Categories
Politics

Trump escapes FEC sanction for hush cash, Nationwide Enquirer writer pays effective

Karen McDougal, Playboy Playmate of the Year 1998.

Getty Images

The Federal Election Commission will let former President Donald Trump avoid punishment for directing hush money payments to his alleged ex-mistress Karen McDougal — but the publisher of The National Enquirer agreed to pay more than $187,500 for its role in the scandal, records showed Tuesday.

The FEC recently likewise failed to approve a recommendation from staff that it sanction Trump for directing a $130,000 hush money payout to former porn star Stormy Daniels, who has said she had sex with him years ago, according to the advocacy group Common Cause.

That group had filed FEC complaints related to payments to both women.

Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted to paying off Daniels at Trump’s behest shortly before the 2016 presidential election.

In McDougal’s case, American Media — the then-publisher of the tabloid Enquirer, and its boss David Pecker — paid the former Playboy model McDougal $150,000 to keep her quiet about her claims of an affair with Trump before the same election.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign finance violations related to facilitating payoffs to both women, as well as to other crimes, and served more than a year in prison.

AMI signed a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice in which it admitted it made the payment to McDougal to avoid her going public about her alleged affair and influencing the 2016 election.

The company’s payment to the FEC came in response to a finding by the commission that AMI and Pecker had knowingly and willfully violated campaign finance law by making “prohibited corporate in-kind contributions” to Trump’s campaign with the payoff to McDougal.

Federal prosecutors have said, without actually naming Trump, that he directed Cohen to facilitate the payments to both women. Trump was never criminally prosecuted in the case.

“Trump masterminded this whole thing, and so far he’s walked,” Common Cause vice president of policy and litigation Paul Ryan said.

“Everyone who carried out his dirty work here, Cohen and AMI, paid penalties and did prison time.”

“It’s good news that the Federal Election Commission is holding the tabloid company AMI accountable for its illegal actions in the 2016 election,” Ryan added. “But it’s head-scratching that the mastermind of this criminal enterprise, Donald Trump, has still not been held accountable.”

Trump has denied having sex with either McDougal or Daniels. But he and his company reimbursed Cohen for his payment to Daniels.

CNBC Politics

Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:

Common Cause provided CNBC copies of FEC records it received in connection with the case on Tuesday.

In a letter to Ryan, acting FEC general counsel Lisa Stevenson wrote: “The Commission found reason to believe that respondents David J. Pecker and American Media, Inc. knowingly and willfully violated 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a).”

“On May 17, 2021, a conciliation agreement signed by A360 Media, LLC, as successor in interest to American Media, Inc. was accepted by the Commission and the Commission closed the file as to Pecker and American Media, Inc.,” the letter said.

The letter went on to say: “There were an insufficient number of votes to find reason to believe that the remaining respondents violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.”

Ryan said the other respondents were Trump and his election committee.

AMI merged last year with the wholesale distribution and logistics company Accelerate360, with the merged entity known as A360Media. Pecker stepped aside as CEO and became an executive advisor, according to press reports at the time.

Ryan said he suspects that two Republican FEC commissioners who voted against sanctioning Trump for the Daniels hush money payments also voted against punishing him for the McDougal payments. Two Democratic commissioners voted to continue the probe.

The Washington Post reported last month that those two GOP commissioners, Sean Cooksey and Trey Trainor, “said they voted to dismiss the case because it was ‘statute-of-limitations imperiled’ and that pursuing it further would be a poor use of agency resources.”

The Post also noted that, “They argued that because there had been other federal inquiries into the incident — namely the Justice Department probe that led to Cohen’s prosecution — an FEC case would be redundant.”

Ryan said the votes will eventually be publicly disclosed by the FEC.

An FEC spokeswoman declined to comment, saying records in the case were not yet cleared by public release by the agency.

CNBC has sought comment from A360 and a representative for Trump.

Categories
Business

Florida, in a First, Will Effective Social Media Corporations That Bar Candidates

WASHINGTON — Florida on Monday became the first state to regulate how companies like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter moderate speech online, by imposing fines on social media companies that permanently bar political candidates in the state.

The law, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, is a direct response to Facebook’s and Twitter’s bans of former President Donald J. Trump in January. In addition to the fines for barring candidates, it makes it illegal to prevent some news outlets from posting to their platforms in response to the contents of their stories.

