Clear Channel is Republican?

[Ravens-Grin]

Basically this topic is going to be about large coorperations and their political ties, and whether or not it is correct to have a coorperation talk about politics instead of the individual.

Yahoo! News

Just in case the link get's fudged up later on, here's the article

Clear Channel, rejecting Howard Stern's claims that he was canned for slamming President Bush (news - web sites), says its radio network does not have a political agenda.

But new political contribution data tell a different story about Clear Channel (CCU) executives. They have given $42,200 to Bush, vs. $1,750 to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) in the 2004 race.

What's more, the executives and Clear Channel's political action committee gave 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. That's a bigger share than any other entertainment company, says the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

In contrast, Viacom (VIA) executives and its political action committee gave just 30% of their $545,650 to Republican candidates. Viacom syndicates Stern's show.

Clear Channel says it suspended talk-show king Stern from six stations Feb. 24 because of his show's racy content - not because of politics. "We are simply trying to comply" with anti-indecency laws, says Andy Levin, executive vice president. Since his suspension, Stern, who has 8 million listeners, has boosted his attacks on Bush and on Clear Channel officials, who he says favor Bush.

The No. 1 radio network and other media are under election year pressure by Bush administration regulators and Congress to ban broadcast indecency. Clear Channel faces a proposed $755,000 Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) fine over a Tampa radio show host's sexually explicit high jinks. The network fired host Todd Clem, known as "Bubba the Love Sponge," last month.

Clear Channel CEO Lowry Mays and his sons led the campaign giving. Mays gave $12,500 to the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) in September. He gave $2,000 to Bush in July. President Mark Mays and Chief Financial Officer Randall Mays each gave $2,000 to Bush last year, as well. Levin says these gifts reflect a fact of political life - that companies tend to favor the party in power.

Clear Channel, based in San Antonio, has grown rapidly since Lowry Mays started the company 30 years ago. It has 180 million weekly listeners and 1,200 stations, up from about 200 stations five years ago.

Critics worry that its airwave dominance will stifle diversity of broadcast views as the FCC (news - web sites), Congress and the courts debate restricting radio ownership. "When they are that powerful and they have a political track record, it can make one uneasy," says Andrew Schwartzman, president of Media Access Project, a watchdog group.

Still, given Stern's famously off-color programming, it's just as likely Clear Channel dumped him as a fast sacrifice to Congress' decency campaign, says Jeff Chester, executive director of the watchdog Center for Digital Democracy.

"They needed to do some kind of modest bloodletting to try to derail this stampede," Chester says.

end article

What bothers me is the fact that it appears that the restrictions put upon Clear Channel by the FCC and Bush is making the Execs of CC to kiss Republicans asses. Also, it seemed in the article that Viacom had a political action committe, which is generally Democratic, is this correct to have? A committee by a large coorperation to influence politics that affect the people?

[RedSkunk]

duh.

[awkward-silence]

At 3/23/04 09:30 PM, Ravens_Grin wrote: A committee by a large coorperation to influence politics that affect the people?

This is the job of a lobbyist. This process has been around for quite some time.

[TheShrike]

Aren't most of Clear Channel's radio stations country music? I mean, what was your first clue?

[Jimsween]

Well thank god we still have some Liberal corporations, like............................................ umm.... pbs?

[RedSkunk]

At 3/23/04 10:58 PM, JesusCyborg wrote: That's more than any ceo ever.

Bull.

[Madspeed]

I listen to a Clear Channel radio station down here in Austin that is rap/hip-hop when I go out driving...

Most of the stuff they say and do certainly doesn't sound Republican in nature... of course it could just be the intended audience.... =)

Seriously, CC may contribute more to one party over another, but the influence doesn't seem to permeate as much as, say, Fox News, eh?

[BWS]

At 3/23/04 11:02 PM, Jimsween wrote: Well thank god we still have some Liberal corporations, like............................................ umm.... pbs?

Heres a question:

Can anyone draw a conclusion from this...

