Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (227196)	2/14/2002 4:18:45 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You are probably correct in your conclusion about the 'below surface' push for public financing. As to McCain-Feingold, my opinion is that it may (or may not) make things slightly better than doing nothing... but it does show that the public is aware of the problems that can arise when special interests move to the forefront - and the general public moves to the background - during our nation's lawmaking. The issue might just barely crack the 'top ten' list of what the public is most concerned about... but it does show that at least some people are thinking about it, and that's good I suppose. The M-F 'remedy' though is likely to be a big washout... with little net change to the present special interest-drenched system. I still think 'sunshine', full, immediate, and public disclosure of contributions, is the only effective fix (and most likely, the only constitutional one).

To: Zoltan! who wrote (227196)	2/14/2002 6:34:08 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Reform Bill Could Cost Broadcasters Millions....Saw this article yesterday...Now let's see how much the media contributes and to WHOM behind the scenes.... After Ted Turner spouted off this week, it makes me nervous to think what independent groups he, and his companies, would give money to....and then to what candidates.... Reform Bill Could Cost Broadcasters Millions By Pamela McClintock WASHINGTON (Variety) - With the Enron debacle adding rocket fuel to campaign finance reform, broadcasters stand to lose more than $300 million in political advertising this year if Capitol Hill approves landmark legislation curtailing how and when a candidate takes to the airwaves. The showdown is expected to begin Tuesday, when the U.S. House of Representatives begins debate on a complex reform package that is being vigorously opposed by broadcasters across the country. The measure would restrict political ads in several ways, including a ban on "soft" money, much of which is spent on TV ads. Broadcasters realize the reform movement is probably headed for victory, much to the distress of their pocketbooks. In a report released Monday, Bear Stearns & Co. broadcast analyst Victor Miller predicted that $750 million will be spent on political ads this year. The ban on soft money alone could result in a loss of $225 million to $300 million in ad revenues. That doesn't even take into account the additional millions that would be lost if broadcasters are forced through the legislation to offer across-the-board discounts to candidates buying media time. "More monetary damage could be inflicted if provisions providing candidates with lowest-unit-cost advertising are liberalized," the report's summary stated. "Combined, these reforms represent 3%-4% of all projected 2002 local industry revenues, so the issue is meaningful, especially given recent weak revenue trends in local TV." Broadcasters say it's unfair to penalize them for the vast amounts spent on political campaigns and that they would challenge the measure on constitutional grounds if made into law. Proponents of reform say there's no way to get around the fact that much of the money raised is spent on sophisticated TV ad campaigns. The reform legislation up for a vote in the House Tuesday and Wednesday nearly died last fall but was resurrected late last month through an arcane and difficult parliamentary procedure. Nervous politicos, hoping to distance themselves from Enron, were all too happy to sign on to the revival. Top Republican solons say they will do their best to kill the legislation; but even their leader, President Bush, has said he wouldn't veto it. The Senate passed the bill last fall. In just a few weeks, the campaign finance reform legislation has become the antidote to Enron. Turns out Enron, like other powerhouses, donated millions to individual candidates and to political action committees. Well aware of the new sensitivity in Washington, broadcasters are treading carefully when it comes to opposing the reform legislation. Provisions directly impacting TV stations include: - A requirement that stations offer the same, across-the-board discount to any and all candidates, no matter the time of day, no matter the program. For years, broadcasters have been required by the Federal Communications Commission to offer a discount, but there is a range, depending on the time slot and what is airing. It's possible the legislation could only require such a discount to be offered within 60 days of a general election and within 45 days of a primary. - Legislation would ban what is known as "soft money." Under existing rules, unlimited contributions can be made to national political parties. Much of this money is then shelled out to TV stations for third-party political ads; - Attack ads would be curtailed. The measure includes a ban on the use of corporate and union money to pay for a broadcast ad that mentions a federal candidate. The ban would kick in 60 days before a general election and 45 before a primary. Publicly, the National Assn. of Broadcasters is only opposing the provision requiring stations to offer across-the-board discounts. As veteran lobbyists, NAB leaders understand that the political climate is not going in their favor and that it would be bad form to oppose the soft-money ban or the attack-ad restriction. If Congress blesses the reform package, broadcasters have said they would bring a court challenge, since commercial speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution. The NAB also has been aggressively lobbying pols on the discount provision because, it says, it will have the opposite effect. "There is nothing more bogus that to claim that this will reform election laws," a broadcast exec said. "Candidates will simply take the new discounts and triple up on ad buys. It will be a huge hit to a station's bottom line." There's some speculation that the legislation, if passed, wouldn't kick-in until 2003, meaning that this year's election cycle wouldn't be impacted. 04:49 02-12-02 Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.