Channels of Influence

[Cees Binkhorst]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html
Channels of Influence
By PAUL KRUGMAN

By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement.
One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered
in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar
with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.

Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio
industry — with close links to the Bush administration.

The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its
playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel
Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.

The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But
this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious
— and widely hated — for its iron-fisted centralized control.

Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording
companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout
to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.

Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the
part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel — which became a giant only in the last few years, after the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership — to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side,
Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its
concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible.
On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to
expand even further, particularly into television.

Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was
revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice
chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of
Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's
chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management
of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made
Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.

There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the
evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and
business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel
appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians
are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those
politicians — by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?

What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly
blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't
you know there's a war on?

In het bovenstaande staat dus dat Mr. Hicks GWB multi-miljonair maakte in 1998 (met geld van de Universiteit van Texas :).
In 1998 was GWB gouverneur van de staat Texas!

SEC informatie geeft details uit 2002 over de aandelenverhouding in Clear Channel:
L. Lowry Mays........       31,387,296(1)         5.2%
Mark P. Mays.........         1,062,396(2)           *
Randall T. Mays.......           682,093(3)           *
Robert L. Crandall....             29,200(4)           *
Alan D. Feld............             83,300(5)           *
Thomas O. Hicks.....       40,265,194(6)(16)     6.7%
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr            90,300(7)           *
Perry J. Lewis........            168,832(8)           *
B. J. McCombs.......       14,456,986(9)         2.4%
Theodore H. Strauss         231,857(10)          *
John H. Williams......          25,620(11)          *
Randy Michaels(12).        973,609(13)          *
Roger Parry...........            2,267(14)          *
Hicks Muse Parties(15) 34,825,777(16)        5.8%
FMR Corp.(17)..........   60,683,099            10.1%
Cap.Research&MC (18)  42,186,290            7.0%
Janus Capital Corp.(20) 34,060,446(19)        5.7%
All Directors and Executive Officers as a Group (19 persons)....              89,972,689(21)        14.9% (Cees: dit laatste item vnl. een
hergroepering van een deel van bovenstaande cijfers)

Mr. Hicks heeft dus een controlerend belang in Clear Channel via een directe holding en via Hicks Muse Parties.
Overigens is Vernon Jordan een vriendje van Clinton :).

Nu maar wachten op het effect van regel van de SEC, dat alle deelnemingen op balansdatum gewaardeerd moeten worden op de
aktuele waarde per balansdatum (Clear Channel heeft overigens dezelfde accountant als AH), want Hicks is meegekomen met de
overname van AMFM tegen een waardering van USD 23,5 miljard in 1999.

Feitelijk heeft GWB een zelfde constructie via zijn vriend Hicks als de Italiaanse president :).

Groet,

Cees Binkhorst - cees at binkhorst.xs4all.nl

Een paar recente uitspraken:
'Als de VN relevant willen zijn, moeten ze precies doen wat ik zeg.'
'Ik weet dat ik tegen de wensen van de Security Council en de tekst
van het VN-verdrag in ga, maar ik doe het wel om een VN-resolutie
uit te voeren.'
Een oude uitspraak van Thomas Paine uit 1795 "Every man must
finally  see the necessity of  protecting the rights of others as the
most effectual security for his own"

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********