California Senators Suggest Paramount-Trump Settlement Would Amount to a Bribe and Harm Independent Press

by

Two California senators have requested a meeting to scrutinize the negotiations between Paramount Global and former U.S. President Trump over their potential merger with Skydance Media, claiming that such an agreement could be considered a form of bribery aimed at securing regulatory endorsement.

In a letter dispatched this past Friday, Senators Tom Umberg and Josh Becker put forth their perspective that a potential settlement might infringe upon both state and federal legal statutes, potentially stifling investigative and political journalism. They’ve extended invitations for Wendy McMahon and Bill Owens, high-ranking CBS News officials who recently stepped down, to appear and share insights on this matter. As a dedicated fan of free speech and the press, I find this situation intriguing and hope for a fair resolution.

The senators mentioned that they are initiating an investigation aimed at guaranteeing fair competition among public-facing media outlets, where the basis for success is content and quality rather than influence, surrender, or political concessions.

The letter was first reported by Semafor.

Last October, Trump filed a lawsuit against CBS for approximately $10 billion, claiming that CBS had committed consumer fraud by editing out part of an interview with Kamala Harris on “60 Minutes.” Although CBS has disputed the lawsuit’s validity in court, it appears that Shari Redstone, a major shareholder of Paramount, has advocated for a settlement to potentially speed up the $8 billion deal involving Skydance. Subsequently, Trump adjusted his claim to demand $20 billion in compensation instead.

According to The Wall Street Journal’s latest report, Paramount is open to a potential payment of up to $15 million; however, Trump has been seeking a larger sum.

This month, three Democratic U.S. Senators – Elizabeth Warren, Ron Wyden, and Bernie Sanders – voiced concerns over certain talks, implying that they might breach the federal law against bribery if a corrupt quid pro quo is indeed taking place.

Umberg, who used to work as a federal prosecutor, along with fellow Democrat Becker, contend in their correspondence that a proposed settlement might conflict with California’s law against unjust competition, potentially leading board members to face lawsuits initiated by shareholders.

As a discerning film critic, I pen my thoughts on the potential implications of Paramount’s decision, which seems to me as a significant step that could potentially weaken two fundamental cornerstones of a liberal democracy: an unbiased press and a just, rule-of-law regulatory framework.

As a passionate movie enthusiast, I find myself compelled to share some recent developments within the realm of television news. In April, I felt the need to relinquish my role as executive producer on “60 Minutes,” due to persistent meddling from CBS’s higher-ups at Paramount. Shortly thereafter, McMahon, the president of CBS News and overseer of local stations, followed suit, resigning on May 19, also citing similar conflicts with executives at Paramount.

The letter extends an invitation for them to serve as “supportive witnesses,” implying they might provide valuable information regarding the discussions and resistance within the news division. The Paramount board was also included in the letter’s distribution.

Several ethical specialists have pointed out that it could be hard to establish a case for bribery in court, due to the difficulty of proving a clear exchange or agreement (quid pro quo) was made.

Read More

2025-05-31 06:46