If the New York Yankees were allowed to subsidize the salaries of umpires calling games against the Red Sox, people would be screaming from Eastport to Block Island.
If we learned that a lawyer loaned a judge money just before beginning a trial before that same judge in court, we all would be appalled.
We expect umpires and judges to “call ’em as they see ’em” and the integrity of baseball and our judicial system depends on our trust that is happening.
Then why is it all right for Donald Sussman, husband of Rep. Chellie Pingree, to invest money in the Portland Press Herald, Kennebec Journal and Waterville Sentinel, become a part owner and take a seat in the boardroom?
I have never met Donald Sussman. A reputed billionaire who made his fortune in Wall Street hedge funds, he is, by all accounts, a good man. His generosity with charities from museums to colleges is legendary and he was named Spurwink’s Man of the Year. I think I would like him. He probably even owns a couple of dogs (which gives him extra points in my book).
But here’s the rub: Sussman is the largest contributor to the Maine Democratic Party and related liberal/progressive causes in our state’s history. During the last several election cycles he has given millions directly to the Democratic Party and other organizations affiliated with them. His wife is running for re-election to Congress and his stepdaughter, former Speaker of the House Hannah Pingree, may have legitimate political aspirations of her own.
Sussman assures us there is no reason for concern. He is simply being a good citizen, infusing millions in cash into a newspaper business in financial crisis. He will not attempt to exercise any influence over the reporting of the news or the editorial policy of the newspapers he now partly owns. Not to worry, he tells us.
But despite his assurances, there is danger on the horizon having little to do with Sussman’s particular political views. The same dilemma would exist if one of the far-right Koch brothers moved to town and decided to buy in. We should all be concerned, wherever we fit on the political spectrum.
There are three groups who should be worried. First, the editors. If Sussman decides to give substantial funds to support the campaign for gay marriage, what will the editors do? Support him in print and look like they have been co-opted? Oppose him and worry about a pink slip?
What about his wife’s re-election campaign? What if they decide her opponent is better qualified? They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. One thing is certain: The editorial writers constantly will be in an untenable position and I wish them well with their sleepless nights.
The second group who should be nervous are reporters. I find that the reporting staff tries its very best to be fair, objective and unbiased. But what happens if damaging information were to surface about Sussman, his wife or the political organizations he so lavishly supports? Will they feel free to aggressively pursue those leads, knowing the resulting stories may cast their boss in an unfavorable light? And if they do, how will Sussman react?
These reporters are people too, with mortgages and car payments to make and kids to support. How unfair to them to be put in this position.
The final group that should be worried is us, the readers. The public already has little confidence in members of “the media,” who are by all accounts right down there with lawyers and politicians (my two jobs!) at the bottom of the trust-o-meter. If we take the things we read in the paper now with a grain of salt, we will be choking on chunks of it going forward, always wondering if a news report, an investigative piece or an editorial position might be colored by the 1,000-pound gorilla in the boardroom.
Sussman could have made us all breathe easier if he had just made an outright loan to the papers instead of insisting on an ownership stake and a seat on the board of directors. But he did not. Why?
This issue is not unique to Maine. In Philadelphia, former Gov. Ed Rendell is fronting a group attempting to buy the Philadelphia Inquirer, and these same concerns are being raised there. The head of the union representing 400 newspaper employees worries about the continued journalistic integrity of the paper, pointing out: “Without that [integrity], nobody will want to read the papers. We won’t have jobs.”
Sussman’s investment may be a positive development for the newspapers’ balance sheet, and that is good. But I worry it is a sad day for those of us who wake up every morning, go to the door and want to pick up an unbiased source of news to read with our morning coffee.
Roger Katz is a Republican state senator from Augusta.



Senator Katz assumes that we can turn to newspapers as an unbiased source of news which is an unlikely scenario in any case. On which planet has he been living on lo these many years? People who read the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or tune into MSNBC or Fox know exactly what they are going to get.
Further, there is this little detail caled the First Ammendment; Mr. Sussman is completely within his rights to purchase any newspaper he wants and he is free to reflect any political view he chooses in the newspapers he owns.
What the Senator really should be worried about is ensuring that our students are being taught the art of critical thinking, an appreciation of our history and an understanding of our constitution. They then will be fully empowered to judge whether a newspaper is worth reading or not.
