ABC News Refuses To Say If It Will Disclose Its Debate As In-Kind Contribution To Kamala Harris
Who won the ABC debate-ambush between former President Donald Trump, and the trio of Vice President Kamala Harris, David Muir, and Linsey Davis?
There were two clear winners: the Harris campaign, which was enriched with a massive in-kind donation from ABC in the form of a favorable political infomercial, and the ABC publicity department, which is now boasting about the network’s record viewership.
“With 19 million total viewers on ABC, ABC News’ presidential debate is the most-watched debate on any Network in 16 years,” a company statement said. “ABC News Live on streaming and digital platforms, including Hulu, Disney+ and ABC owned television stations, currently stands at 7.4 million viewers in early reporting, bringing ABC News audience to more than 26 million viewers. The debate is the most-viewed live event by hours streamed on Disney+ in the U.S. to date.”
Looks like it was win-win for ABC and the Harris campaign. Or was it quid pro quo? As in, let your friends at ABC have the coveted debate, and we will go real easy on you. We can’t say for sure that something like that happened behind the scenes, but it had that appearance.
The result was a so-called debate that was just another in the long line of attempted Trump takedowns. It was a 90-minute advertisement for Harris in front of a record audience, and that makes it a high value in-kind donation from ABC to the Harris campaign.
The Federalist asked ABC in an email if it reported the debate and the performance of its moderators as an in-kind contribution, or any other category of contribution, to the Harris presidential campaign. And if not, when does the company plan to do so?
The company indicated that it saw the email but did not answer the questions.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines an in-kind contribution as a non-monetary contribution to a campaign. This sort of campaign donation is limited to the same value as a financial donation, but corporations are barred from making such contributions.
The value of reaching 26 million viewers, presenting Harris in a positive light, and attempting to drag Trump through the mud for 90 minutes, plus all the after-show analysis in the following days, is worth tens of millions of dollars.
The Federalist asked The FEC if it is investigating the debate-ambush and what the consequences would be for a media company giving one candidate a 90-minute infomercial as a donation.
“We cannot comment on specific candidates or committees. And the enforcement process is confidential, so we would be unable to comment on that, too,” an FEC representative told The Federalist in an email, offering, “Here is guidance on how to file a complaint with the FEC.”
Tuesday’s ratings coup was such an unfair fight that it was widely panned by observers.
While Harris has been ensconced in bubble wrap during her weeks of campaigning, Trump seems always willing go into the lion’s den if it means communicating. You can’t find common ground with an advisory if you refuse to engage.
But it was too much to think ABC would deal fairly with Trump. ABC is owned by Disney, which pushes the woke Democrat agenda on viewers.
ABC, the home of the Trump-hating talk show “The View,” takes every opportunity to villainize Trump, comparing him to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
Working as a team, Muir and Davis propped up Harris and repeatedly tried to vanquish Trump by talking over him, cutting him off, and asking bizarre questions they did not ask Harris.
Radio and television broadcasters are required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide equal opportunities to opposing candidates in federal elections. There are exceptions for certain types of news programming, including debates. But Tuesday was more of a Democrat Party bushwhack than a real debate. Trump called for ABC’s license to be revoked, but that is not going to happen.
The FCC’s Democrat chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel told The Washington Post the commission does not take licenses from broadcasters “simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.” She offered a quick decision with no investigation.
If the debate had two winners, there were two losers too: Trump, who got screwed out of a fair debate where his ideas could be clearly expressed, and American voters, who have almost no good information to go on as they consider the candidates.
The brief Harris campaign has been tightly controlled, revealing little to the public about how her incessant tittering would play out while negotiating weighty matters with world leaders.
And the legal lassos the left has thrown at Trump have hobbled his ability to campaign fully.
This one lousy “debate” was supposed to allow voters to get a clear picture of each candidate’s vision for the country. All it did was reveal the symbiosis between the Democrat political machine trying to take permanent control of our nation and the complicit media.
America needed this conversation to happen, but ABC got in the way, harmed what remains of the democratic process for the entire nation, and should be held accountable.
Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.
Jesus Christ is King
Comments are closed.