Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Politicians Bought and Paid for by Satellite Radio?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    clueless is offline
    Senior Member
    clueless's Avatar
    Joined: May 2007 Location: New York Posts: 251

    Politicians Bought and Paid for by Satellite Radio?

    I know there has been a lot of clamoring about the NAB and the likes making campaign contributions (even though it happens every day in America) my question is, has anyone seen any proof of the Satellite Radio industry greasing politicians? That would be a much better story at this point.

  2. #2
    TSavery is offline
    Head Honcho
    TSavery's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2007 Posts: 524

    Contributions

    As Charles knows, we also received the letter on the day it was published elsewhere. After reading the letter I concluded that I would not publish it. The reason for that decision was that I felt that the term "bribe" was not an accurate word to use in this situation.

    Now, before people get defensive, I will acknowledge that lobby groups and people give money to political campaigns all of the time. It is how our system works. However, money given, in theory, has no strings attached. In reality, many campaign contributions are "favors" that may generate a "favor" in return at a later date, but it is never really tied to specific items.

    Satellite radio is still quite young. Lobbying efforts take years to cultivate. Each contribution brings with it the thought that another is forthcoming. The longer the contributing history the stronger chance a lobbyist has of presenting their "thoughts" on an issue to a congressman.

    This system is how things work in this country. It is not necessarily right, but it is how things work.

    Davenport, for example has been "greasing wheels" for quite some time, as have many others such as the NAB. "Greasing wheels" and "bribe" carry much different meanings.

    Satellite radio has lobbyists. To date their concentration has been on lobbying other groups that have a longer history with politicians rather than the politicians themselves. This happens because they can then rely on the powers of a group that have been lobbying and "greasing wheels" for quite some time.

    Just My Opinion, but I think if someone cares to look deeply enough that they will arrive at the same conclusion.
    Tyler Savery
    Satellite Standard Founder

  3. #3
    Newman is offline
    Mentor
    Newman's Avatar
    Joined: Jun 2007 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 1,162
    In that entire letter, there was only one politician I found suspicious. Rep Gregory Meeks (D-NY) initially supported the merger and even signed a ltter to the FCC expressing his support along with 9 other members of congress. He then turns around in November (litterally days to weeks later) he changed his mind and said that the merger should be denied unless Georgetown is awarded the 20% of the spectrum.

    What I find VERY VERY suspicious about this is the fact that the letter was not directly submitted by Meeks, or even his own lawyer. It was submitted by GEORGETOWN PARTNERS lawyer. Strange? Its amazing how quickly one can change their mind when they have a meeting with the opposition. Apparently there are no Ex Parte laws reguarding congressment, so we dont know when they met or what they talked about....

  4. Ad Fairy Senior Member

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •