In a Presidental race, contributions are limited to just $2,100 per person, and no corporate or union funds are allowed.  While large donors can still provide funds for "party-building" or "issues advocacy" or "independent expenditures," the use of such funds can be tricky legally, and is qualified in one way or another.  The only direct and unequivical support one can give to a candidate for President of the United States remains the $2,100 contribution of personal funds.  

Unless you own a newspaper.

The Federal Election Commission has a long-standing rule that exempts newspapers from the prohibition against corporate expenditures in support of a candidate in a Federal election.  It is found at Title 11, Section 100.132 of the Code of Federal Regulations, News story, commentary, or editorial by the media, and reads in pertinent part as follows:  

"Any cost incurred in covering or carrying a news story, commentary or editorial by any broadcasting station…..newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, is not an expenditure unless the facility is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee or candidate…"  (Emphasis added.)

While Sacramento debates "increasing California’s clout" in the Presidential primary process and moves forward with rescheduling of the state’s Presidential primary to the earliest possible date in February, 2008, it is of course of interest to speculate who the "winners" and "losers" among the candidates would be as a result of such a move, and also to have an understanding of who really "gets the clout."  My observation is that the person who will really "get the clout" will be among Los Angeles tycoons Eli Broad, Ron Burkle, and David Geffen, and that the candidate who will probably be the winner will be Hillary Rodham Clinton.  That is because Broad, Burkle and Geffen are all very partisan Democrats, and are all currently involved in the purchase of the Chicago-based Tribune Corporation which now owns the Los Angeles Times.  The prize they are seeking is really not the Chicago Cubs, or other news media assets of Tribune Corporation.  What they want is the Times.  The Times is without question the biggest and potentially most influential newspaper in California and the West.  But it slipped out of local ownership a few years ago when the Chandler family sold it off.  Now this trio of wealthy liberals is trying to get the paper back under local control, and if they do, it will be just in time to "play" in a new, early California presidential primary that could alter the course of the entire election.

Geffen, of course, the former Hollywood record mogul and movie producer, is a well-known friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  A frequent visitor at the White House during Bill’s glory days, Geffen put up $1 million to pay for the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles in 2000.  He is offering $2 billion in cash to buy just the Times.  Broad, a homebuilder who also put up a million for the same Democrat convention, and Burkle, who made his money in supermarkets, and who has hired Bill Clinton as a consultant to one of his corporations, have put up $500 million each and are trying to buy all the assets of Tribune, with the idea to have the Times ultimately under (their) local control.  The Chandler family is also reported to be making an offer.

Reports are there is dissention in the ranks of these aspiring purchasers of the Times.  However, a unifying factor between Geffen, Broad, and Burkle, is their extensive connections to Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Should any combination of this group gain control of the Times, and if California’s presidential primary becomes the early powerhouse that political pundits are predicting, one can just imagine how the influence of the Los Angeles Times will play in the hands of these partisans, and the thinking going on right now in Bill and Hillary’s heads about how to take advantage of their friends in Los Angeles.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 21st, 2007 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.