s merger with NBC, and over concerns that it would control too big a piece of the Internet service market-- as much as 40 percent.

...Comcast couldn't find support in Congress. A coalition of groups opposed to the deal ginned up grassroots support. Franken said last year that he had heard from 100,000 people who opposed the deal.

The Stop Mega Comcast coalition, which included groups like Common Cause and Consumers Union but also rival businesses such as the Dish Network, hired its own lobbyists at the Glover Park Group, a well-connected Washington firm, and cultivated support for its position among members of Congress. Congressional letters opposing the deal outstripped those in favor.

Franken said the grassroots opposition made the difference. Comcast “hired an army of more than 100 lobbyists and spent millions of dollars on advertising to sell the deal,” he said in a statement Friday. “But more and more people came to see it the way I did and joined the fight."
I don't doubt Gillibrand had plenty of other things in mind when she went after Franken and forced him to resign from the Senate. The 2024 presidential nomination, for example, or sincere #MeToo issues. But Comcast is what my friend in the House said is what I missed. And here I thought it was just Wall Street that owned her!

Labels: , ,

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Will MSNBC Implode Before The 2018 Midterms? I Bet The GOP Would Love That!

>


My go-to place for TV news and political commentary is Chris Hayes' MSNBC show. He's smart, insightful and careful to present a news show well beyond the standards of today's garbage cable news programming. Out here in L.A., we watch Hayes' show at 5 PM. I often keep the TV on for Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell afterwards. They're not as good but better than what you will find on CNN or anyone else pretending to offer mainstream news. But MSNBC has been scaring me off lately by bringing on a lot of right-wing hosts and contributors. As if Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough weren't hideous enough, they now have Greta Van Sustreren, Nicole Wallace, Megan Kelly, Hugh Hewitt and a growing list of regular paid Republican contributors, some of whom are pretty good and some of whom are utterly worthless. But it's not exactly a liberal bastion on an otherwise right-of-center TV wasteland.

And now the rumors are flying that Lawrence O'Donnell is being given the heave ho, complements of Señor Trumpanzee. An enetretainment industry blogger, Roger Friedman claims to have the inside scoop, a scoop I've heard from other sources even before Friedman wrote it up.
I can confirm that MSNBC is ending the top rated The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, the popular show that follows Rachel Maddow at 10pm. O’Donnell’s contract is up shortly, and the network has not made any overtures about keeping him on.

There is a fear that despite Maddow’s dogged liberalism, MSNBC is taking a turn to the right. O’Donnell would not fit into that model. But they’ve installed Fox News’s Greta van Susteren at 6pm, and more changes are coming. (This follows the disaster with Tamron Hall and the coming of Megyn Kelly from Fox News, too.)

It seems just like MSNBC to abruptly kill their own success. They’re finally beating CNN and Fox, so why not reverse course? Crazy. O’Donnell’s ratings have never been higher.

The Last Word has been on since 2011, and O’Donnell has been with MSNBC since it began. If CNN were smart, they’d pick him up right away. He’s one of the smartest guys in the room, and a pleasure to watch. Among his credits are writing for and consulting on The West Wing.

UPDATE

My NBC sources say that O’Donnell’s tireless criticism of Donald Trump is the cause of the trouble. O’Donnell calls Trump a liar on TV almost ever night. Says my observer: "Phil Griffin fought back Trump’s demands to Comcast chief Steve Burke that O’Donnell get fired for years. But now he’s president and now it’s Andy Lack’s decision and Andy has never run a single promo for O’Donnell and he wants access to Trump for Lester Holt interview and more."

Morale at NBC News has been low for some time. My source says: "This version of NBC news would have handed the Pentagon papers back to the Pentagon. The New York Times and Washington Post remain our best hope."
He sure didn't dwell on Comcast, but that's probably an important consideration by dealing with someone as thuggish, vindictive and primitive as Trump. And as far as Phil Griffin fighting for Lawrence... that sure isn't what I've been hearing.



Labels: , ,

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

A Corporate Convention: "Comcast Presents ... The Democratic Party. Welcome to Philadelphia."

>

The above is a real fake ad — it's a fake Air France ad that really showed up in Parisian ad spaces during the recent climate conference. "Care about climate change? Of course not. We're Air France. If we cared we'd stop flying planes. We're just sponsoring the climate conference to confuse you, and to make sure we keep making money" (or words to that effect).

by Gaius Publius

It's looking more and more that the Crossroad in Philadelphia, the 2016 Democratic Convention, will be a crossroad indeed. Wasserman Schultz is reported to be openly stacking the convention committees with Clinton supporters, despite Sanders having won, so far at least, 45% of the delegates.

