McCain Group Got Big Cable Donation

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) pressed a cable company's case for pricing changes with regulators at the same time a tax-exempt group that he co-founded solicited $200,000 in contributions from the company.

Help from McCain, who argues for ridding politics of big money, included giving the CEO of Cablevision Systems Corp. the opportunity to testify before his Senate committee, writing a letter of support to the Federal Communication Commission and asking other cable companies to support so-called a la carte pricing.

Cablevision is the nation's eighth largest cable provider, serving about 3 million customers in the New York area.

The pricing plan is opposed by most of the cable industry. It would let customers pick the channels they want rather than buy fixed-price packages. Supporters, like McCain and Cablevision, say it would lower prices for consumers, but recent congressional and private studies concluded it could make cable more expensive.

McCain's assistance in 2003 and 2004 was sandwiched around two donations of $100,000 each from Cablevision to The Reform Institute, the tax-exempt group that touts McCain's views and has showcased him at events since his unsuccessful 2000 presidential campaign.

The group also pays $110,000 a year to McCain's chief political adviser, Rick Davis, who ran the senator's 2000 presidential campaign. Cablevision's money accounted for 15 percent of the institute's fund raising in 2003, according to its most recent tax filing.

The Arizona Republican said he saw nothing wrong with the group raising money from a company whose issue he championed, because the donations didn't go to his re-election campaign. McCain and documents provided by his office show he has supported a la carte pricing since at least 1998, well before Cablevision advocated it.

"If it was a PAC (political action committee) or if it was somehow connected to any campaign of mine, I would say to you, that's a legitimate appearance of conflict of interest. But it's not," McCain told The Associated Press.

"There's not a conflict of interest when you're involved in an organization that is nonpartisan, nonprofit, nonpolitical."

Specialists on political ethics, who usually applaud McCain's efforts to overhaul the campaign finance system, said they didn't see any distinction.

"I think there is an appearance issue anytime you have a company or an interest giving large donations to any organization associated with a member (of Congress)," said Larry Noble, the former chief lawyer for federal election enforcement who now heads the Center for Responsive Politics.

Charles Lewis, a longtime ethics watchdog, said McCain's case shows "there are different ways for purveyors of influence to show their gratitude and express their friendliness. And it's not just PACs, it's not just campaign committees."

Davis acknowledged he went to New York and personally asked for the donation from Cablevision chief Charles Dolan after hearing from another donor that Dolan might be willing to give. The solicitation occurred one week after Dolan testified before McCain's Senate Commerce Committee in May 2003 in favor of the a la carte pricing. The company made its first $100,000 donation in July 2003.

The senator wrote a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) chairman advocating Cablevision's position in May 2004 and quoting the company's chief. McCain also sent letters to other cable companies, urging them to follow Cablevision's lead and support a la carte pricing.

Cablevision gave a second $100,000 donation in August 2004. Twelve days later, McCain wrote Dolan about the pricing issue, urging him to "feel free to contact me to discuss these issues further."

"Thank you for sharing your views on potential reforms to address rising cable rates, including the merits of an a la carte pricing option for consumers," McCain wrote Dolan on Aug. 18.

McCain said he was involved in the issue well before Cablevision started pushing a la carte pricing, and that his goal was to help consumers.

"I have been fighting the cable companies for years on the issue of cable rates and I after numerous hearings came to the conclusion that we should not force people to pay for programs that they don't want to see, and that's why I supported a la carte."

McCain continued pushing the FCC (news - web sites) to adopt the policy favored by Cablevision even after the Government Accountability Office, Congress' main auditing arm, concluded such a system might lead to higher prices.

McCain, who requested the study, said he considered its methodology flawed because the audit looked at al la carte pricing in isolation rather than as one of several options.

Craig Moffett, a cable analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. in New York, said his firm also studied the plan.

"I don't know why he remains so stubbornly wedded to the idea," Moffett said of McCain. "I just think it sounds very populist, and there's nothing more appealing than saying, `I'm going to lower your cable bills' as a way to make voters happy."

Consumers Union, however, has worked closely with McCain and shares his view that the approach would help consumers.

In his interview with AP, McCain also sought to put some distance between himself and The Reform Institute, saying he considers himself simply an adviser.

Davis acknowledged McCain is closely identified with the institute, and said the group often uses the senator's name in press releases and fund-raising letters and includes him at press conferences because McCain attracts coverage.

But he said McCain had nothing to do with soliciting Cablevision's money. "I think John McCain avoids the appearance of impropriety with not being involved in any way with the solicitation of any of these funds," Davis said.

Cablevision, whose support for a la carte cable is paired with a push for changes in FCC broadcasting rules, said it didn't believe its donations influenced McCain.

"Mr. Dolan is a longtime supporter of Senator McCain," Cablevision spokesman Charlie Schueler said. "Our experience has been that Senator McCain makes up his own mind on every issue and, over the years, he has disagreed with some of our positions, agreed with others, and been indifferent to most."

McCain and four other senators were caught up in the Keating Five scandal in the early 1990s, taking significant criticism for giving assistance to and taking donations from failed savings and loan executive Charles Keating.

