Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday May 25 2019, @12:07AM   Printer-friendly
from the laughing-to-keep-from-crying dept.

Comcast may be harming its reputation by failing to reveal all of its lobbying activities, including its involvement in trade associations and lobbying at the state level, a group of shareholders says in a proposal that asks for more lobbying disclosures.

Comcast's disclosures for its lobbying of state governments "are often cursory or non-existent," and Comcast's failure to disclose its involvement in trade associations means that "investors have neither an accurate picture of the company's total lobbying expenditures nor an understanding of its priorities, interests, or potential risks from memberships," the proposal said. "Comcast's lack of transparency around its lobbying poses risks to its already troubled reputation, which is concerning in a highly regulated industry, especially given the rise of public Internet alternatives."

The proposal is on the ballot for Comcast's June 5 annual shareholder meeting and was filed by Friends Fiduciary, which "invest[s] based on Quaker values" and says it "actively screen[s] companies for social responsibility." Friends Fiduciary and other investors who joined the proposal collectively hold "over 1 million shares of Comcast stock," they said.

The shareholder resolution would be non-binding even if it passed. It asks for an annual report disclosing, among other things, "Payments by Comcast used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications" and information on "Comcast's membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation."

[...] Comcast's board unanimously recommended that shareholders vote against the Friends Fiduciary resolution, saying that Comcast "already disclose[s] most of our government lobbying interactions" as required by law. "[O]ur Board believes that the requirements in this proposal are burdensome and an unproductive use of our resources and are not in the best interests of our shareholders," Comcast said in a rebuttal included in its proxy statement [PDF].

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/comcast-does-so-much-lobbying-that-it-says-disclosing-it-all-is-too-hard/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25 2019, @08:06AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 25 2019, @08:06AM (#847537)

    Just read the voting records in the senate and the house, each house of each state (most state governments have two), as well as each county and municipal legislature everywhere in the US and match it up with the public donor information on a site like opensecrets.

    There. FTFY.

    Most of the decisions that affect Comcast are made at the state an local levels, which is explicitly stated in TFS. In fact, the major premise of the article is that Comcast lobbies in so many jurisdictions it can't seem to keep it all straight.

    As you say, it's easy peasy, right? Why don't you get back to us with a report. That shouldn't take more than an hour, right?

    We're looking forward to what you find.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday May 25 2019, @02:02PM (3 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday May 25 2019, @02:02PM (#847589) Journal

    It is easy peasy. All it takes is the push of lever, button, etc. Local, state, fed, it makes no difference. It's all there on the ballot.

    Peoples' choice, man... What could be easier? If you don't vote for Comcast, they will disappear.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:11PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 26 2019, @10:11PM (#848007)

      If you don't vote for Comcast, they will disappear.

      I haven't seen Comcast on any ballot. Yet they still exist. I'm confused. Not about why Comcast isn't on any electoral ballots, but why you're such a tool.

      How does that punchline go again?
      "...And Descartes says, 'I think not!' and disappeared."

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday May 26 2019, @11:49PM (1 child)

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday May 26 2019, @11:49PM (#848036) Journal

        I haven't seen Comcast on any ballot.

        Your denial notwithstanding, you see their representatives on the ballot. So yes, Comcast is on the ballot.

        How does that punchline go again?

        "... de Monet! de Monet!"

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @08:40AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 27 2019, @08:40AM (#848135)
          They're not representing Comcast anymore than they're representing the voters.

          They give the corporations more monopolies, and they give the voters pot/abortion/gay marriage (or not depending on the voters).

          Comcast doesn't give a damn about abortion or pot. Most voters care more about the legality of pot/abortion/gay marriage than about corporations extending their monopolies.

          So if the politicians win they get what they want, the corporations supporting them get what they want the most, their voters get what they want the most (out of the media allowed hot button choices). Win-win-win. Capitalist "Democracy" working as designed...

          p.s. this is why corporations often lobby both Democrats and Republicans. Both sides can often give them what they want. The military industrial complex would have been served just as well whether by Bush, Obama or Clinton. Actually Trump was probably more inconvenient than Clinton would have been.