And Ed Rendell — a "huge Hillary Clinton backer," a "vocal proponent of shale gas extraction" (fracking), former governor of Pennsylvania, former DNC chair and current "DNC Host Chair" (under Debbie Wasserman Schultz) — is telling Sanders supporters, in effect, "You'll get to vote before you watch him lose, and then he'll make a nice goodbye speech, so don't make trouble afterward. Play nice and play along." (Note that Rendell has already called the rest of the race for Clinton. We'll see about that.)


And over the crowd at the Wells Fargo® Convention Center will fly, at least virtually, all of the banners of every corporation that finances and maintains this Establishment — including the ones that finance, almost certainly, its nominating convention.

A Corporate Convention

We won't know about corporate funding of the Democratic Party Convention until after it's held (clever of the law to allow that), but here's what happened in 2012 (my emphasis):
Corporate cash helps fuel Democratic convention despite pledges

New group accepts company money

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — While Democrats have touted their grassroots fundraising efforts for the 2012 Democratic National Convention, deep-pocketed corporate donors are helping underwrite the event.

Among the corporate sponsors at the Charlotte convention: AT&T Inc., Bank of America, Duke Energy, Time Warner Cable, Coca-Cola, Wells Fargo, UnitedHealth Group, Piedmont Natural Gas, US Airways and law and lobbying firm McGuireWoods.

The corporate sponsorship appears to fly in the face of the Democrats’ pledge to host a “people’s convention.”

The party’s 2012 “host committee” is not accepting contributions from corporations, lobbyists and political action committees. Democrats also capped how much money individuals can give at $100,000.

But the party is accepting in-kind donations from corporate firms. In addition, a second nonprofit, called “New American City” was established in May to “defray” administrative expenses and other costs. New American City does accept corporate money.

The exact levels of these companies’ financial support won’t be known until mid-October when filings will be submitted to the Federal Election Commission.
Banks, cable companies (like Comcast, which as you'll see has a special seat at this year's well-bought table), health insurance companies, fracking companies, airlines and lobbying firms — all are in all likelihood all lined up to foot the bill for the Establishment-run Democratic Convention. The Party fêtes its patrons. The patrons smile down at the Party.

When you're the only one with money, they all have to come to you eventually. This is from a USA swimming national championship event (source).

By the way, I'd be shocked if Big Pharma weren't a huge contributor funding this year's Democratic Convention. TPP is an Obama high-value special order; drug companies are among the biggest winners if it passes; and how better to say thank you to a friend than to help the friend of a friend when she needs the cash. We won't find out about Pharma sponsorship until after the nomination, of course, but watch for it.

Comcast's Special Seat at the Democratic Party Table

You remember Comcast, right? They own MSNBC, one of the many networks that helped Hillary Clinton immensely when her pre-won nomination was suddenly put in doubt by Bernie Sanders voters. It took a lot of shoulders to shove that wheel nearer the finish line, and MSNBC (Comcast, $74 billion annual revenue) had a lot of shoulders to push with, as did CNN (Time Warner, $28 billion annual revenue), the New York Times (the New York Times Company, $1.5 billion annual revenue) and anyone else with a lot of money to lose if an actual anti-corruption candidate dared to win. (Don't give up yet, billionaires. She could still lose. Keep fighting.)

So, Comcast. The name to remember (aside from the above-mentioned Ed Rendell, a Comcast employee) is David Cohen. Here's Daily Kos diarist Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees, one of my favorites over there, with the news:
Comcast EVP/Republican Fundraiser to Serve as Senior Advisor to DNC 2016 Host Committee

Earlier today, Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter announced that David Cohen, executive Vice President of Comcast, will serve as senior adviser to Philly's Host Committee for the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

The same Comcast that is one of America's least favorite companies.

And the same David Cohen and same Comcast that lobbied against Obama's net neutrality proposal.

And the same Comcast that fought Philadelphia's paid sick leave legislation, getting the mayor to veto it two times before he finally accepted a watered-down version today. ...

And the same David Cohen that raised money for former Republican governor Tom Corbett and current Republican senator Pat Toomey.
But running America the way it's currently run is a bipartisan joint, right? I just wish there were a Comcast banner flying high above the arena when the delegate votes are taken and Sanders speaks. Then Sanders could point repeatedly to it and rail against corporate governance, all without saying their name.

