Blumenthal, The Fox Watching The Hen House

When Dick Blumenthal opened his race for the U.S. Senate in 2010, he boasted “I've never taken PAC money and I have rejected all special interest money because I have stood strong and have taken legal action against many of those special interests.”

That was then.

It did not take Connecticut’s once battling Attorney General to acclimate to the ways of Congress. Roll Call reports that Mr. Blumenthal, who joined the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee at the beginning of 2013, “appears to be comfortable taking PAC contributions from communications companies that his Senate committee regulates.” Mr. Blumenthal also sits on the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet.

Nutmeg PAC, Mr. Blumenthal’s campaign committee and leadership PAC, has received PAC contributions from a long list of companies Mr. Blumenthal regulates as the people’s senator from the nutmeg state.

According to a story in the Congressional Quarterly’s Roll Call, the companies under Mr. Blumenthal’s scrutiny from which he has accepted campaign contributions include: “AT&T Inc. Federal PAC $2,000; Comcast Corporation PAC $2,500; Cox Enterprises PAC $1,000; Echostar Corporation & Dish Network PAC $1,500; National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. PAC $5,000; National Telecommunications Cooperative Assn. Telecommunications Education Committee $1,000; News America Holdings Inc.-Fox PAC $2,000; T-Mobile USA Inc. PAC $1,000; Time Warner Inc. PAC $1,000; Universal Music Group PAC $1,000; United States Telecom Assn. PAC $1,000; Walt Disney Productions Employees PAC $1,500; among others.”

Comments

Anonymous said…

Great job as usual!!!

3:51 AM

Anonymous said…

WTF why would a a man worth 100 million from his daddy-in-laws money take such small amounts at all.

Shows how truly assinine this person is politically

This clearly shows that he is a total ideologue, its all about politics as usual with his cronies for #'s game. (but the #'s are getting smaller and smaller).

the right and EASY? thing to do would be to "man-up" and not take the money . . . but he had to behold to his buddies

12:46 PM

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p

Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State

Search This Blog