• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Comcast PAC gave money to every senator examining Time Warner Cable merger

Status
Not open for further replies.
If Comcast is looking to influence politicians, they're doing a bad job of it. The average senate campaign is close to $10 million.

I'm sure they have a lot of average for donating less than a thousandth of a percent.
 
I am still disappointed that the members of the supreme court, supposedly some of the smartest judges in America, can't appreciate the basic concept that Money is not equal to Speech. Freedom of Speech should not mean freedom of monetary donation.
 
You said every senator took PAC money from Comcast but I see Al Franken took $0.

Edit: Not that it makes the story any better, the whole situation is still dirty.

Anti-Comcast Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) isn't listed as having received anything from Comcast's PAC, but that's apparently because the database didn't take into account money collected by Franken's recount fund from when he needed a vote recount to get elected to the Senate. Franken and Comcast spokespeople confirmed to Ars that a Comcast PAC did give $5,000 to Franken's recount fund in 2009. A Los Angeles Times story from 2010 also mentions the donation.

i have no clue what any of this means though. just that Al Franken did at some point accept money.

edit:
CURSE YOU SUB_LEVEL!
 
But seriously, what can we do?

Absolutely nothing now that Citizens United made it legal for corporations to give unlimited bribes to politicians.

You vote them out, the new guy is just going to take the legal bribe.

We're fucked.
 
If you think the buying comes from things like this you're mistaken. Dont' get me wrong, corporations and government have formed an axis that is about supporting the elites from both. You need to research to see how people jump between industry and government (especially in regulatory bodies and they join industries they regulated) that's the bigger crime.
 
Democracy at its finest.

:( Why is this even acceptable?

Because the political appointees known as the Supreme Court say so. In fact, in the most recent ruling, Chief Justice Roberts stated that it was wrong for the government to even attempt to regulate money/contributions in politics.
 

Comcast employee donations to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats:


Al Franken, Minnesota: $15,050

PAC money and employee donations are separated out in to two categories.

Edit: I see above now about his recount fund. That is odd they don't include that. I stand corrected.
 
In Franken's defense he is at least trying to look like he apposes the merger:

Sen. Franken looks to recruit Netflix in his quest to kill the Comcast-TWC merger

Senator Al Franken (D, Minn.) has been one of the most vocal critics of the proposed merger between Comcast and Time Warner Cable and now he’s trying to bring in the big guns to help him kill it once and for all. Franken on Wednesday sent a letter to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings asking him or his company to publicly weigh in on a merger that Franken says will hurt competition for online video services going forward.

“My concern is that Comcast will be able to use its clout in the broadband distribution market to obtain an anticompetitive advantage in the content market,” Franken writes. “Comcast can achieve this by blocking, degrading, raising costs for or otherwise interfering with unaffiliated content that relies on Comcast’s distribution network to reach consumers.”

Letter: http://www.franken.senate.gov/files/letter/140416Comcast-Netflix.pdf

Maybe with the help of Netflix he can make a difference.
wtzgU.gif
 
I actually don't have a problem with corporations or other organizations (such as unions) donating to politicians. How many here on GAF have no problem with the SIEU or other unions pouring in millions of dollars every year into the election process? As long as the information is disclosed, I'm fine with it.

What I don't like is that we have staffers and other government employees that leave the public sector and go to work in the private sector for companies that they were responsible for regulating and overseeing. That to me is where the real mess is.
 
I actually don't have a problem with corporations or other organizations (such as unions) donating to politicians. How many here on GAF have no problem with the SIEU or other unions pouring in millions of dollars every year into the election process? As long as the information is disclosed, I'm fine with it.

What I don't like is that we have staffers and other government employees that leave the public sector and go to work in the private sector for companies that they were responsible for regulating and overseeing. That to me is where the real mess is.

False dichotomy. I have a problem with that as well. The rule doesn't have to apply to ONLY corporations.
 