Care to Plaster Philadelphia with Posters?

I'm in the early stages of thinking about this, but consider this thought, and if you like it, you can join in. Remember, you don't need anyone's permission to make a fuss, especially an artistic one.

Corporations, many of them big polluters, spent a lot of money green-washing themselves by actually sponsoring, openly and nakedly, the recent COP21 Paris climate conference. It's like a tobacco company contributing to a lung cancer clinic — and getting naming rights. But they did it anyway, hoping no one would notice the problem.

Then this happened overnight, in Parisian bus stops and other places that normally hold billboards. It looks like a simple product poster, but it isn't:


Also this:


And of course, the lovely piece at the very top.

It's called "brandalism" and I hear it's a lot of fun. Feel like joining the fun? You don't need anyone's permission to say yes. I even understand one could make smaller posters, some with adhesive backing and some suitable for nailing to nail-ready outdoors objects (but only where legal, of course). Philadelphia could be your playground if you want it to be. Or not; your call on that.

My thought: As decorative as Philadelphia already is (that's the magnificent Comcast Center at the link, by the way), perhaps the city could use a little something extra — or a lot of it — a something that only you and your friends can provide, should you decide to go yourself.

GP
  

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 25, 2015

So what happened to the Comcast-TWC deal? Not enough lobbying, or not good enough lobbying?

>



"They talked a lot about the benefits, and how much they were going to invest in Time Warner Cable and improve the service it provided, but every time you talked about industry consolidation and the incentive they would have to leverage their market power to hurt competition, they gave us unsatisfactory answers."
-- an unnamed senior Senate staff aide, quoted by the NYT's Eric Lipton regarding Comcast's massive lobbying efforts for its takeover of Time Warner Cable

"No amount of public-interest commitments to diversity would remedy the consumer harm a merged Comcast-Time Warner would have caused to millions of Americans across the country."
-- CA Rep. Maxine Waters, who had "offered reserved support for [Comcast's] NBCUniversal deal after playing a leading role in pushing for concessions by Comcast to promote diversity in its programming"

"This merger would have further enhanced this company’s incentive, its means and its history of abuse of market power."
-- CT Sen. Richard Blumenthal, an early critic of the deal

by Ken

As a Time Warner Cable customer, and thus hardly a disinterested observer, I have so far resisted the impulse to dance a jig over the announcement that Comcast has abandoned its effort to swallow TWC. I can't help thinking that great minds will yet knock heads together and come up with something worse.

Still, it's a relief. My only problem with TWC is that they charge too damn much. Whereas those Comcast people -- they're devils.

So what happened? "Ultimately," says the NYT's Eric Lipton in his post mortem, "Intense Lobbying Failed to Assure Comcast's Deal," the deal to amalgamate the country's top two cable operators "collapsed because of clear signals that federal regulators were preparing to block it."

Eric leads off with this tale:

David L. Cohen, the master salesman who runs the Comcast Corporation’s lobbying efforts, stood before a room full of Latino House lawmakers one morning in early December trying to convince them that they should embrace his $45 billion deal to acquire Time Warner Cable.

But as Mr. Cohen continued to talk — taking up much of the time set aside for the closed-door session — at least some of the assembled lawmakers began to wonder if his highly polished pitch was falling short.

"He was smothering us with attention but he was not answering our questions," said Representative Tony Cárdenas, Democrat of California, who said that in the early stages of the deal he was open to supporting it if his questions were addressed satisfactorily. "And I could not help but think that this is a $140 billion company with 130 lobbyists — and they are using all of that to the best of their ability to get us to go along."
So we're talking, what, not enough lobbying? Or just not good enough lobbying?
"The warning signs," says Eric, "were already present from the muted reception [the deal] had received on Capitol Hill."
Despite the distribution of $5.9 million in campaign contributions by the two companies during the 2014 election cycle, and the expenditure of an extraordinary $25 million on lobbying last year, no more than a handful of lawmakers signed letters endorsing the deal. By contrast, more than 100 signed letters of support in 2010 when Comcast was pushing its merger with NBCUniversal.