So what’s the different between Sussman and the Koch brothers; seems like the Koch Bros are cleaner and less despicable. Why aren’t the OWS folks camped out in front of Sussmans office. Aren’t all you Lefties outraged that elections are being comprimised and purchased by dirty out of state money? Probably not given the duplicitious nature of the Left. Koch Bad but Soros Good. Most Liberal posters will reply that everyone does it. Shouldn’t the Loser Liberals who regularly post here engage in a little self examination and maybe gain a clearer understanding of the word “hypocrisy”?
The Koch brothers are not interested in what is good for the US only what will generate more cash for them and their businesses.
Why aren’t you outraged at Sussman, oh that’s right. Loser
Ouch, that hurts
gotta love the conservative losers who love the kochs
”
A Bloomberg Markets investigation has found that Koch Industries — in addition to being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East — has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.”
They would call people like the kochs, traitors at one time– what should we call their defenders?
read it all conservative loser ‘http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html”
And Sussman isn’t interested in money? LMAO
There is nothing wrong with being interested in money but the way the Koch Brothers are corrupting not only the Federal government but also state governments just so they can make more money is plain wrong.
Did you know the Koch brothers own the second most fined business for environmental violations so instead of cleaning up their companies they are trying to change the laws to allow them to pollute even more. All to make more profits for them. The Koch brothers combined income for 2010 was $20 Billion a piece and yet they are compelled to make even more money at the detriment to the environment and society.
Sussman makes money as a Wall Street investor. Sussman is not trying to change laws that protect our environment and our health unlike the Koch brothers and their toadies the Heritage Foundations and their paid bloggers.
The Koch Brothers are in no way clean. However, they at least actually produce things that people actually need and use.
Now Sussman, he is just a blood sucking wall street investor. A leach on society. He produces nothing of value. He makes his millions, (billions?), by manipulating the market. He makes his money on the backs of everyday people.
Why do you think Sussman became involved with Pingree in the first place if not to gain inside access to the legslative process. If you do not think he uses his inside access to influence legislation and regulations that would affect his bottom line then you are truly either blind or completely partisan. And if you think he just entered this business relationship out of the goodness of his heart rather than to promote his liberal agenda and the Pingree’s then there is no hope for you.
loser conservatives have no conception of hypocrisy. kinda like the shoe fits pretty good, eh laddie?
Why don’t you have a problem with Sussman? Hypocrisy?
Get over it!
Citesens United was Koch Funded!
It’s about Ten to One in favour of the Conservative Media!
Any stats re that 10-1?
Senator Katz–You bring up valid points. I hope you apply the same logic to everything to do with The News Corporation including Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and thousands of other media outlets under the control of the Murdoch family.
Not going to happen because they are conservatives and everyone knows that conservatives are unbiased while liberals are biased.
We can assume that the Pingree Press Herald will not be looking into the $u$$man-funded “Independent Expenditure” groups that trashed Pingree’s opponent in 2010!
What about those FEC reports, filled with laundered “contributions” to Chellie Pingree’s campaign from $u$$man’s gardeners, cooks, secretaries, drivers, yacht crews, jet pilots, lawyers, accountants and even his daughters… He must be a very generous boss, to pay a secretary enough that she can afford to give $9,600 in an after-tax, non-deductible contribution to a politician in a state a few hundred miles away!!! (And funny thing is, those generous $u$$man employees who donated to Pingree’s campaign didn’t give a DIME to their own, local, in-state candidates.)
That must be one whale of a coincidence – because if $u$$man handed cash, or paid a special “bonus” to an employee, with instructions to write personal checks to Pingree’s campaign, that would be ILLEGAL… and we know that the good little lock-step Progressive Mrs. Pingree would never get her hands soiled with all that dirty money stuff…
TRUTH BE TOLD… the decision to buy off that newspaper was made when they endorsed DEAN SCONTRAS over Chellie Pingree. No doubt in my mind.
You think they’ll EVER endorse another Republican? Or fail to endorse any of the far-left issues that $u$$man dumps millions into?
ONE MORE THING – that paper was a week away from not making payroll… so Saint $u$$man actually saved their jobs!!! He doesn’t HAVE to say a thing. He doesn’t HAVE to twist an arm. The union is grateful all right!!!
So are you against the Murdoch family owning newspapers and TV networks?
Just like the national news refuses to investigate the millions of contributions to Obama’s campaign in 2008 by credit card just under the reporting threshold.
William Randolph Hearst & Rupert Murdock come to mind. Look at how they have brainwashed people. Watch Citizen Kane.