Mr. DeSantis said signing the bill meant that Floridians would be “guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites.”

“If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable,” he said in a statement.

The bill is part of a broader push among conservative state legislatures to crack down on the ability of tech companies to manage posts on their platforms. The political efforts took off after Mr. Trump was barred after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Lawmakers around the country have echoed Mr. Trump’s accusations that the companies are biased against conservative personalities and publications, even though those accounts often thrive online.

More than a hundred bills targeting the companies’ moderation practices have been filed nationwide this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many of the bills have died, but a proposal is still being debated in Texas.

Twitter declined to comment. Google and Facebook did not immediately offer comments on the signing of the bill.

The Florida law makes it illegal to bar a candidate for state office for more than 14 days, in a move that would seem to outlaw the kind of permanent ban the social media platforms applied to Mr. Trump’s accounts. Companies would be fined $250,000 per day for cases where they barred a candidate for statewide office. The fine is lower for candidates seeking other offices.

The law says the platforms cannot take down or otherwise prioritize content from a “journalistic enterprise” that reaches a certain size. Conservatives were outraged last year when Facebook and Twitter limited the reach of a New York Post article about the contents of a laptop it said belonged to Hunter Biden, the younger son of President Biden.

Under the law, platforms are also required to be clear about how they decide to take down content or leave it up. Users could sue the platform if they felt those terms were inconsistently applied.

A late amendment to the bill exempts companies from the law if they own a theme park or an entertainment venue larger than 25 acres. That means the law is unlikely to apply to websites owned by Disney, which operates the Walt Disney World Resort, and Comcast, which owns Universal Studios Florida.

In Florida, as in dozens of other states, the Republican lawmakers’ push to punish social media companies follows the party’s other efforts to feed the demands of a conservative base that remains loyal to Mr. Trump.

Florida, along with Republican-run legislatures in Oklahoma and Iowa, have in recent weeks passed legislation limiting the right to protest and providing immunity to drivers who strike protesters in public streets.

And the Republican push to make voting harder continues unabated after Mr. Trump’s relentless lying about the results of the 2020 election. Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed into law new restrictions on voting, as did Mr. DeSantis in Florida, and Texas Republicans are poised to soon pass the nation’s biggest rollback of voting rights.

The partywide, nationwide push stems from Mr. Trump’s repeated grievances. During his failed re-election campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly pushed to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity to certain tech firms from liability for user-generated content, even as he used their platforms to spread misinformation. Twitter and Facebook eventually barred Mr. Trump after he inspired his supporters, using their platforms, to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Republican lawmakers in Florida have echoed Mr. Trump’s statements.

“I have had numerous constituents come to me saying that they were banned or de-platformed on social media sites,” Representative Blaise Ingoglia said during the debate over the bill.

But Democrats, libertarian groups and tech companies all say the law violates the tech companies’ First Amendment rights to decide how to handle content on their own platforms. It also may prove impossible to bring complaints under the law because of Section 230, the legal protections for web platforms that Mr. Trump has attacked.

“It is the government telling private entities how to speak,” said Carl Szabo, the vice president at NetChoice, a trade association that includes Facebook, Google and Twitter as members. “In general, it’s a gross misreading of the First Amendment.” He said the First Amendment was designed to protect sites like Reddit from government intervention, not protect “politicians from Reddit.”

The Florida measure is likely to be challenged in court, said Jeff Kosseff, a professor of cybersecurity law at the Naval Academy.

“I think this is the beginning of testing judges’ limits on these sorts of restrictions for social media,” he said.

Categories
Business

Alibaba Will Decrease Service provider Charges After Antitrust Wonderful

Two days after Chinese regulators fined e-commerce giant Alibaba $ 2.8 billion for illegally restricting sellers on its shopping sites, the company announced the fees for these merchants and invest in new services for them.

“We will incur additional costs,” said Alibaba’s managing director Daniel Zhang on Monday during a conference call with analysts. “We don’t see this as a one-off cost. We see this as a necessary investment so that our dealers can work better on our platform. “

The company’s chief financial officer, Maggie Wu, said Alibaba has allocated “billion” renminbi in additional annual spending to support this initiative, but has not provided details. One US dollar is 6.6 renminbi.