I am still disappointed that the members of the supreme court, supposedly some of the smartest judges in America, can't appreciate the basic concept that Money is not equal to Speech. Freedom of Speech should not mean freedom of monetary donation.

They knew what they were doing.
 
Thats naive.

wishful thinking on my part really. i havent voted in the last two elections becuase i feel there hasnt been a good candiate to lead this country.


and the election before those two i did a write in vote for my dad.
 
I should be surprised, but I'm really not. Its embarrassing when my wife, who runs a rape crisis center, has to go lobby up in Springfield, IL and is quickly shoved aside for each and every business that comes down from Chicago to "meet" with the Congressman and Congress women.
 
Isn't gift-giving illegal? How are they doing this? What binds senators to bend to these corporations, after getting a gift?

The same thing that binds you to show up at work on Monday morning as your company hands you a paycheck Friday afternoon. You're gonna need another paycheck next week.
 
False dichotomy. I have a problem with that as well. The rule doesn't have to apply to ONLY corporations.

It's not a false dichotomy at all. I'm asking to get people who are up in arms about Comcast pouring in money to think about their own political biases. I am fine with people, corporations, unions, trade groups, whatever using money to support candidates that they think will go with their best interests. I think the solution is to reform the tax code to remove the largest tool from the corruption toolbox.
 
If you think the buying comes from things like this you're mistaken. Dont' get me wrong, corporations and government have formed an axis that is about supporting the elites from both. You need to research to see how people jump between industry and government (especially in regulatory bodies and they join industries they regulated) that's the bigger crime.

I'm interested. Can you recommend a book on the topic?
 
Honestly, how is that this legal? You'd think that there would be laws in place to stop that.

I hate being one of those people, but shit like this makes me want to move to Canada. Or the moon. Surely there is no corruption on the moon.

Dont pull your trigger on Canada juuust yet. We're not yet done ridding the CRTC of Robellus.
 
It's not a false dichotomy at all. I'm asking to get people who are up in arms about Comcast pouring in money to think about their own political biases. I am fine with people, corporations, unions, trade groups, whatever using money to support candidates that they think will go with their best interests. I think the solution is to reform the tax code to remove the largest tool from the corruption toolbox.

It is a false dichotomy because while it was an open question, it seemed to suggest that If GAF was against coporations donating, GAF wouldn't have a problem with unions doing it. When there is open bribery going on, no tax code will change anything.
 
Isn't gift-giving illegal? How are they doing this? What binds senators to bend to these corporations, after getting a gift?

"Corruption" is now very narrowly defined. Handing an official some money in a briefcase to explicitly change their vote is illegal, but giving large campaign donations that have implicit meaning is a completely legal avenue of free speech.
 
I'd like to see a politician accept the money and then give it to a food bank or something.

I'd also like to fly and time travel.
 
So they're totally going to forbid the merger right? Right? Guys? Guys?

Yea the odds of this merger not going through is slim. That's exactly why too. Bribery at it's best.
 
So if I am being accused of a crime and am in court, is there nothing preventing me from "donating" tens of thousands of dollars to the judge? If not, why is that any different?
 
It makes absolutely ZERO SENSE that any corporation is able to donate money to a candidate.
 
.. You can buy a senator's vote on a merger for that little? whoah.
 
So if I am being accused of a crime and am in court, is there nothing preventing me from "donating" tens of thousands of dollars to the judge? If not, why is that any different?
In counties where judges are elected you could donate the the judges campaign.

When the government holds so many gifts it's not surprising that business wants to buy a few.
 
I hate being one of those people, but shit like this makes me want to move to Canada. Or the moon. Surely there is no corruption on the moon.

Allow me to be one of those people when I say shit like this makes me want to stay far away from America. I'll surely be crippled in the bank pocket before even a year has passed if I move there.
 
PAC money and employee donations are separated out in to two categories.

Edit: I see above now about his recount fund. That is odd they don't include that. I stand corrected.

I actually missed the part where it was still a separate category though so you were right to correct me initially.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom