Posted on 07/18/2006 9:37:36 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's top campaign adviser is being paid to provide marketing strategy to AT&T at a time when the governor's office is involved in negotiations on legislation potentially worth billions of dollars to the telecommunications giant.
Political consultant Matthew Dowd's involvement with the governor and AT&T at the same time presents, at minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest, government watchdogs warned.
Dowd and his consulting firm are currently assisting San Antonio-based AT&T with the rollout of its U-verse service in Texas.
The product is designed to compete with cable TV by sending TV programming and a bundle of Internet and communications services over existing and upgraded telephone lines.
At the same time, in California, AT&T is lobbying for passage of a bill being carried by Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, AB 2789, that would ease the financial and regulatory burdens of installing the new technology for the industry.
``If AT&T hired Dowd to sell TV, and Dowd also has been hired to sell Schwarzenegger on TV, you've got to wonder if Dowd also is selling your governor on AT&T's legislative agenda for TV,'' said Andrew Wheat, a public interest activist. Wheat is research director of Texans for Public Justice, which tracks the influence of money and corporate power in the state's politics.
Dowd declined to be interviewed. But a spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger's re-election campaign said that neither the political strategist nor his Austin-based consulting firm, ViaNovo, had acted improperly.
``The firm does no work for AT&T in California and has had no conversations with the governor's campaign or state staff regarding AT&T,'' Julie Soderlund said. ``The scope of their work in Texas for AT&T is limited to consumer branding in the market place.''
Schwarzenegger hired Dowd, chief strategist for the national Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004, this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
This is a liberal attempt at a smear during campaign season. I'm a telecomm rep for the State of Cal. There is a product and services contract called CalNet. SBC had the state's local centrex contract for years and MCI had the long distance. The contract had been up for renewal before AT&T bought SBC. Everyone knows AT&T(SBC) is the only provider who can meet the state's price and service needs. This has been a done deal for awhile. Arnold had nothing to do with the inevitable.
His firm was working for Mexican politicians while he worked for our President pushing a not-an-amnesty Amnesty program.
So what's the problem? /s
What does that have to do with AB 2789?
Thanks for the comments.
Lots of sticks in the fire on this one. We'll see what shakes out in the end.
Correction:
That should be AB 2987. The article is in error.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2987&sess=CUR&house=A&author=nunez
calcowgirl, remember when Arnold was a spokesman for a energy supplement firm, the libs claimed his veto of a bill concerning control of the supplements directly affected Arnold's pocketbook, so there was a conflict of interest and Arnold should have had nothing to do with the bill. They're trying to do the same here with this cable bill. The point is that the state of Ca. is so tied to AT&T for products and services you could claim just about anybody working for the state has a conflict of interest with the cable deregulation bill. The state capitol has their own version of Comcast cable(AT&T). They manipulate the signal to meet the needs of the capitol staff. So does that mean all members of the senate and assembly have a conflict of interest because they receive AT&T(Comcast) signal? As I stated before, this story is garbage and a waste. Since AT&T owns a cable side of TV(Comcast), why would they care if they could or could not also run cable over phone pairs? They're already making hand over foot in both markets.
Because the legislation means that cities would no longer have control over franchises for cable rights, instead giving it to the PUC. As such, from what I read, I conclude that it would not only open up markets for AT&T in which Comcast does not currently operate but also eliminate the need for AT&T (and others) to negotiate individually with cities for cable rights.
Back to my original question: are you acknowledging that this legislation has nothing to do with the centrex contract about which you originally posted?
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.