May 24, 2012

Murdoch’s News Corp lobbied on privacy issues as hacking controversy bubbled

As the phone hacking scandal grows around Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, disclosure records show that the company spent over $1.5 million on federal lobbying in the first three months of this year — including lobbying on issues of digital privacy.

Disclosure forms filed with the Senate Office of Public Records show that News Corp’s American arm, News America Inc., employed seven in-house lobbyists supplemented by six outside lobbying firms hired by the company. The lobbyists worked on an array of issues relevant to broadcast television, but also crossed into issues of free trade, defense spending, and increasing the debt ceiling.

Notably, the company whose U.K. affiliate is under fire for alleged phone hacking and whose domestic operations are being investigated by the FBI , lobbied on issues including “online privacy,” consumer privacy protection bills such as the “ BEST PRACTICES Act ” and “ Do Not Track Me Online Act ,” and, simply, “privacy.”

Though lobbying disclosure rules require filers to be specific when listing issues and legislation on which they’ve lobbied, several of these categories were quite general and News America did not respond to requests for more details, including on which side of these issues the company was advocating.

In addition, by virtue of the company’s $1 million donation to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last summer, News America may also be de facto bankrolling a second set of lobbyists. An iWatch News examination of the Chamber’s disclosure forms found significant activity on online copyright infringement issues, a major focus of News America’s lobbying. A story by the Guardian newspaper of London noted that the Chamber also worked to loosen the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits U.S. based companies from participating in the bribery of foreign officials — rules that potentially could come into play during the ongoing legal investigation of Murdoch’s empire.

The “BEST PRACTICES Act” was introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., to protect the right of Internet users to decide “meaningful choices about the collection, use, and disclosure of their personal information.” Similarly, the “Do Not Track Me Online Act” aims to create a “Do Not Call”-style list for Internet users, allowing them to opt out from online marketers gathering their data for advertising purposes. That bill, introduced in February by Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., is currently stuck in committee.

News America and the lobbying firms hired by both did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesman for the U.S. Chamber of  Commerce said that the Bill of Rights permits petitioning the government for a redress of grievances and said the association's policy positions "are always made by answering one question: Will this policy help stimulate private sector job creation?"

Last week, as the hacking story erupted, iWatch News reported on campaign contributions from Murdoch and his corporate PAC totaling millions, amid calls on members of Congress to return the money.  

Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Project Coordinator

Josh Israel joined the Center in 2006. Previously, he spent four years working as director of research on Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist/historian Nick Kotz’s acclaimed book Judgment Days: Lyndon Baines Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Laws that Changed America, and six months as an aide to a Virginia state legislator. Israel is a 1999 magna cum laude graduate of Brandeis University and was a 2004 Political Leadership Program Fellow at the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership

202-466-1300

About the Author

Staff Writer

Aaron Mehta graduated with honors from Tufts University in 2007 with a bachelor’s degree in history and communications. Hailing from the Boston area, he has worked for a national political convention, for the legal watchdog group CREW in Washington, and on several Massachusetts-based campaigns. Most recently, he filled the role of research and policy director for a city council race in Boston.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.