Liberals cant run businesses?

[RedSkunk]

Meh. Let the conservatives run businesses, and leave the government to liberals.

[TheShrike]

At 3/24/04 02:03 AM, Red_Skvnk wrote: Meh. Let the conservatives run businesses, and leave the government to liberals.

Best statement of the week.

[BWS]

At 3/24/04 02:05 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 3/24/04 02:03 AM, Red_Skvnk wrote: Meh. Let the conservatives run businesses, and leave the government to liberals.

Best statement of the week.

Because if they cant operate a business, theyre sure to operate a country?

[RedSkunk]

At 3/24/04 02:05 AM, TheShrike wrote: Best statement of the week.

ah ah. It's only wed, and there is still a ripe masturbation topic.

[RedSkunk]

At 3/24/04 02:09 AM, BWS wrote: Because if they cant operate a business, theyre sure to operate a country?

I don't think the two operate similarly. Most businesses strive for profit, while most governments strive for a decent standard of living and safeguarding the ol' populace.

Texas is in the process of privatizing welfare. It's being handed over to a former subsidy of.. Lockheed Martin, right?

What is this going to achieve, running welfare like a business? Sure, they'll probably be able to kick some people off, but welfare.. Isn't... meant to.. be a profit generator..

[TheShrike]

At 3/24/04 02:09 AM, BWS wrote: Because if they cant operate a business, theyre sure to operate a country?

No, I just think that given the particular mindset of each side, that would work much better. Progressive-values government, traditional-values businesses.

[BWS]

Im fuckin with you guys anyway. Im further right than the majority of people here, but I do have moderate views/ideals as well. And of course, a business and a government opperate in very disimilar ways. However, I do stand behind my opinion that democrats are not very realistic in the business world. Whateva...masterbation topic time (yay).

[BeFell]

From my understanding of the article it apears that the people that run Clear Channel support Bush not Clear Channel itself. Private citizens have the right to do whatever they like with their own money. Also I heard that the rich guy that owns CNN might be somewhat liberal why don't you complain about that?

[RedSkunk]

At 3/24/04 02:23 AM, BeFell wrote: Also I heard that the rich guy that owns CNN might be somewhat liberal why don't you complain about that?

Naw, I'd rather complain about that filthy rich conservative Murdoch who owns fox, 20 something other television stations and more than a hundred newspapers and other publications around the world.

[Vowl]

At least we now have alternatives to radio. Clear Channel might someday own every radio station in america, but wee will still have other options.

[BeFell]

At 3/24/04 02:41 AM, Red_Skvnk wrote:

At 3/24/04 02:23 AM, BeFell wrote: Also I heard that the rich guy that owns CNN might be somewhat liberal why don't you complain about that?

Naw, I'd rather complain about that filthy rich conservative Murdoch who owns fox, 20 something other television stations and more than a hundred newspapers and other publications around the world.

I was just mentioning Turner to bring up the point that this is really nothing to whine about because it is everywhere on both sides. People have personal opinions and there is nothing wrong with that. An inteligent person should just educate themself on who might be leaning twoards which ideal and move on with life.

[MiseurAnarchyPenguin]

At 3/23/04 10:57 PM, JesusCyborg wrote: companies are private property. if 51% of the stock holders want to do something, they can. (as long as it's legal)

I like how JesusCyborg is such a moron that he didn't even mention what the topic or article was about, and made up some stuff.

[BWS]

At 3/24/04 03:11 PM, KucinichYouBitches wrote:

At 3/23/04 10:57 PM, JesusCyborg wrote: companies are private property. if 51% of the stock holders want to do something, they can. (as long as it's legal)

I like how JesusCyborg is such a moron that he didn't even mention what the topic or article was about, and made up some stuff.

Are you saying that what he said above is false? What did he make up; im curious to see what you mean.

[GooieGreen]

duh, what did you think it was? A Hippie, free-love station? They all stopped playing the dixie chicks when they spoke out against Bush.