Most Republicans seeking higher office are afraid to cross Rush Limbaugh. Mitt Romney, whose conservative credentials are doubted by a large number of hard-right GOP voters, has even more reason than most to fear the wrath of Rush, one of the titular heads of the far right. However, Gov. Romney has another problem criticizing Limbaugh that’s got nothing to do with politics: the Bain Capital connection.
Infrequently mentioned amidst all the Limbaugh chatter is the fact that Bain Capital is one of the owners of Clear Channel Communications Inc. Clear Channel’s Premiere Radio Networks signed a $400 million contract extension with Limbaugh in 2008, shortly before Clear Channel was acquired by private equity firms Bain and Thomas H. Lee Partners. Four hundred million dollars. That’s a lot of money, even for the folks at Bain. If Bain Capital were still a primary source of your wealth, would you feel free to attack Rush Limbaugh and lower the value of Clear Channel’s $400 million investment? Especially given Clear Channel’s already precarious debt-ridden financial situation? Bloomberg reports:
Clear Channel had a ratio of debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of 11.1 times last year, compared with leverage of 1.9 times for CBS, one of the largest radio operators in the U.S., and 4.37 for Lamar Advertising, owner of billboards and other outdoor advertising space, Bloomberg data show.
How would Governor Romney not be influenced by this significant financial tie-in? Bain isn’t just a “1% vs. 99%” problem for the Romney campaign. Bain’s investments are going to cause potential conflict of interest situations for Gov. Romney both politically and economically.
If Republicans do make Gov. Romney their nominee, someone needs to ask him point blank during the general election campaign how he feels about Bain Capital financially supporting Limbaugh’s venom. If consumers are angry at sponsors who run a few ads on the program, shouldn’t they be even angrier at the corporation that is ultimately profiting from Limbaugh’s rhetoric and financed it to the tune of $400 million?
It sounds to me as though Mr. Romney (through Bain) has a significant exposure to losses at Clear Channel.
The egregiously distasteful slurs broadcast by Mr. Limbaugh last week should, in any civilized nation, make him toxic to advertisers. It didn’t take long for NBC to cancel Don Imus in 2007 (of course, he landed on Fox) after he made similarly offensive comments about another group of young women. An on-air apology wasn’t nearly good enough to keep Don Imus at NBC — it was followed by a precipitous loss of advertising revenue.
Clear Channel depends on advertising for its revenue, and its high debt makes it vulnerable to disruption of that revenue. The Bain/Romney tie-in is a delicious opportunity to punish this misogyny using the means that right-wing slugs understand best: money.
Isn’t it time to direct a sustained publicity campaign against the advertisers who pay for such garbage?
See Daily Kos
Mitt Romney, apparently protecting his financial interest in Rush Limbaugh, managed to say just this:
Hmm. Was it “the language” that was nauseatingly offensive about the crude sexual assault launched against a courageous young woman? Really? I guess that Mr. Romney is ok with the sentiments, if Mr. Limbaugh had only found different “language” to express them?
Sounds to me like Mr. Romney is protecting an asset in which he has a financial interest.
Meanwhile this morning, two more advertisers joined the stampede away from Mr. Limbaugh. Media giant AOL pulled its advertising, as did “Tax Resolution Services” — the eighth and ninth advertisers to pull the plug.
Welcome to the world of Bain Capital, Mitt Romney, and today’s GOP.