Cramer Vents About Satellite Merger
Now, to be fair, members of congress accept money from political action committees and PACS all of the time. This is how the system works. No, these funds are not directly “buying” an action on the part of these politicians. However, what can a congressman expect from an organization in the future if they are not “towing the line” now? Lobby dollars are about getting consideration. If a politician does not offer that consideration, they can forget about additional lobbyist dollars in the future.
Many points Cramer makes in the piece are quite interesting. The satellite radio merger has had more hearings that the Exxon Mobil merger as well as the Maytag merger. He also points out the fact that this merger seems to garner more attention that the war in Iraq, as well as the fact that Sirius and XM make up less than 5% of the national radio listenership.
Cramer concludes that these congressmen are not concerned with the consumer. They are instead concerned about lobby dollars.
Whether you agree with Cramer or not, it can not be denied that this merger has received far more attention than many others, and that the competitors of satellite radio have not only been very vocal, but have been helping to fund the political carreers of many over decades.
How long will Cramer continue this? Likely until a decision is made.
Position – Long Sirius, Long XM
Thank you Jim Cramer for sticking your neck out for us lowly investors. Who else would be able to go on TV and expose the corruption that occurs in Washington. Why would a congressman be concerned about a sat merger? MONEY…that is the answer. Otherwise they wouldn’t give two flying shits.
>>> Why would a congressman be concerned about a sat merger?
Maybe because it creates an unregulated monopoly, which is specifically outlawed by the Clayton Act and 70 years of Antitrust law?
Kudo’s to Kramer for exposing these money grubbing congressman who could’nt care less for the consumer and/or investors- they only have one motive line there pockets.
Let’s get this merger approved once and for all!!!!
>>>> Maybe because it creates an unregulated monopoly, which is specifically outlawed by the Clayton Act and 70 years of Antitrust law?
This is not about drinking water. This is about a luxury, non-essential paid country-wide radio service, which you can quit anytime. The choice is yours.
BTW: ever considered contracting another drinking water supplier? ;-))
Boy FrontMed using something passed in 1914. Do you also think we should still be hanging people for horse rustling also.
Just like he speaks of the Staples case of 10 years ago like it’s the Bible, then turns around and weasels out of any discussion about the Whole Foods case from last year.
But perhaps I shouldn’t complain – his posts provide others a good boost to relative self-esteem, i.e. “At least I’m not that guy!”
>>> Just like he speaks of the Staples case of 10 years ago like it’s the Bible, then turns around and weasels out of any discussion about the Whole Foods case from last year.
Staples was a landmark decision in the field of antitrust litigation. Whole Foods is as yet an undetermined outcome.
Dont bother with FrontMed, he believes the same court that denied the injunction to stop the merger (because the FTC did not prove Judge Friedmans decision to be flawed), will now over turn it and break up a company that they let merge. He also thinks when the Washington Appellate Court denied the FTC injunction to stop the merger, that the court was not saying to Whole Foods it was ok to merge, but just saying the FTC could not stop them from merging. Now normal people know the court gave Whole Foods Permission to merge. But not FrontMed he can’t split hairs with this one he has to go all the way down to atoms. He is so out there with this one he can’t see the forest through the trees. He and the FTC are the only ones who may think this, and the FTC most likly doesn’t even think they are going to break them up (hardship of the company caused by the court, they would let the merger stand). They just want to try and reverse a presedent they created, figuring it was better to take a chance to try and knock it off the books compared to having a stronger presedent. Basically The FTC choice was having a Bad presedent or a stronger bad presedent if it went against them, and if it went for them no pesedent at all. The reason I say he is the only one who believes Whole Foods would be broken up, is the stock only went down a few cents the day the news came out about the FTC filing an appeal. So even the people most effected by this thought it to be meaningless.