China’s antitrust fine against Alibaba far exceeds previous fines for anti-competitive business practices. This reflects the government’s growing concern about the ability of internet giants to improve the playing field against their rivals and take advantage of their consumers.

In Alibaba’s case, authorities focused on the company’s practice of preventing vendors from selling their goods on competing websites. Mr. Zhang said Monday that such exclusivity agreements previously only covered a few digital storefronts operated by major brands on Tmall, Alibaba’s high-end platform.

Mr. Zhang said Alibaba did not expect the end of such agreements to have “material negative effects” on the company’s business. And Alibaba Executive Vice Chairman Joseph C. Tsai was optimistic about what Beijing’s increasing scrutiny of large digital platforms will mean for China’s internet industry.

“The communication from regulators to the public is very clear that they reinforce our business model,” said Tsai. “We feel very comfortable that there is nothing wrong with the basic business model of a platform company. These regulatory measures are taken to ensure fair competition for the benefit of the public. “

“We are happy that we can put this matter behind us,” he said.

Categories
Business

Alibaba Faces $2.eight Billion High quality From Chinese language Regulators

China announced on Saturday that it had fined e-commerce titan Alibaba a record $ 2.8 billion for monopoly business practices. This was the government’s toughest move to date in its campaign to tighten regulation of the country’s internet giants.

Beijing’s market watchdog began investigating Alibaba for possible antitrust violations in December, including preventing vendors from selling their goods on other shopping platforms. On Saturday, the regulator said its investigation found that Alibaba was hindering competition in online retail in China, affecting innovation in the internet economy and harming consumer interests.

The fine on Alibaba, one of China’s most valuable private companies and the foundation of the business empire of Jack Ma, the country’s most famous tycoon, exceeds the $ 975 million antitrust fine imposed by the Chinese government on American chip giant Qualcomm in 2015.

The Chinese authorities left little doubt on Saturday about the signal they wanted to send to other internet giants. In a comment posted online a minute after the fine was announced, People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official newspaper, described regulation as “a kind of love and care.”

“Monopoly is the great enemy of the market economy,” the comment said. “There is no contradiction between legal regulation and support for development. Rather, they complement and reinforce each other. “

The fine is unlikely to materially affect Alibaba’s assets. The state market regulator, the Chinese agency that imposed the fine, said the amount represented 4 percent of Alibaba’s domestic sales in 2019. The group reported profits of more than $ 12 billion in the last three months of 2020 alone.

Overall, the fact that Beijing has not asked Alibaba to make any major additional concessions makes the decision “good news for the firm,” said Angela Zhang, associate professor and director of the Center for Chinese Law at Hong Kong University.

When Qualcomm was fined six years ago, it also agreed to offer Chinese customers significant discounts on patent fees. On Saturday, the market regulator said only that Alibaba would have to curb its anti-competitive behavior and submit reports of its compliance for three years.

“I would think the market should respond positively,” said Professor Zhang, although she warned the government could conduct additional research on other aspects of Alibaba’s business at any time.

In a statement, Alibaba said it would “sincerely” accept the punishment and strengthen internal systems “to better serve our responsibility to society”.

“The penalty imposed today was to alert and catalyze businesses like ours,” Alibaba said. “It reflects the thoughtful and normative expectations of regulators for the development of our industry.”

Over the past decade, Alibaba’s business has expanded beyond shopping to include logistics, grocery, entertainment, social media, travel booking, and more. Like its peers on the Internet, Alibaba has said that the breadth of its business helps make each of its services more useful. However, critics say the size of the company worsens the playing field for competitors and limits consumer choice.

China started taking a closer look at its tech giants last year. The market regulator proposed updating the country’s antimonopoly law with a new provision for large internet platforms like Alibaba’s. In November, officials put an end to plans by Alibaba’s sister company, finance-focused Ant Group, to go public and tighten control over internet finance.

In December, it opened the antimonopoly investigation against Alibaba – an astonishing twist for Mr. Ma, whom the people of China had long held up as an icon of entrepreneurial plucking.

In the USA and Europe too, skepticism about the power of large Internet companies has increased. Western regulators have repeatedly fined Goliaths like Google over the past few years for various antitrust violations. But such penalties have not changed the nature of businesses in general enough to allay concerns about their power.

