Comcast/TWC Spent $15 Million in State Politics Since 2009, Group Says
Comcast and Time Warner Cable combined to contribute more than $15 million in state-level political campaigns since 2009, said a report (http://bit.ly/1yKSQkr) released Tuesday by the National Institute on Money in State Politics. That “raises the question of how much influence Comcast or Time Warner Cable may have among elected officials who may be reviewing the acquisition, or who may be deciding not to review the acquisition,” the nonprofit organization’s research director, Peter Quist, told us.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
While only 1 percent of the companies’ state contributions has gone to sitting attorneys general, the report said the AGs play a critical role in reviewing the proposed deal. “Unlike federal investigations, which are handled by agencies headed by non-elected officials, most states delegate antitrust enforcement to the office of their respective attorneys general.” The report identified New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, as the top recipient of the companies’ contributions among current attorneys general. Part of a joint investigation of the deal by the attorneys general in several states, Schneiderman received $5,000 from Comcast and $20,000 from Time Warner Cable since 2009, the report said. A Schneiderman spokesman declined comment. Comcast also had no comment.
The report raises the question of the combined ability of the companies to influence state politics, said Lee Drutman, senior fellow at the Sunshine Foundation. The study clearly shows the companies “care about how the states decide to deregulate cable, and the merger would mean they would have more influence,” he said. If the deal is approved, Comcast and Time Warner Cable are unlikely to spend the combined amount they spend now, he said, but would spend more than either is currently spending. “All of this money is oriented towards getting a favorable regulatory environment. They're trying to win friends and influence people,” Drutman said. The foundation has no stance on the deal, he said. In addition to potentially influencing consideration of the deal, one future impact of the contributions could be on municipal broadband projects, which both companies have fought, said Public Knowledge Senior Vice President Harold Feld.
The companies’ contributions have been focused in their markets, the study said. Comcast operates in 39 states and the District of Columbia, while Time Warner Cable operates in 29 states. Comcast has made most of its political donations in California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the report said. Perhaps reflecting Comcast’s broader area of service, the contributions in the five states were only 57 percent of its total state-level giving between 2009 and 2013, the report said. Time Warner Cable concentrated 89 percent of its political contributions in California, Maine, New York, Ohio and Texas, the report said. Comcast gave 56 percent of its contributions to Republicans, and Time Warner Cable gave 53 percent to the GOP.
The report did not discuss lobbying expenditures at the state level. In New York, for instance, Time Warner Cable lobbyists were paid $337,000 in 2013, and Comcast lobbyists reported another $60,000, according to state disclosure records. The Time Warner Cable lobbyists reported working on measures dealing with a variety of telecom issues, including a tax credit for rural broadband expansion, authorizing telcos to issue stocks, bonds and other forms of debt for expanding broadband. The findings on the campaign contributions were little surprise to advocates. “Providers such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable always have an interest in maintaining strong relationships with state government,” Feld said. “It should come as no surprise that these companies have made substantial contributions over the years -- and that this gives them a strong position to influence how states review the merger."
"Telecommunication companies have imposed their will on legislatures for years. They've spent a lot of money trying to deregulate and stay out of the way,” said The Utility Reform Network Telecommunications Director Regina Costa. “The role of state commissions is really essential to talk about the impact of the merger on their own states so that information about what’s happening on the ground gets to the FCC when it makes its decision.”