Congress has no direct power to approve or disapprove any merger, but endorsements, particularly if they come from black and Hispanic leaders, can send a subtle but important message to regulators that the deal is in the public interest and should be cleared. It was not that many lawmakers spoke out against the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal — it was just that many of them remained silent.
And it's not as if Comcast hasn't been to this rodeo before. Eric notes that the company, "at least until this deal, had a near-legendary reputation in Washington for leveraging its connections."
Its connections?
In 2013, President Obama stopped by Mr. Cohen’s Philadelphia home for a fund-raiser, and Mr. Roberts was envied for having played golf with President Obama that same year in Martha’s Vineyard.
Oh, its connections.
The company carefully assigned members of its sprawling lobbying team to different lawmakers at both the federal and state levels, based often on their ethnicity or past relationships, company officials acknowledged in an interview shortly after the Time Warner Cable transaction was proposed in February 2014.

Comcast, for example, assigned Juan Otero, a former Department of Homeland Security official who serves on the board of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute and now works as a Comcast lobbyist, to be the point person to work with Mr. Cárdenas.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Stewart, an African-American lobbyist on the Congressional Black Caucus Institute board, was assigned to work with Marc Veasey, Democrat of Texas, who is also black. She personally appealed to Mr. Veasey’s staff, urging that he not sign a letter last August questioning the deal, according to an email obtained by The New York Times, citing the company’s work on behalf of the minority community. (Mr. Veasey still signed a related letter.)

Comcast also asked Jordan Goldstein, a former official at the Federal Communications Commission who is now a Comcast regulatory affairs executive, to work with [Connecticut Sen. Richard] Blumenthal’s office. Mr. Goldstein had previously developed a working relationship with Joel Kelsey, a legislative assistant in charge of reviewing the matter for the senator, who is a member of the Senate Commerce Committee.

At the state level, it also hired at least two former state attorneys general — Patrick C. Lynch of Rhode Island and Walter W. Cohen of Pennsylvania — to reach out to state officials, who in many cases have their own antitrust powers, to try to remove impediments to the deal’s approval.
Senator Blumenthal, Eric has already pointed out, "was critical from the deal from the start." He says now, ""There are limits as to how effective even the best advocate can be with a losing case, as this merger would have further enhanced this company’s incentive, its means and its history of abuse of market power."

Oh my.
Lawmakers cited a variety of reasons as to why Comcast’s elaborate pitch failed to gain traction this time: The miserable customer service ratings the company earns, for instance, made politicians leery of helping it out. In addition, there were much more substantial antitrust concerns associated with this deal, and some members of Congress said they thought Comcast had failed to live up to its promises in the NBCUniversal deal, and so could not be trusted this time.

Other lawmakers and staff members on Capitol Hill, in interviews Friday, cited Comcast’s swagger in trying to promote this deal. They said they felt that Comcast was so convinced in the early stages that the deal would be approved that it was dismissing concerns about the transaction, or simply taking the conversation in a different direction when asked about them.
"The miserable customer service ratings the company earns made politicians leery of helping it out"? And members "thought Comcast had failed to live up to its promises in the NBCUniversal deal and so could not be trusted this time"? Oh my.

Comcast itself isn't talking much.
Comcast did not offer on Friday its own post-mortem on the deal’s collapse. "Today, we move on," the Comcast chairman and chief executive Brian L. Roberts said in his short statement. A Comcast spokeswoman declined to comment further.
We learn, though, that "in some cases, lawmakers like Mr. Cárdenas and Mr. Blumenthal had private conversations with Thomas Wheeler, the chairman of the F.C.C., to express their reservations." Oh my. And Senator Blumenthal "also spoke directly with Mr. Cohen," the master lobbyist, "who visited the senator’s office for a chat." The senator, however, "said he came away from the meeting unconvinced."

So did "others on Capitol Hill who had similar conversations," like the two quoted at the top of this post, the "senior Senate staff aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly," and Rep. Maxine Waters."

Meanwhile Comcast is "mov[ing] forward." Watch out in case it comes too close. Unless you're already one of its customers, in which case God have mercy on your soul. And we TWC customers are left to wonder what's in store for us next.
#

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, August 11, 2014

New Blue America Endorsement: Zephyr Teachout And Tim Wu

>


We've been talking about the eye-popping corruption of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo-- and Democratic Party version of shady Republican governors Christie, McDonnell, Walker, and Deal, all of whom, like Cuomo, are under federal investigation. Cuomo, to put it mildly, has been in bed with Wall Street, serving their interests and ignoring the interests of New York's working families-- just what we would expect from a Republican or from a "Democrat" from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. He picked one of the most conservative Democrats in the state, Kathy Hochul, who twice ran on the Conservative Party line, as his running mate-- which means if he is reelected and then removed from office, she will become governor. All that was enough for Blue America to start thinking about endorsing longshot progressive candidates Zephyr Teachout And Tim Wu for Governor and Lt. Governor. After talking with Zephyr and her team, we added her to the Blue America Governor page. And we invited her to do a guest post at DWT. If you like what you read below, please consider hitting the link in the last sentence and helping Zephyr combat the millions of dollars flooding into Cuomo's campaign coffers from Wall Street and other special interests.


