Comcast, Time Warner execs have been big Obama/Dem supporters

[ErikJ]

February 13, 2014, 01:20 pm

Executives at Comcast and Time Warner, which on Thursday announced a $45.2 billion merger that will set off an antitrust fight in Washington, have showered President Obama and congressional Democrats with campaign contributions.

Employees and the associated political action committees of both media giants donated heavily to the president and his party ahead of the 2012 elections, according to Federal Election Commission records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, and appear on pace to do so again in 2014.

At Comcast, that effort was led by the top. Comcast CEO Brian Roberts has donated $76,000 to Democrats since 2006, compared to $13,500 in contributions to Republicans. He’s golfed with Obama on Martha’s Vineyard, served on the president’s Jobs Council, and appeared at a number of White House meetings on business and technology.

But his fundraising efforts were dwarfed by head Comcast lobbyist David Cohen, a Democratic bundler who raised $1.44 million for the president’s reelection campaign in 2011 and 2012, and $2.22 million since 2007, according to internal documents obtained by the New York Times.

In 2011, Cohen hosted a DNC fundraiser attended by Obama at his home in Philadelphia. During the event, the president thanked him and his wife for “just being such great friends for so many years.”

Throughout the 2012 cycle, Comcast employees donated more than $465,000 to the Democratic National Committee, more than $300,000 to the president’s reelection campaign, and $178,050 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to Center for Responsive Politics data.

By contrast, Comcast employees donated just over $114,000 to the Republican National Committee, $93,000 to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, and $103,000 to the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.
..............................
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/198350-comcast-time-warner-execs-have-been-big-obama-supporters#ixzz2tEUjLKZQ

[adirondacker]

1. Well, that explains the left liberal media bias on cable news.

[Nika]

2. I seriously hope they do not permit this merger.

[woo me with science]

3. K&R Party has become largely a tool of the One Percent, to keep people divided

and unable to resist while a corporate direction is maintained no matter who is in office.

Obama Administration signals they will not defend net neutrality.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4484820


With this next massive betrayal, we lose control of the internet...and the corporations gain the means to control our access to information and freedom of association. Look at the wasteland of cable TV. This is NOT just about costs. This is about control of information and communication. The free and open internet was perhaps our last hope for organizing and educating to take back our country from corporate fascism.

This corporate administration, like the administration before them, have systematically been removing every single avenue the people have left to fight back against the corporate looting of our lives and our futures. They are dismantling our right to privacy, our free press, our right to assemble and protest, our national sovereignty in trade and regulatory policy, our protections for journalists and whistleblowers... And now they will allow corporate control of the internet.

[NCTraveler]

4. Doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

They like to support winners. It is what many corps do. If the tide looks like it is going to change, they will support someone else. During the next couple of election cycles, I think we will see a pretty even spread when it comes to corp donations.

Obama was going to be a clear winner in both of his elections. Of course the big money was going to go to him. So did more individual contributions. When it comes to campaigns he is a winner.

[ErikJ]

5. Media probably has best inside knowledge of who's going to win.

So they donate more to that side to get what they want after the elections. And they know its more expensive to get what they want out of the Dems anyway. They already own the Republicans anyway.

[onenote]

9. If Brian Roberts knew Obama was going to win, why did he donate to Hillary and not Obama?

Why did he donate to Harris Wofford's unsuccessful re-election campaign. Why did he donate to Tom Daschle's unsuccessful reelection campaign?

[JRLeft]

10. It's hard for some to admitt some members of our party have had congressional purdchased by the

mega corporations.

[durablend]

15. I think Roberts is supporting Corbett's reelection campaign too

Some "Democrat" there

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....

[Scuba]

11. You think they toss that money around for the warm, fuzzy "winning" feel?

My money says they want something in return.

[NCTraveler]

13. I don't think it is for a "winning" feeling.

It is because of the winner themselves. They back winners because that is how they get things in return. That is the whole point of what I wrote. Why would they throw all of their support behind a loser? Their return would be slim to none.

[Armstead]

12. Its another example of the rot in our political system caused by Big Money

[NCTraveler]

14. Fully agree.

Congress has the ability to do campaign finance reform that will limit big money yet still preserve the current SC beliefs on the first amendment. One of the justices even alluded to that in their dissent, stating that the overlying goal of that section of the legislation could be written and implemented in a constitutional manner. I remember being upset at the time because congress just took the courts decision at face value and didn't even consider pushing and amendment for that section of the law. I personally don't think that there is even close to a majority in congress who don't drool over the thought of big money. In my mind, the reason it wasn't brought back up, is simply because both parties love the idea of big money in elections. Democrats definitely won't touch it when the electoral tide is in their favor. Money goes in cycles and when your team has the wind at their backs then they get more of the money. The money means little without it being behind a winner who can be influenced.

[woo me with science]

17. +100000

[woo me with science]

6. kick

[lpbk2713]

7. They're playing a high stakes game.

They don't want to lose because they didn't cover all the angles.

[Armstead]

8. Surprise, Surprise Sergent Carter!

[father founding]

16. Bitcoins

The amounts you cite in your post are just chump change to these people, they probably spend more at Starbucks every month. Whoever thought that America can be bought this cheaply ?