| Martin, Comcast, Obama Karl
Thanks much for the David Cohen bit, which I had missed. Meanwhile, I've been watch Kyle McSlarrow of the cable association being massively behind McCain, I believe including getting money from Comcast execs.
But I think Kevin Martin (and Mike Powell, etc.) are more complicated than just political animals responding to paymasters. I call it "How do you buy an honest man?" I believe both Martin and Powell would throw you out of the office if you offered a million dollar suitcase, and probably would have you arrested. I'm confident both wanted to do right by the consumer and personally strongly believe in being ethical. I also believe that on all but a handful of major votes before 2008, Martin's votes would have been the same if he were a flunky. I welcome more ideas, but here's part of it.
1) Hire the very best persuaders in the world. Folks like Tom Tauke of Verizon and Jim Cicconi of AT&T are paid perhaps $2M a year and are very, very good.
2) Provide them with provide them with almost unbelievable amounts of money. I've traced $46M from AT&T as just part of their spending on one issue (TV franchises) in a single year (2006) through just one of many routes (Charlie Black in between running Republican presidential elections.) My guess is that overall spending to influence telecom and related issues is closer to $2B than $1B, but it's hard to get a firm number. The carriers are a large portion.
3) Use some of that money at every opportunity to buy "access" and perhaps more. The $6.2M Comcast's David Cohen raised for Obama was not just because he supports Obama. That's enough money to expect to be consulted on ajor decisions at the FCC including the appointments. Being consulted does not imply Cohen will make the decision, although Verizon's Tom Tauke was rumored to have an effective veto on Bush's second FCC chair. Tauke's early endorsement was crucial to Martin getting the job. Tauke's Bush ties are so strong the Washington Post reported he was offered the campaign manager job in 2000, but apparently turned it down because he didn't want to cut his income 90% and still take orders from Karl Rove.
AT&T provided $1M to a foundation named after Congressman Bobby Rush which employed Rush's son and promoted Rush's causes in the community. Rush has voted several times in favor of AT&T proposals I believe hurt his constituents. I haven't checked this year, but often a majority of those elected in the U.S. have received the maximum legal contribution from one or more Bells.
4) The money also supports an army of sycophants that typically overwhelm D.C. policy events. One university-sponsored event had a majority of speakers I knew had substantial financial ties to the bells. Organizations they fund (APT) constantly run D.C. events that mostly feature carrier points of view, with a few included for "balance." These are usually well and effectively promoted and are very visible in DC.
5) They massively fund "studies" that provide credibility to their lobbying point of view. Some are done by nominally independent and non-profit groups who have a predictable point of view. Others come from "economists for hire" shops like Criterion. They are typically produced by people with respectable credentials and enough knowledge of economics to impress people who don't look closely at the work. Almost always lobbyists can find someone with credentials willing to take their money.
6) Their studies and organizations effectively cross-promote each other. I've seen Verizon funded studies that quote a dozen Verizon funded sources who quote them in turn. One "non-profit" produced a "study" that would have had a hard time being accepted in a college term paper because it drew strong conclusions without anything close to statistically significant data. 3 data points were used to estimate $134B of impact, with precise breakdowns for 50 states. The primary conclusion on the impact of broadband on jobs was based on a Verizon funded "study" that specifically did not find a significant link to jobs. It turns out using their data more carefully leads to a conclusion the organization's demand creation efforts were worse than useless, with the three data points actually finding the take rate was lower when the increased supply was taken into account. Availability went from 60% to 95%, which ordinarily would have created more new broadband connections without any "demand side effort."
I've a great deal more on how money and influence actually actually control most of D.C., but I'm already too long for a comment.
db |
