In each, the interest group that contributed, and the lawmakers who received, campaign money deny any quid pro quo. And in each case, the affected industry made some legitimate arguments. It's just that campaign contributions seemed to make those arguments far more persuasive to lawmakers than they otherwise would have been. The broadcast industry argued this was the only deal that would coax media companies to make the transition to the digital world. And a word from a local television station executive carried special weight with lawmakers.
Individual broadcasters control a politician's access to the airwave.
They all feel that keenly. Probably the biggest loss was not the money but an opportunity. Many experts agree that one of the most effective ways of reducing the influence of money would be to provide free TV time to candidates. The moment when such a change could have been forced on the broadcasters was during the consideration of the telecommunications bill. In other words, the main opportunity to reduce the influence of political money was overwhelmed by the influence of political money.