It's Time to Make Comcast Political
by Zephyr Teachout


My name is Zephyr Teachout, and I'm running against Andrew Cuomo for Governor of New York in the Democratic Primary. I probably don't need to explain why to a group of progressives like you-- but there is a good reason why many of the Governor's most ardent supporters are Republican donors and elected officials: he delivers Trickled-down Republican economic policies as well as any Republican Governor in the country.

But progressive anger at Cuomo isn't the reason my candidacy is resonating. It's resonating because I'm saying something Democrats haven't heard in a long time. And that is the following: It's time to bring back trust-busting.

I use as my example that I'm going to stop Comcast from buying Time Warner cable, at least in New York. I don't want a New York where every street has a Bank of America and a Duane Reed, and nothing else. We need an economy full of small businesses, immigrant businesses, and small farmers. And that can't exist unless the Democratic Party becomes the home of trustbusters again, like it was under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, JFK, and Woodrow Wilson.

Andrew Cuomo is the Governor of New York, and he takes a lot of money from large powerful interests and then hands out tax credits to them. It's a Reaganomics model of financial monopoly capitalism. But the problem here isn't just Cuomo, it's that people like Cuomo dominate the Democratic establishment. Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, and so on and so forth, these people believe in a world where powerful economic interests control our lives and fate through monopoly power, and their partners in government help structure those monopolies. Political corruption and economic monopoly are two sides of the same coin-- too much concentrated power in too few hands.

I'm running in the Democratic primary because we have to break this cycle. We have restore our economic and political liberty. That means ending government corruption and breaking the excessive power of private kingdoms like Comcast that force all of us to kiss the ring to get something like internet and cable service.

Today, Democratic leaders, even some of the good ones, believe that Wall Street creates wealth, and that the role of the government is to protect those monopolies and then kick some of the resulting wealth to the middle class or poor. Their debate is whether to kick back a little, or a little more. Ultimately they think the role of government is to serve charity, not justice.

I believe the basis of wealth creation comes from ordinary citizens who have access to opportunity, and infrastructure. It's the immigrant restaurant, the neighborhood lawyer or baker or farmer, these are the people that build the society we love. Democrats need to represent them, Democrats should make sure that they have power, and that justice doesn't mean charity. It means balanced markets, competition, and flourishing small businesses.

When Ronald Reagan first started running California, he made some very significant policy shifts that echoed throughout the country. For example, he started charging tuition for California's formerly free college system. His policy resonates today as student debt tops $1 trillion, and more importantly in an army of young people who are essentially indentured servants. New York followed California's lead, and a once great public higher educational system is on life support.

In other words, what happens in our biggest states resonates deeply across the land. We need our own people in charge, progressives who believe in democracy, not just on important social questions like choice, but also on core economic questions like cable monopolies, infrastructure, and energy. This is why we are Democrats. This is why we believe. In New York, Democrats remember that FDR was our governor, because we are standing on some of the things he built. The biggest thing Andrew Cuomo ever built was a housing bubble. And we remember that too.

It's time for a new generation of Democrats, not in age but in spirit, to repudiate the corporate financiers. Liberty is our right as Americans, both negative liberty in that government should not punish the innocent, but also positive liberty in our right to have housing, medicine, education, and economic opportunity. That's why I'm running. That's what the Democratic Party used to stand for, and that's what we're going to make it stand for again.

And so, again, my name is Zephyr Teachout, and I'm running against Andrew Cuomo for Governor of New York in the Democratic Primary.

 

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, April 21, 2014

TimeWarner Cable-- Not Just Bad For Consumers… Bad For America

>




Last week Robert Reich penned a column about the Comcast acquisition of TimeWarner for his blog that I've been meaning to pass along, Antitrust in the New Guilded Age. I was a senior executive at TimeWarner when the horrific AOL merger happened. It's what led to me deciding to retire. Earlier this year, when the new merger was first announced, I suggested it would be an even worse disaster for consumers than the ill-fated AOL merger was. What Reich dealt with last week was how bad this merger is likely to be not just for consumers, but for the country and the fabric of our society-- yes, that bad.
We’re in a new gilded age of wealth and power similar to the first gilded age when the nation’s antitrust laws were enacted. Those laws should prevent or bust up concentrations of economic power that not only harm consumers but also undermine our democracy-- such as the pending Comcast acquisition of Time-Warner.