China began tightening oversight of big tech later than the West. But his efforts are already beginning to affect the way Chinese internet giants operate. This reflects the extent to which all private companies in China must remain in the good grace of the government in order to survive.

For many years, Alibaba and its arch-rival, gaming and social media giant Tencent, have competed fiercely in a variety of companies, including by preventing their own users from spending time on the other company’s services. That could gradually change. In a first for the company, Alibaba recently applied for two of its trading platforms, Taobao Deals and Xianyu, to be present on WeChat, Tencent’s ubiquitous social app.

Categories
Business

Can a Nice Whiskey Age In a single day?

There’s an old business joke that’s said a lot in the Napa Valley: How do you make a small fortune out of wine? Start with a large fortune.

The same applies to the production of whiskey. Equipment, barrels, and enough space to store them all can cost millions, money that you won’t get back until years later when the mind has matured. Meanwhile, as you age, you’ve lost 20 percent or more of your product to evaporation – what distillers wistfully refer to as “angel’s share”.

In other words, whiskey is ready to be chopped – at least according to Stuart Aaron and Martin Janousek. Bespoken Spirits of Menlo Park, Calif., Says they can make whiskey in just a few days by using heat and pressure to force alcohol in and out of small pieces of wood that give the spirit its distinctive taste and color.

“With modern materials science and data analysis, we can transform this legacy industry,” said Aaron.

Bespoken, whose first bottles hit stores last fall, joins a crowded field. Almost a dozen companies say they can accelerate or even avoid the aging process. Many have drawn huge investor attention: Endless West in San Francisco has raised nearly $ 13 million in funding since its inception in 2015, while Bespoken’s supporters include retired New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter.

Some of these whiskeys are better than others. While some have won awards in liquor competitions, critics have largely dismissed them so far. But with whiskey sales climbing double-digit percentages each year and consumers – and investors – asking for more than distilleries can offer, companies like Bespoken may be here to stay.

The question is, where does overnight whiskey fit in a business built on tradition and prestige?

Almost as long as distilleries have been maturing spirits in barrels, people have been trying to speed up the process. Traditionally, aging means that the rise and fall of seasonal temperatures pushes whiskey into the wood of a barrel and then lets it out again, leaching out taste and color along the way. This process can take a few years to several decades.

Before the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 enacted whiskey production regulations, “speeding up” often meant adding clear alcohol with caramel and soot, or worse, to make it taste old. But other techniques, developed in the late 19th century – such as heated warehouses that could recreate an entire quartet of seasons several times a year – were accepted and common even among established distilleries.

Over the past decade, some distilleries have used kegs that are much smaller than the standard 53 gallon size, which increases the surface area to volume ratio inside and thus the speed at which whiskey drains in and out of the wood .

Bespoken technology is, in a sense, the next step in this evolution. Instead of a full barrel, the company uses thousands of half-size pieces of wood, called “microstaves,” which it puts in a steel tank along with unaged or partially aged whiskey. By rapidly increasing and decreasing the pressure and heat inside the device, Mr. Aaron and Mr. Janousek calls the “activator” and pushes the whiskey in and out of the forest several times a day.

The process offers another advantage over and above speed. While a barrel is usually made entirely from the same type of wood, there are hundreds of types of micro staves, which vary depending on the type of tree and treatment, allowing Bespoken to create a nearly unlimited range of styles and flavors: the company claims to have 17 Billions of possible combinations to work with.

“Traditional distilleries are great at making one over and over again,” said Aaron. “We have already produced thousands.”

Another distillery, Los Angeles-based Lost Spirits, takes a similar approach and loads whiskey and wood into the reactor that its founder calls Bryan Davis. A key difference is the light: in addition to the fluctuations in heat, he bombarded the wood with intense light, which, in his opinion, revitalizes the molecular structure of the wood and helps create the complex aromas associated with mature spirits.

For Mr Davis, who used to make mostly whiskey before focusing on aged rum, the urge to manipulate aging is less about getting a product to market as quickly as possible than about being in control to take over a process that, in his opinion, also runs a lot to chance and nature.

“It’s about being able to move the needle so we can manipulate these flavor components,” he said. “I wanted to take control to create something interesting, like an artist’s medium.”

