Sen. Richard Blumenthal, the incoming chair of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, demanded that FCC Chair Brendan Carr and tech companies that donated to President Trump's ballroom voluntarily turn over documents or face possible subpoenas in January. Letters went to Apple, Meta, Google, Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, Comcast, BlackRock, Palantir and others. Nvidia and Apple each committed $25 million, out of $333 million in private donations for the ballroom project. Blumenthal also sought records on Carr's handling of media-company investigations, the Paramount-Skydance merger and the early license review of Disney's ABC stations.
After Democrats take Senate control in January, they plan to investigate donations from companies with business before the Trump administration. Blumenthal said Carr's actions “erode and undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press and bear on the laws governing media consolidation.” Major companies and the Trump administration have previously ignored or not provided documents in response to investigations.
Cruz's claim that Democrats won without offering a substantive policy agenda is contradicted by Democrats' rollout of a “New Affordability Agenda” and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries's statement that lowering the high cost of living was the top priority.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal demanded that FCC Chair Brendan Carr and tech companies that donated to President Trump's ballroom turn over documents or face possible subpoenas in January.
BReuters just posted on X: Senator Richard Blumenthal is demanding documents from tech giants over Trump's ballroom donations.
BAlready? Democrats push back and the first move is subpoena threats?
BHe's the incoming investigations chair. Letters went to Apple, Google, Meta, Nvidia, and others.
BSo donating to a presidential event now gets you a congressional records request. That escalated fast.
BHe also wants FCC Chairman Brendan Carr's records on media investigations and mergers.
BBlumenthal says Carr's actions 'erode and undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press.'
BThat's not just about donations. That's going after a regulator he doesn't like.
BOr it's asking why the FCC chair is reviewing Disney's ABC station licenses at all.
BCome on. These companies donated to a public event. Are we going to investigate every donor to every inauguration?
BTotal private donations hit three hundred thirty-three million dollars. Apple and Nvidia each gave twenty-five million.
BWhen companies give that while mergers and licenses are pending, that's oversight.
BBut that's not proof of anything. It's a fishing expedition based on suspicion.
BBlumenthal says if they don't comply in January, the subcommittee has 'no choice but to consider alternative measures.' That's a subpoena warning.
BI'll give him this: if donations buy regulatory outcomes, that's a problem. But this looks like payback.
BThen let the documents show it. If the companies have nothing to hide, they turn them over.
BThey might argue it's intrusive and political. And they'd have a point.
BMajor companies have ignored congressional requests before. That's why he's talking subpoenas.
BAnd that's exactly the problem: it's about force, not facts.
BMaybe. But there's a reason this is first for Democrats. They think they won a mandate to check Trump's corporate ties.
BMandate or not, subpoenaing companies for political donations chills speech. That should worry everyone.
BI'd worry more about a regulator suddenly reviewing broadcast licenses. That's not normal.
BFine. Watch it in January. If this becomes a show trial, I'll say I told you so.
BIf they find real corruption, I'll say I told you so. Deal.
BDifferent world entirely: The Wall Street Journal posted on X about the 2027 Met Gala.
BWhat now?
BThe gala will reportedly lean into populist attire: jeans and hoodies.
BJeans at the Met Gala? The richest people cosplaying streetwear? That'll be something.
BNo official confirmation yet. Treat it as a rumor.
BOr a trial balloon. I'll believe it when I see Anna Wintour in a hoodie.
BThat's the only confirmation I'll accept.
BNow that image is going to stay with me.
BMoving on.
BHere's one that'll start a fight: over on Bluesky, Lakota Man says churches preaching politics from the pulpit should lose tax-exempt status.
BThat's not new, but it's always radioactive. Churches have the right to speak on moral issues.
BBut telling people who to vote for is different. Why should taxpayers subsidize that?
BBecause it's a church, not a political action committee. The First Amendment protects their speech.
BThe First Amendment protects them from government, not from taxes. Plenty of nonprofits can't endorse candidates and keep their status.
BSo the IRS decides what's preaching and what's politics? That's a dangerous line.
BThe Johnson Amendment already draws that line. It says churches can't endorse candidates and stay tax-exempt.
BThat's too much government power over religious communities. A sermon about justice isn't a campaign ad.
BBut if a pastor says vote for this candidate, that's electioneering. Let them do it and pay taxes like everyone else.
BI'd rather have too much religious speech than a government board policing pulpits.
BI'd rather have a fair tax system. Most churches don't want to be political anyway.
BThen they have nothing to worry about. But the ones that do? Leave them alone.
BAgree to disagree. This one will keep coming back every election.