After that, McCain became a champion of overhauling the political money system, seeking to end "soft money" donations from corporations, unions and wealthy executives. His decade-long fight helped lead to enactment in November 2002 of a campaign law bearing his name.

Documents for this story can be viewed at http://wid.ap.org/documents/mccain.html

Could you two possibly be missing the point of the article? I think you're all missing the point of the article which is found in the "AP" byline. McCain's real or imagined "hypocisy" notwithstanding; the virtues and vices of "a la carte" cable notwithstanding; the real import of this article is that a reliably Leftie Democrat news organization has turned on straight-talking "Honest John". Et pourquoi? Perhaps because McCain is the current default leader in the GOP 2008 presidential nominee sweepstakes? Perhaps because a certain she-b*tch from hell who happens to be the nominal Democrat 2008 front-runner is currently speaking about how women in politics are inherently less corrupt than the male of the species, and needs a good illustration in point? You people need to get a clue, instead of letting the MSM lead you around by the nose. In a McCain-Hillary slug fest, I for one am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face.

In a McCain-Hillary slug fest, I for one am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. So you're voting for Hillary?

No, but there are obviously some people in this forum who would, or more likely, would stay at home and sit on their hands rather than vote for the "treacherous" McCain. In my view anyone who would willfully aid and abet a Hillary Clinton presidency, even if that met sitting the election out because they were angry with the GOP nominee, is a treasonous dog.

In my view anyone who would willfully aid and abet a Hillary Clinton presidency, even if that met sitting the election out because they were angry with the GOP nominee, is a treasonous dog.

To vote for McCain would be to simply allow yourself to be lead by the MSM. I refuse to go that route. Would I vote for Hillary? Never. Would I skip the top of the ticket? Perhaps. Regardless, I doubt we're going to see McCain win the nomination, so we'll never have that dilemma.

To vote for McCain would be to simply allow yourself to be lead by the MSM. I refuse to go that route. Would I vote for Hillary? Never. Would I skip the top of the ticket? Perhaps. As I said in my first reply, it appears that the MSM is forsaking its marriage of convenience with Senator McCain, now that it has set its sights on a Hillary presidency. Therefore the idea of being "led" to vote for McCain by the MSM (which they would never have done in any event) is no longer operative. Moreover, and even assuming you're right about Senator McCain not getting the Republican nomination, this is just the first of many "disinformation" pieces we will see on leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates by Hillary's surrogates in the MSM. If our (i.e. Republican, conservative) reaction to these articles is to start "eating our young", particularly in a public way that will become the grist for the inevitable "GOP faithful not united behind candidate X" headlines, then the MSM will have accomplished its purpose.

If our (i.e. Republican, conservative) reaction to these articles is to start "eating our young", particularly in a public way that will become the grist for the inevitable "GOP faithful not united behind candidate X" headlines, then the MSM will have accomplished its purpose.

True, but McCain is not one of our young, one of our old, or one of ours period. He's a traitor and no conservative wants any part of him. His ascendancy to the office of President of the United States would do at least, if not more damage to our country and our conservative ideas than anything Hillary would or could do.

Your comments are interesting. "Eating our young" is, of course, a figure of speech. McCain is a traitor? He wasn't a traitor in '68, when he could have purchased his freedom from a North Vietnamese hell-hole by accepting a parole that would have left his cell-mates in the lurch.

Perhaps you're referring to McCain-Feingold, with its First Amendment-defying provisions. I don't think that CFR is Constitutional either, but so far the USSC doesn't agree with us, and a lot of other Republican "traitors", including a guy who will remain nameless but for his initials "GWB" went along with it (as did a majority of our fellow Americans, if the opinion polls are to be believed). I suspect that McCain embraced CFR precisely because of his experiences in the "Keating Five" scandal. Like a lot of people who do something wrong (in this case something unethical, but not per se illegal) and get caught with a hand in the proverbial cookie jar, Senator McCain did a very human thing: he rationalized that it was the "influence of money in politics" that "caused" him to suffer a temporary moral lapse. Like a reformed smoker who becomes an anti-smoking Nazi, McCain allowed his better judgment (as it relates to the Constitution) to be overruled by his desire to end an "evil" that (in his reformist zeal) he subsequently regarded as a threat to the very Republic. Now, ironically, he finds himself accused by a MSM former ally of violating the spirit of his own CFR Act, and his defense (equally ironically) sounds like a perfectly valid point Mitch McConnell might have made during the debates over McCain-Feingold: that it's not a "conflict of interest" to receive legally permissible support from an interest group because they favor a principled opinion you held prior to the offer of such support.

So now you show your hand: you're really a McCain supporter/apoligist rather than an objective conservative who has his party's best interest in mind. And when you consider whether he's a traitor, consider this his antics during the POW/MIA debates. During his tenure in Washington, McCain has caustically denounced those who have called for more aggressive investigations of Vietnam-era MIA sightings and POW controversies.

Cooperating with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, he has used his clout to legislate into secrecy literally thousands of POW/MIA documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago.

