What the Times Didn't Tell About McCain

As Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain twisted briefly in the wind kicked up by that New York Times story suggesting he had swapped political favors for the personal favors of an attractive lobbyist for the telecommunications industry, I kept waiting for the public policy punch line.

Surely the Times would spell out just what it was that McCain had delivered to big media beyond what the paper originally reported: an all-too-typical congressional request that the FCC speed up its review of a broadcast licensing dispute.

Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist in question, is praised on her company's Web site for her "extensive experience in telecommunications, representing corporations before the House and Senate Commerce Committees," and for "her work on the landmark 1992 and 1996 communications bills." Now that's a biggie, because the 1996 legislation, although you would never have learned this from the mainstream media at the time, opened the floodgates for massive media consolidation, thus rewarding media moguls for their many millions in campaign contributions. McCain was a big player on that Commerce Committee at the time, and I expected a Times revelation as to just how Iseman got McCain to help gift the media barons with their dream legislation.

The revelation never came, because the annoying reality is that McCain was one of the rare Senate opponents of the telecom bill that Iseman was pushing--as opposed to the New York Times, which like every other major media outlet pushed for the legislation (in the case of the Times, without ever conceding its own corporation's financial bias in the matter). McCain was one of five senators (and the sole Republican) who, along with Democrats Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, Paul Simon and the great Paul Wellstone, voted against the atrocious legislation, which President Bill Clinton signed into law.

The Times, which now has the temerity to question McCain's integrity on telecommunications policy, ran a shameful editorial back then, under the headline "A Victory for Viewers," insisting after the passage of the legislation that "there was one clear winner--the consumer." Seven years later, the paper's "Editorial Observer," Brent Staples, bemoaned one direct consequence of the passage of the Telecom Act, under the title "The Trouble with Corporate Radio: The Day the Protest Music Died." Noting that "corporate ownership has changed what gets played--and who plays it," Staples observed that the top two radio owners went from having a total of 115 stations before the act was passed to 1,400 between them afterward.

This concentration of ownership in all media was the inevitable result of the legislation that the media moguls sought. That far-reaching impact was obvious only one year after the act's passage, as Neil Hickey noted at the time in the Columbia Journalism Review: " ... far and away the splashiest effect of the new law during the last year has been the historic, unprecedented torrent of mergers, consolidations, buyouts, partnerships, and joint ventures that has changed the face of Big Media in America." He then offers a staggering list of massive multibillion-dollar mergers consummated during that first year.

One of the early winners was Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which quickly became the biggest owner of television stations, bolstering its lineup of media properties such as TV Guide, HarperCollins and Twentieth Century Fox; quite a gift from legislation signed by President Clinton, which perhaps explains the warm relationship that subsequently developed between Murdoch and Hillary Clinton. Murdoch sponsored a fundraiser for Clinton's senatorial re-election campaign in 2006, but when asked during the Iowa primary about Murdoch's vast media holdings, including Fox News, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal, Clinton ducked the question. Avoiding any reference to Murdoch, she conceded that "... there have been a lot of media consolidations in the last several years, and it is quite troubling."

It's not easy to maintain an evenhanded appraisal of McCain as he appropriates the Bush mantle. Of course, I wouldn't vote for him; he is willing to let the Iraq war go on for a hundred years, and at the rate of at least $200 billion a year, that makes a mockery of his efforts to defeat earmarks and other wasteful government spending--beginning with the massive waste in the Pentagon budget that he has done so much to expose. His capitulation on President Bush's use of torture is even more appalling. But it is absurd to attempt to pigeonhole McCain as a patsy for corporate lobbyists when he has been in the forefront of key efforts to challenge their power.

Comments

[vipersdad]

Thank you for being "truly" fair and balanced.

Much appreciated information and it is wonderful that someone took the time and effort to go in to detail on this.

[wsblake]

Wrong,Mr.Scheer. McCain at first did vote against the telecom legislation - as did many other legislators,at first-but eventually did change his mind. In other words, he was against it before he was for it.