Yes, lets watch a MOVIE to figure out about brainwashing.
Typical liberal way of gaining insight…turn to Hollyweird.
Oliver Stone movie = Liberal history class.
The conservatives have nothing to worry about as long as Rush Limbaugh is on the airwaves and the National Enquirer is in print and the bottom of bird cages.
You mean the same National Enquirer that revealed the truth about John Edwards when the unbiased national news media were carefully covering up the story?
Is John Edwards Really an Alien?
Look at his hair….
I use the Bangor Daily News to line my bird cage.
Too bad. The Waterville Sentinel has actually produced some decent reporting over the past year. I am wondering why I still get the BDN delivered. I should probably switch….but I guess I’ll wait to see how the Sussman Sentinel works.
Can’t be anywhere near as bad as the Murdoch and Rev. Moon owned papers and TV networks
I wonder if Mr Katz has the same worries about Rupert Murdoch and the Rev. Moon owning papers and TV networks?
” But despite his assurances, there is danger on the horizon having little
to do with Sussman’s particular political views. The same dilemma would
exist if one of the far-right Koch brothers moved to town and decided
to buy in. We should all be concerned, wherever we fit on the political
spectrum.”
The Koch brothers already came to town and bypassed the papers and bought the politicians directly…
This bellyaching from the right about a 5% ownership in a media company is so amazingly hypocritical… what with the FOX cable news and the Murdoch empire in general… Really?.. Really?!?!
“The Koch brothers already came to town and bypassed the papers and bought the politicians directly… ”
Really? – I must have missed that. Can you share the link to that story or are you just making it up?
Quit grandstanding Jon. You must have been bought to act the way that you do.
They’re called PAC’s. That’s why the Koch’s love them. You don’t have to say who gave money.
Obama must love them too…
http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/02/15/2723685/editorial-obama-takes-super-pac.html
Oh, that’s right….you’d prefer that the PPH just fold up due to lack of interest and funding? I don’t see anyone else in Maine stepping up. Just shows you that no good deed goes unpunished.
I noticed that she kept her maiden name. I guess he does not wield as much power as her thinks! lol.
When I was a youngster, Howard Hughes (yes, that reclusive billionaire) bought the Bangor Daily Commercial with the expressed intent of getting rid of Sen. Owen Brewster. Now we have neither Sen. Brewster or an evening paper. Howard moved on and Maine survived.
I bet Sen. Katz has no problem with Rupert Murdoch, who is a big time financial contributor to the Repugs, owning Fox network, or the Wall Street Journal, among many other major media outlets. Or that Roger Ailes, former media consultant for Nixon, Reagan, Bush #1, Rudi and others being the president of the Fox “News” channel and the chairman of Fox Television Stations Group. Most people know just how unfair and unbalanced Fox is. Sounds like Katz is taking a hypocritical view of Sussmans involvement here.
Very well said, Senator Katz.
Sadly, I believe that the concept you presented is prevalent today in every venue, both larger and smaller than PPH. The best that the “common citizen” can do, is acknowledge this. Unfortunately there are many who still read the newsprint or listen to a media broadcast, and believe that whatever is stated/written is automatically FACT, without further research from other resources. Little thought is given, by the “common citizen”, to the powerful influence of the money of the special interest groups behind the media, politicians, organizations and most importantly, the Federal Government.The “favors” offered to people to support a cause; reporters to promote a story(or withhold a story); and politicians to support an issue …. these things are commonplace and mostly speculative (hard to prove).
Your mention of the “First Amendment” rings true, loud and clear. In fact, the First Amendment mantra has taken over and pushed aside what many still believe, is many times, “conflict of interest”.
Well, it’s not like those papers were Republican strongholds before. They were always leaning a little to the left, so does it matter whose name is attached to it?
Ummmm, methinks he doth protest too much. Please explain to me why this is somehow different or more of a conflict than say, Rupert Murdoch’s tentacular position of ownership of Fox News, newspapers, etc? It seems that when the shoe is on the other foot the Republicans are awfully fast to cryout in pain!
Sussman is to the left what the Koch brothers are to the right. Very extremist and very wealthy. Sussman is a little better connected since he married a person that can deliver what he wants but all in all, pretty much the same deal.
What’s one more libber donating to libbers.
The media has already proven they are bought
and paid for by libbers. The only media that is
not controlled by the libs is talk radio.