4 ms·
I've noticed a cycle here. Media companies donate tons to campaigns. They act out during electoral season because they know that people they write checks to w
by richardjordan 14y ago
I've noticed a cycle here. Media companies donate tons to campaigns. They act out during electoral season because they know that people they write checks to will not dare talk back to them, and if possible will pressure regulators to back them to keep the money flowing. I saw a spike in this stuff in 2008 and in 2004 - articles, pushes for lawsuits, regulatory announcements that were otherwise baffling. Don't remember 2000 well, or rather it's overshadowed by other memories of that election. Anyway, I may be wrong of course but my point is I'm not surprised at seeing an announcement like this during election season. I think the balance of evidence is that regulators in this country work with significant political interference, regardless of claims to the contrary - if nothing else they're sensitive to the winds in Washington. Just a thought.
- daniel-cussen 14y agoI'm not sure the amount they donate matters as much as the good press they donate. This is extremely valuable. Consider the case of the bribes paid by the Peruvian government to media versus that paid to judges and politicians. While the latter two got tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, a TV channel owners got $5 million. That acts as a proxy for their power. What is the parallel? They act out during election season because they are in the middle of handing their most valuable asset out--their coverage. That is the true lobbying asset. Based on what you said I suppose they want to get what they want before the election happens and the horse is let out of the barn.