Yes, I agree that this one donation is unusually lopsided.
But which is worse? A single lopsided donation? Or a pattern over the years of lopsided donations?
Why, specifically, is Time Warner’s $2.35 million given to Democrats in 2008 not a subject of even more concern, considering it’s 83% of their total; only 17% of their giving was to Republicans and that prior years reveal similar lopsided patterns.
Since 1990, Time Warner has given $14,394,024 to Democrats and only $5,482,191 to Republicans. That’s a gap of nearly TEN MILLION DOLLARS, and it’s not a one-shot deal. It’s consistent, year to year.
Tell me why a one-time, one million dollar contribution raises more concerns than that.
This donation does not create a conflict of interest for Newscorp with regard to the Republican Governors Association and its members. It does create a conflict of interest for the Republican Governors Association and its members with regard to Newscorp, but not the other way around.
Liberal hypocrisy! Everybody come see the liberal hypocrisy!
Fuhgedaboutit! The work Fox News does as the propaganda wing of the Republican Party far, far exceeds any benefit of a mere million dollars. Piffle. Chump change. Thye pump out insinuatons, innuendo, half-truths and bold faced lies 24/7/365, whats a mere million bucks next to an effort like that?
And if anybody watching Fox doesn’t know already what they are getting, fighting their ignorance is a lost cause. And if they do, it probably isn’t much better.
Does kinda make me wish I had a more traditional religious outlook, would take a lot of the sting out of going to Hell if I could see the surprised look on Sean Hannity’s face when he arrives.
Thanks to reporting, the disclaimer has effectively been made. Adding any sort of a listing at midnight on broadcast TV of where donations go would have no effect.
I think the bigger problem is the large donations to both parties that serve to do nothing more than keep incumbents in power. The corps back the assumed winners, reducing the chances of others to unseat an incumbent.
Then again, I have long felt that corporate personhood is a bad thing, and I would reform donations to be unlimited but only made by registered voters.
Why is there a conflict of interest here? Corporations donate money to people all the time. If Merck donates $1 million to the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Labor, Education and Pensions, should it have to disclose that?
Apparently the distinction with News Corp is that it probably won’t enjoy any direct benefits from its donation, and apparently that makes it wrong.
I still think you are conflating corporate PAC donations with individual donations. The 10 million dollar, consistent, gap is for individuals and PACs. Time Warner PACs are listed here:
I don’t see any donations of the magnitude you indicate, nor the lopsidedness (in fact, in 2004 the majority of donations went to Republicans, by a 2-to-1 margin). In 2008, as far as I can tell, it was 59/41 in favor of Dems (link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00339291&cycle=2008).
Changing that lopsided contribution from business was the whole point of the Clintonista-Dem leadership movement. They were looking to be seen as more “business friendly”, what they did was make the Dems into Republican Lite. * Feh!* as they say in Lubbock. Tweedledum. Tweedledumber.
ISTM that people are using “conflict of interest” and “bias” interchangeably. They are not the same.
I don’t see how giving money to a politician or party creates a conflict of interest. It demonstrates bias. But here too, it doesn’t create bias. It only demonstrates it.
I am opposed to all restrictions on news organizations and new people giving money to or otherwise openly affiliating with political parties. The bias is there anyway. Let’s have it all out in the open.
Well, that depends on how seriously you take the “Fair and Balanced” tagline. However, if Fox News (via its parent company, for the purposes of this discussion) donates to a Republican campaign committee, it now has a vested interest in Republican electoral victories.
After all, anything donated to losing candidates is effectively dead money.
That’s a valid point, to the extent that you’re talking about practical self-interest. ISTM that the focus of this discussion has been ideological bias, and I was responding to that.
Not completely, if you’re a big enough donor. Because the Republican and Democratic parties will be around after the election and continue to exert influence, and if they recognize that you’ve been a supporter of their candidates they’ll be grateful and want your continued support. But obviously you’re better off if the party that is grateful and wants your continued support has more and not less influence.
For this cycle, rather than doing something resembling a 50/50, or even 2-to-1 split, they are giving a million bucks to one party. This is rather different than anything I can find in the OpenSecrets database for a media company PAC.
I’m not saying companies can’t fund campaigns, or even parties. And, fortunately, disclosure laws (for the most part) require this to be out in the open. But it’s also perfectly within reason to point out that a company that, at least in the current cycle, is financially supporting one party exclusively has a stake in seeing that party do well.
Is your prediction that the final numbers for the 2010 cycle will be in line with previous cycles? Even though they have already contributed 4 times what they have in the past? A $1 million donation to the DNC is incoming?
I think a one million dollar unbalanced donation to the RGA is abnormal, yes. If you can point me to a cycle where a news organization or their parent company has such a disparity, please feel free to. You have access to the same data I do (and CNN does…).
I’m not sure how much clearer it can be. I repeat:
So…let me get this straight. The parent company of Fox News supports Republicans.
And this is bad, because no one knew until now that Fox News was a pro-Republican network?
And no one knew, because they had as their slogan “Fair and Balanced”, which tricked people into believing that they did not favor Republicans.
Seriously, guys?
As Elucidator says, their in-kind on-air backing of Republican candidates is worth far, far more than a million dollars. The cash donation is like a tip on top of regular salary. You’re quibbling that it’s the tip that proves that Fox is biased?
No, it’s the relentless on-air backing of Republicans that proves Fox is biased. And so what? Who says media outlets have to be impartial? Even ones that claim to be fair and balanced?
Everyone knows Fox News is the Republican News Channel. This is not a secret, and it is not a violation of any ethical principle. No media organization is required to present both sides, or back both parties equally. Even looking at things from “both sides” is blatant bias on its own. If you don’t want to trust a media org that has a particular point of view, then go nuts. If you think Fox is wrong to support Republicans, because Republicans are assholes, then go nuts. But it’s silly to pretend that it isn’t faaaaaaaiiiiiiir for them to support Republicans.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=16 GE has received a lifetime achievement award for their illegal actions.
Corporations hedge their bets. They will give money to Dems when it is obvious a backlash is coming. They want whoever is is power to be beholden to them. But it is apparent who is the most closely aligned with corporate interests. It is not the Dems. Although Clinton did push them that way. They still show some interests in the general welfare in opposition to corporate power.