Other companies like Cleveland Whiskey and Green River Spirits use variations on the technologies used by Bespoken and Lost Spirits. Endless West does something completely different. By analyzing the molecular constituents of a whiskey, getting them from natural sources like plants and yeasts, and essentially infusing them into an alcohol base, the company claims it can reverse engineer not just bourbon or scotch, but any beverage, even wine.

The company says it could make the equivalent of a spirit that is five years old or more old overnight, opening up the possibility of recreating a 30-year-old Balvenie single malt scotch, for example, at a fraction of the retail price of $ 1,300. Bottles of its flagship whiskey Glyph cost around $ 40, while Bespoken’s bourbon costs around $ 35. Lost Spirits rum, only available at the distillery or online, costs around $ 40.

“I compare a lot of our work to digitizing music,” said Alec Lee, co-founder of Endless West, echoing the belief that these companies have adopted. “The digitization of music has greatly expanded the availability of great art to people. We want to see a world in which quality and availability are not in conflict. “

All three companies make competent, pleasant spirits, although each has its shortcomings.

Bespokens whiskey lacks the roundness of a conventionally matured spirit; There is a first hit from vanilla, caramel and wood spices, but no successor. The same applies to the rum from Lost Spirits, although it is much rougher and tumbling: Bottled at 61 percent alcohol, it is full of dark fruits and leather, a sinewy animal of a drink that still needs depth.

Endless West’s “molecular” whiskey is different. It’s pleasant enough to drink and goes well with a cocktail. But just like an Android They may have features that resemble ears, eyes, hands, and hair, although obviously they are not yet human. They contain many of the flavor components of a whiskey without actually tasting like whiskey.

Liquor experts tend to agree that whiskeys like this still have a long way to go before they can compete with traditional labels.

“From my analysis, someone can make a good product, but I don’t have the same complexity as an old bourbon, for example,” said Nancy Fraley, an experienced freelance blender who consults with dozen of liquor companies in the United States and Europe.

It may be that the technology like computer chess programs is both impressive and still in its infancy in the 1970s, and that it is only a matter of time before a whiskey from Endless West knocks out a bottle of Macallan in a taste test, just like that Deep Blue Computer defeated Garry Kasparov in chess in 1997.

But it may also be that it’s not about defeating the Macallan or its equivalent.

The upper end of the liquor market is huge and growing, but in terms of sheer volume, the real money still lies in lower shelf liquors, as well as flavored whiskeys and ready-to-drink canned cocktails – the kind of products where the nuances of a ghost don’t matter .

With that in mind, a whiskey like Bespoken doesn’t have to taste like the best bourbon to be successful. It just has to be better than the worst, at a competitive price.

And then there is the international market. As fast as US liquor sales are rising – according to Nielsen, they were 25.1 percent higher in 2020 than last year – they are nothing compared to the potential that some US and European companies see as trade barriers in countries like China and India often everything that stands between them and billions of consumers who are not familiar with American spirits but are dying to try them. If India dropped its barriers tomorrow, a company like Bespoken or Endless West that doesn’t have to age its products could serve consumers much faster than a traditional distillery.

This may be why several large distillation companies have also quietly dabbled in quick-aged whiskey. Edrington, the British company behind Scottish luxury brands like Macallan and Highland Park, owns Relativity, an American whiskey made using a process similar to Bespoken.

Mr. Aaron and Mr. Janousek from Bespoken also see an opportunity for tailor-made products – for example a company that wants to give its employees a unique gift. That possibility is one reason Mr. Jeter cited for his investment: Bespoken could be a boon to athletes and celebrities like him who want their own brand of liquor but don’t want the hassle of paying upfront for something that may not be ready is years. (Mr. Jeter declined to be interviewed for this article.)

It is also possible that as these companies develop their products, they taste less like a science fiction version of traditional whiskey than they do something completely different.

Lost Spirits’ Mr Davis said he had repeatedly turned down offers from investors because he was more interested in creating new and surprising flavors than in finding a way to beat established distilleries at their own game.

A decade ago, no one could have imagined how big the whiskey industry would get, and companies like Bespoken and Endless West seem more interested in occupying future markets than arguing over existing ones.

For a traditional whiskey mixer like Ms. Fraley, that’s more than okay.

“From what I’ve seen and tasted, I don’t see it mimicking a 20-year-old whiskey,” she said. “Does that mean it’s bad? Does it have a place in the market? Yes. Just as long as we’re clear it’s not the same. “