McCain's actions in this regard appear to be starkly at odds with the image of openness and candor he projected in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and the hero status he's attained among those naive enough to believe his press clippings.

So now you show your hand: you're really a McCain supporter/apoligist rather than an objective conservative who has his party's best interest in mind. Actually, I showed no hand whatsoever. I'm not bucking for a "McCain in '08" chapter chairmanship, my preferred candidate would be Bill Bennett, but he's too ethical and ideologically pure (like you, perhaps) to run for public office. I really don't care who the Republicans nominate, if that person is running against Hillary. I would make an exception for Satan himself, but he's already been sidelined by a heart condition, and barred by the 22nd Amendment from running again.

I was simply trying to find out what your agenda was insofar as John McCain was concerned, and now I know. I don't know the "true story" of why the Senator McCain wanted to "close the books" on the POW/MIA issue, and neither do you. I certainly know that he had more and better reason than either you (assuming you're not a former Vietnam POW) or I (an unimprisoned Vietnam veteran) to hate the North Vietnamese. He may have been operating out of a (misguided) spirit of Christian forgiveness, or he may have recognized that the "true story" could not be divulged without revealing sensitive intelligence techniques and sources (something I, as a former Military Intelligence type can certainly appreciate). Of course, he might also have believed that any of his comrades still alive in captivity would find their lives more threatened by releasing all available information (to include the usual collection of rumor and speculation), or he might have had some "statesmanlike" concern that releasing some of the more "inflammatory" information might have "tainted" US relations with Russia, China or (North) Vietnam. I do not, however, assume that the same John McCain who behaved as a hero during his captivity in North Vietnam contrived to hide information on POW/MIA because he had been offered a bribe or blackmailed or had been "brainwashed" to Communism or anything of the other classic motivations that one ascribes to a "traitor". "Treason" should be made of "sterner stuff", and unlike you I do not see anything in McCain that is any worse than the average "inside the Beltway" politician.

then you continued on and provided all sorts of excuses for his behavior during the MIA/POW debate when he teamed up with John Kerry to slap the families of these missing soliders right in the face. I didn't "provide excuses" for Senator McCain's behavior, I simply offered possible explanations for some actions about which you had formed hard and fast opinions on little or no information. As to "splapping families of missing soldiers right in the face...", I am aware that during the MIA/POW hearings there were some families (and other "interested parties" who wrapped themselves in the POW/MIA flag for reasons which neither you nor I can know) who were either not satisfied with the explanations they had been given, or were concerned that the POW/MIA issue would disappear from the public consciousness if a report emerged from the hearings that did not hold out hope that there were US POWs still living in captivity in Vietnam. I also know that Senator McCain, being somewhat of a hot-head (one of his less desirable traits) had grown tired with the accusations of "cover-up", and with the confrontational tactics of some of the self-appointed POW/MIA advocates. Both McCain and (predictably) Kerry, lashed back at their attackers in an immature way that did them little credit. How that in any way constitutes "treason", however, is something I won't hold my breath waiting for you to explain. All I would say to you is that there were other former POWs in Hanoi with John McCain who later went on to become public figures (and even members of Congress) in their own right. To my knowledge (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), none (as in not one) of these former POWs feels the way you do about John McCain. What does that tell you, that they're all "traitors"?

We all understand that families who have relatives who are MIA would be very passionate about learning what happened to their loved ones, passionate even to the point of irrationality. We had a recent graphic illustration of that with the "Jersey Girl" widows of 9/11 victims, who chose to blame President Bush, rather than Osama Bin Laden, for deaths of their husbands. It is up to all of us to understand their pain and their loss, without necessarily agreeing with every complaint and accusation made by these benighted individuals.

We had a recent graphic illustration of that with the "Jersey Girl" widows of 9/11 victims, who chose to blame President Bush, rather than Osama Bin Laden, for deaths of their husbands.

Nice bait and switch, but 9/11 and the POW/MIA families are completely different. The POW/MIA families have ever right to take out their anger on the McCain/Kerry/Pawdoggie coverup. They're not seeing to blame someone for the death of their loved ones (like the Jersey Girls) rather, they simply seek to keep the information on their service from being covered up.

The POW/MIA families have ever(sic) right to take out their anger on the McCain/Kerry/Pawdoggie cover up.Nice personal insult. I don't remember ever covering up any POW/MIA information. If you have any intelligence to the contrary, why don't you put up or shut up. As I said, I served in Vietnam, and I strongly suspect that you did not (and you don't know much about what you say). The POW/MIA families (and those who have chosen to over-identify themselves with the families) have a Constitutional and G_d-given right to express their opinions. If I didn't say that, I certainly implied that. What the POW/MIAs families (and their nominal supporters) do not have "ever"(y) right to as a right to is the "right" to force their way onto the public stage to make whatever wild accusations of "cover-ups" and "treason" against anyone who disagrees with the idea of handing them the keys to the National Archives and Fort Knox until they are satisfied that they know beyond any doubt what happened to their loved ones. And yes, CBG, that is very much like what the "Jersey Girls" asked the Congress and the American people to do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.