[AuntSally]

Unfortunately, McCain cast that vote back when he was McCain. He doesn't know who he is anymore. He's certainly not of the sampe political stripes of eight years ago. I honestly believe he's becoming senile...

[Durango]

Don't remember the words but Abraham Lincoln said something about the TERRIBLE AMBITION that sweeps up a man (or today, woman) when he gets it into his head to run for President.

It was after he found out Grant would not seek the nomination in 1864.

A terrible ambition Lincoln knew all too well.

[jhNY]

A specialist wrist surgeon, his eye on his own handiwork only, will pronounce his patient is doing well even when the patient is dying of bowel cancer and broke the wrist the surgeon set while attempting to get out of bed. Is that not sort of like the contents of this article?

Sure, by concentrating on one instance of resistance to the wishes of a lobbyist, one can make McCain look like a guy with his own spine, but his plane is filled to the tippy-top with lobbyists who want him in so badly they don't even take money for working for his campaign, and who continue lobbying over the phone while airborne.

And by the way, everybody: 'war hero' is a paradox, like 'jumbo shrimp' and 'army intelligence.' WT Sherman was right.

[DemandTruth]

Surely the Times would spell out just what it was that McCain had delivered to big media beyond what the paper originally reported: an all-too-typical congressional request that the FCC speed up its review of a broadcast licensing dispute.

"All-too-typical"??? Come now, sir. Even you must be aware of the RARE rebuke that letter drew from the committee. A rebuke, much less a RARE one should tell you something about McCain's all-too-typical antics and hypocrisy. When you set up straw man arguments that any simpleton can see through right away, it detracts from the rest of your argument. Nice try on the "straight talk" but we know an excuser and enabler when we read one.

[Durango]

I had some experience with McCain (his staff) on an environmental issue and he is not a bad individual. He often considers issues and votes they way he thinks is right. He is not an ideologue. Which is why the Rightwing nuts hate him.

I would never vote for him in 100 years but he is an honorable man. At least as honorable as you can get in D.C.

Although I won't defend his recent pandering to the Right.

[MountainMuscle]

Hey Bob, always glad to get your angle, but c'mon. How can ANY politician especially this Republican get kudos for his valor in protecting the public interest, when there's always a Bigger Picture of cronyism. If you're not going to gift us with a comprehensive overview of McCain's career involvement with corporate favoritism then kindly direct us to a good concise source of such info. I mean hell, the word "Keating" didn't even show up in this article, nor did you mention whose private jets those were that Saint McCain & blondie went off cavorting in ..

[outnow]

McCain is a war hero because he bombed civilians from 35,000 feet up with cluster bombs. The US used Agent Orange from which 15,000 Vietnamese still suffer and Napalm - jellied gasoline which burned thousands of children. He still wants to bomb Iraq with nuclear devices. The amount of depleted uranium casings in Iraq along is causing the largest cancer epidemic in history. Yet he wants to continue this bombardment for 100 years.

When I was recruited for this activity in Southeast Asia I declined for moral and ethical reasons. I have never regretted that decision. The more we learned about that war and this war the more it became obvious that the basis for the wars were untrue and our governments knew that.

Each of us must decide, especially in the all volunteer military, whether we want to participate in the use of such weapons against civilians. He made his decision. He was a volunteer. Bush decided that he didn't want to go and used family influence. Now he leads us into another such war based on untrue assertions. John McCain would continue it indefinitely.

To me, that is not heroic but cowardly.

[jhNY]

Great post, and thanks for declining your opportunity to afflict the helpless.

[archerlane]

Interesting that he did not raise and wave the flag on how he voted for this bill to counter the Times article. Maybe there are a few threads hanging out that he did not want pulled.

He is tainted with the lobbyist affiliation that gives a perception of hippocracy. So far , perception seems to be based on reality. More to come I'll bet.