In 1890, when Republican Senator John Sherman of Ohio urged his congressional colleagues to act against the centralized industrial powers that threatened America, he did not distinguish between economic and political power because they were one and the same. The field of economics was then called “political economy,” and inordinate power could undermine both. “If we will not endure a king as a political power,” Sherman thundered, “we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessaries of life.”

Shortly thereafter, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed by the Senate 52 to 1, and moved quickly through the House without dissent. President Harrison signed it into law July 2, 1890.

In many respects America is back to the same giant concentrations of wealth and economic power that endangered democracy a century ago. The floodgates of big money have been opened even wider in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizen’s United vs. FEC and its recent McCutcheon decision.

Seen in this light, Comcast’s proposed acquisition of Time-Warner for $45 billion is especially troublesome-- and not just because it may be bad for consumers. Comcast is the nation’s biggest provider of cable television and high-speed Internet service; Time Warner is the second biggest.

Last week, Comcast’s executives descended on Washington to persuade regulators and elected officials that the combination will be good for consumers. They say it will allow Comcast to increase its investments in cable and high-speed Internet, and encourage rivals to do so as well.

Opponents argue the combination will give consumers fewer choices, resulting in higher cable and Internet bills. And any company relying on Comcast’s pipes to get its content to consumers (think Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, or any distributor competing with Comcast’s own television network, NBCUniversal) also will have to pay more-- charges that will also be passed on to consumers.

I think the opponents have the better argument. Internet service providers in America are already too concentrated, which is why Americans pay more for Internet access than the citizens of almost any other advanced nation.

Some argue that the broadband market already has been carved up into a cartel, so blocking the acquisition would do little to bring down prices. One response would be for the Federal Communications Commission to declare broadband service a public utility and regulate prices.

But Washington should also examine a larger question beyond whether the deal is good or bad for consumers: Is it good for our democracy?

We haven’t needed to ask this question for more than a century because America hasn’t experienced the present concentration of economic wealth and power in more than a century.

But were Senator John Sherman were alive today he’d note that Comcast is already is a huge political player, contributing $1,822,395 so far in the 2013-2014 election cycle, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics-- ranking it 18th of all 13,457 corporations and organizations that have donated to campaigns since the cycle began.

Of that total, $1,346,410 has gone individual candidates, including John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and Harry Reid; $323,000 to Leadership PACs; $278,235 to party organizations; and $261,250 to super PACs.

Last year, Comcast also spent $18,810,000 on lobbying, the seventh highest amount of any corporation or organization reporting lobbying expenditures, as required by law.

Comcast is also one of the nation’s biggest revolving doors. Of its 107 lobbyists, 86 worked in government before lobbying for Comcast. Its in-house lobbyists include several former chiefs of staff  to Senate and House Democrats and Republicans as well as a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

Nor is Time-Warner a slouch when it comes to political donations, lobbyists, and revolving doors. It also ranks near the top.

When any large corporation wields this degree of political influence it drowns out the voices of the rest of us, including small businesses. The danger is greater when such power is wielded by media giants because they can potentially control the marketplace of ideas on which a democracy is based.

When two such media giants merge, the threat is extreme. If film-makers, television producers, directors, and news organizations have to rely on Comcast to get their content to the public, Comcast is able to exercise a stranglehold on what Americans see and hear.

Remember, this is occurring in America’s new gilded age-- similar to the first one in which a young Teddy Roosevelt castigated the “malefactors of great wealth, who were “equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil.”

It’s that same equal carelessness toward average Americans and toward our democracy that ought to be of primary concern to us now. Big money that engulfs government makes government incapable of protecting the rest of us against the further depredations of big money.

After becoming President in 1901, Roosevelt used the Sherman Act against forty-five giant companies, including the giant Northern Securities Company that threatened to dominate transportation in the Northwest. William Howard Taft continued to use it, busting up the Standard Oil Trust in 1911.

In this new gilded age, we should remind ourselves of a central guiding purpose of America’s original antitrust law, and use it no less boldly. 

Labels: , , ,