Media Center

On its face the AT&T-Time Warner merger clearly violates of antitrust law and President Trump’s railing against CNN should not have played any role in the Justice Department’s decision to bring suit. We have always maintained that vertical mergers of content and carriage violate well-established and pro-consumer antitrust principles. Blessing AT&T’s monopolistic bid to acquire Time Warner would harm consumers and the public interest.

Even for this craven FCC majority, today’s vote to bless more media consolidation represents an awful new low. The FCC just wiped away time-tested and common sense safeguards that promote vibrant local media by ensuring voters have access to competing sources of news. By blessing consolidation this majority has ensured newsroom redundancy, meaning fewer working journalists to hold the powerful to account. And if that were not enough, let Big Broadcast get even bigger means cable customers nationwide will pay higher bills.

Americans expect and deserve to know who is bankrolling the political ads that follow them around the internet. In the wake of revelations about Russian use of internet ads to sway the 2016 presidential race, Common Cause and 17,945 members and supporters made that expectation very clear to the FEC, filing comments with the agency last week. In total, more than 150,000 Americans spoke out in comments and petitions with the agency—an FEC rulemaking record.

The Wisconsin Legislature’s vote yesterday to call a constitutional convention under Article V leaves the nation in a perilous position, just six states shy of calling a convention that could lead to the rewrite of the U.S. Constitution.

Media monopolization imperils democracy - fewer press outlets mean less of the accountability journalism that American voters depend on to cast informed ballots. Meanwhile corrupt politicians can rest easy that the depleted local press corps will be less likely to report on graft. Ajit Pai’s anti-public interest wrecking ball is poised to strike again.

“This madcap threat, if pursued, would be blatant and unacceptable intervention in the decisions of an independent agency. The law does not countenance such interference."