[sd4david]

Umm, if what you say is true, is it not likely McCain either A) Was presured by Iseman, but didn't vote their way B) Iseman was actually against the legislation or C) McCain had othe financial supporters who were aginst the legislation.

MCain comes from the group that CONTINUOUSLY gives to the rich, and TAKES from the poor and middle class. This is the opposite of biblical values. A REAL hero can stand up to the powerful. But McCain could not and did not stand up to President Bush. And to hug a man who had SMEARED HIM makes him a sell out. So he is not a maverick. He was a hero when he served, but he is not now.

[Beelzebufo]

Thank you for your very lucid - and fair - commentary about John McCain and his opposition to the telecommunications disaster.

[desmirl]

As long as he remains Senator McBomb-Bomb, the rest of his legislative achievements are meaningless. McCain supports a war BASED ON LIES and the continuing ILLEGAL OCCUPATION of a sovereign nation--and does so at the cost of American lives and treasure--not to mention the horrors done to the Iraqi people. McCain is an angry old dwarf who needs--in the words of Douglas MacArthur--TO FADE AWAY.

[Doofus]

Curiously, McCain opposes bills, yet receives money, from Big Telecom, and lobbyists. How DOES that work?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/21/mccain-special-interest-money/

McCain: "I"m The Only Candidate That The Special Interests Don"t Give Money To"

At a townhall meeting in New Hampshire last November, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told the audience that he"s never allowed himself to be corrupted by lobbyist money:

'Everybody says that they"re against the special interests. I"m the only one the special interests don"t give any money to.'

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McCain has taken nearly $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the telephone utility and telecom service industries, more than any other Senator. McCain sides with the telecom companies on retroactive immunity.

McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks " formerly Paxson Communication " receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006.

In 2004, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain reversed a position and took "crucial legislative action" that saved Paxson Communications from "financial ruin." Drew Clark reports:

'McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters " but not the great bulk of television stations " off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with "fear and trepidation" at a hearing on September 8, 2004.

Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson " and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.'

Vicki Iseman has represented Paxson since 1998, longer than any of her other clients. The Washington Post reports that Iseman"s clients have given nearly $85,000 to McCain campaigns since 2000, according to records at the Federal Election Commission.

[FOTH]

I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and am regretting doing so every day since this campaign started. Call it being naive, whatever, I really believed he would make a difference politically. I'm very dissapointed with NAFTA, Welfare Reform and the Telecom acts. While we had a certain amount of prosperity under the Clintons, (and I benefited from it), I'm feeling now like I got snookered.

As a progressive, I find the democratic standard bearer's corporatist subservience more than troubling. It's dissapointing. I'm hoping Obama can take this in a different direction.

Signed, Hopeful but now Very skeptical...

[Merlin7]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and Grandfather Clock McCain does have his good points. Unfortunately, those good points have been rendered moot by his wholesale embrace of jughead conservatism in hopes of getting elected prez.
By the way, expect the MSM to increasingly turn on Obama from now on. He wasn't supposed to get this far, you see. Obama was supposed to be the plausible-but-not-quite-ready opponent of Hillary who would fold gracefully a few months into the campaign. When his message went over big with the public it caught the big-money boys off guard. Now they're stuck with a maverick idealist who just might do what he promised to do in his campaign speeches -- a prospect that chills the blood of any Washington insider.

[Rightiesrule]

These stories are not about what really did or didn't happen. A large portion of America only gets their news from 30 second soundbites on the way to work. As long as the media keeps reporting that McCain was 'accused' or something was 'reported' that is enough to stick in people's minds.
If this is the most dirt they can find on McCain then he's a better man than I thought. For the record I dislike every candidate running (either side) for this election.

[Ides]

Have you even been looking at the news? FEC suit, his campaign co-chair has been indicted, 59 Lobbyists are part of his campaign, he gets the second most Lobbyist money, his wrong-headed double-talk on the Iraq War "It'll be easy!", "Er, I never said it would be easy."


Is this active ignorance or just overlooking the obvious?