Lawmakers Backing Comcast-NBC Merger Were Paid By Comcast

[Modbert]

http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011...=Feed: ip-watch (Intellectual Property Watch)

Comcast gave money to the vast majority of the 97 members of the US House of Representatives that signed a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging approval of a merger between cable company Comcast and broadcaster NBC Universal, according to research.

The 5 January letter, linked here [pdf] and circulated by nonprofit group Public Knowledge urged the merger be approved quickly and without conditions that could harm investment. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 84 of the 97 received money from Comcast, Public Knowledge said. The amounts range from token contributions of about $1,000 up to $25,100.

That comes out to a total of 87% (rounded up) of those supporting this merger being paid by Comcast. But hey, I'm sure there's nothing wrong with that, right?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Yet another example of corporations as government in America.

The giant gaping hole in the concept of democracy is money. He who has it owns the government. The equation is just that simple.

Both major political parties are now corporate owned and operated.

.. and oh yeah, the corporate will also owns America's elections. Who "wins" is determined by software .. proprietary software .. that has already been PROVEN to be designed for fraud.

Sadly, corporatism is not an issue that most Americans have any interest in.

We are an invented people.

 

[RDD_1210]

Not surprising. Government and votes continue to be for sale. Money trumps all.

 

[Truthmatters]

Corporatocracy

 

[Intense]

Oligarchy. Follow the money. The Corporations are not the Fountainhead.

 

[boedicca]

Anyone who is concerned about this should be for less regulations (opportunities and reason to "pay" government officials), and lower taxes (less reasons to lobby for loopholes and exemptions).

Simplicity makes room for more sunlight.

 

[Modbert]

Anyone who is concerned about this should be for less regulations (opportunities and reason to "pay" government officials), and lower taxes (less reasons to lobby for loopholes and exemptions).

Simplicity makes room for more sunlight.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi6wNGwd84g[/ame]

 

[RDD_1210]

Anyone who is concerned about this should be for less regulations (opportunities and reason to "pay" government officials), and lower taxes (less reasons to lobby for loopholes and exemptions).

Simplicity makes room for more sunlight.

LOL, seriously? That's how you see making this better? Less regulation will only cut out the need for Bribery, because then corporations can do anything they want without fear of the law.

 

[Intense]

Introduction
On March 21, 1980, Senate Majority Leader Robert C. Byrd launched a unique historical project – an unprecedented series of addresses on the Senate's history and operations. Over the next decade, Senator Byrd delivered more than one hundred speeches on topics ranging from a review of the Senate's impeachment powers to a survey of how the Senate has been portrayed in literature and film. These essays, later revised and edited, became the centerpiece of the Senate's 1989 bicentennial commemoration. The following essay, originally delivered on September 28, 1987, was updated in 1989 for inclusion in volume II. For footnotes and information on sources, see the print edition.

"Lobbyists" September 28, 1987 (updated 1989)
Mr. President, in 1869, a newspaper correspondent published this vivid description of a monster in the Capitol building: "Winding in and out through the long, devious basement passage, crawling through the corridors, trailing its slimy length from gallery to committee room, at last it lies stretched at full length on the floor of Congress-this dazzling reptile, this huge, scaly serpent of the lobby." What was this awful creature? It was intended as the embodiment of lobbyists, who were proliferating in the years after the Civil War and who, many believed, were corrupting the Congress. Even today, the media tend to portray legislative lobbyists as some form of monster. And yet, we realize that lobbyists play an important and essential role in the legislative process. Today, in my continuing series of addresses on the history of the Senate, I shall attempt to penetrate some of the myths and mysteries surrounding lobbyists over the past two hundred years.
Citizens of the United States, whether as individuals or in organizations, have both direct and indirect interest in legislation considered by Congress. They make their interests known by electing sympathetic senators and representatives and by petitioning for or against specific legislation. This is a right guaranteed them by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Roy Swanstrom, in his study of the Senate's early years, noted that the first petitions and memorials came from a variety of groups: shipwrights concerned about the effects of the tariff; merchants desiring an end to the tax on molasses; federal clerks requesting an increase in pay; military officers who sought reimbursement for personal funds expended during the Revolution; as well as from chambers of commerce, taxpayers' committees, veterans, and even state legislatures. In those days, the Senate might appoint a committee to consider a petition or refer it to a committee already dealing with similar legislation. Petitions that ran contrary to the wishes of the majority were tabled or pigeonholed in some way and forgotten.


U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Legislative Process > Lobbyists

 

[Woyzeck]

Remember kids, don't forget to add in 15% tip to your bribe of an elected official, they work hard to be corrupt scumbags to get the legislation beneficial to your corporation done, so you can make more money. Flattery will get you nowhere, but bribery will get you as far as your pockets are deep.

 

[Revere]

The Constitution should be followed, which gives the Federal government no power to intervene in such business arrangements.

Problem solved.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution should be followed, which gives the Federal government no power to intervene in such business arrangements.

Problem solved.

Wrong, Federal power controls and has authority over all INTERSTATE Commerce. Cable and TV Networks ARE Interstate Trade.

 

[Revere]

The Constitution should be followed, which gives the Federal government no power to intervene in such business arrangements.

Problem solved.

Wrong, Federal power controls and has authority over all INTERSTATE Commerce. Cable and TV Networks ARE Interstate Trade.

Anti-trust laws are what usually get dragged into these.

 

[Revere]

If you and I decide to merge out businesses, have we engaged in any interstate commerce or trade yet?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you and I decide to merge out businesses, have we engaged in any interstate commerce or trade yet?

If you live in another State from me then YES you have.

You can not honestly claim Comcast and NBC are NOT interstate Businesses.

 

[Revere]

If you and I decide to merge out businesses, have we engaged in any interstate commerce or trade yet?

If you live in another State from me then YES you have.

You can not honestly claim Comcast and NBC are NOT interstate Businesses.

You can not honestly claim that any commerce government so regulates does not degenerate into such corruption.

Would Comcast need to buy Congressmen if they didn't need Congressmen to go about their business?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If you and I decide to merge out businesses, have we engaged in any interstate commerce or trade yet?

If you live in another State from me then YES you have.

You can not honestly claim Comcast and NBC are NOT interstate Businesses.

You can not honestly claim that any commerce government so regulates does not degenerate into such corruption.

Would Comcast need to buy Congressmen if they didn't need Congressmen to go about their business?

Once again, read the Constitution. Interstate trade is a power of the Federal Government, as in Congress. Do I really need to paste it here for you to read?

 

[Revere]

If you live in another State from me then YES you have.

You can not honestly claim Comcast and NBC are NOT interstate Businesses.

You can not honestly claim that any commerce government so regulates does not degenerate into such corruption.

Would Comcast need to buy Congressmen if they didn't need Congressmen to go about their business?

Once again, read the Constitution. Interstate trade is a power of the Federal Government, as in Congress. Do I really need to paste it here for you to read?

What part of regulation breeds corporate cronyism don't you understand?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can not honestly claim that any commerce government so regulates does not degenerate into such corruption.

Would Comcast need to buy Congressmen if they didn't need Congressmen to go about their business?

Once again, read the Constitution. Interstate trade is a power of the Federal Government, as in Congress. Do I really need to paste it here for you to read?

What part of regulation breeds corporate cronyism don't you understand?

YOU claimed the Federal Government had no power to involve itself in the merger, YOU are wrong.