Once More With Feeling

The Obama Administration claimed that BCRA allows the federal government to ban a 600-page book if it mentions a candidate’s name only once, a 90-minute movie if it mentions a candidate’s name once, or even a toy action figure of a candidate. If the organization uses a single dime of its general funds to produce, promote or distribute any such materials during the “blackout” periods, it becomes a federal crime.

The key justices in this case seemed astonished at the broad powers the Obama Administration was claiming under BCRA, and seem poised to rule 5-4 in favor of Citizens United. This would continue a steady trend over the past couple years, with moderate Justice Kennedy siding with the four conservative justices on issues of political speech. This will be the third BCRA suit in as many years, and should be decided by the same split as they others.

The issue in these cases is the freedom of individuals to act together to speak out on public matters. As Ted Olson explained in his opening statement, “Participation in the political process is the First Amendment’s most fundamental guarantee. Yet that freedom is being smothered by one of the most complicated, expensive, and incomprehensible regulatory regimes ever invented.”

Since 2000, The New York Times Company has generated a respectable cumulative net income of $1,598,062,000. Yet management, over the same period, has paid out $2,779,601,000 for stock buybacks and dividends. This means, during the present decade, stock buybacks and dividends have exceeded cumulative net income by an astonishing $1,181,539,000. Is it any wonder The New York Times’ balance sheet is such a train-wreck? Operationally, this company has done well during the past nine years. Conversely, the company’s balance sheet has been hideously mismanaged by an incompetent executive management team – as supervised by a grossly negligent board of directors.

The New York Times, most certainly, is encountering a difficult operating environment. The internet has posed a serious challenge to companies involved in print media. Advertising revenues, moreover, are dropping dramatically due to the current economic depression. Nonetheless, had executive management been prudent and conservative with respect to balance sheet management, the Times would have had a war chest full of cash, strong working capital, and strong equity; thus, allowing it the financial flexibility to survive these very challenging times. As things stand today, in my opinion, the Times’ strategic alternatives are probably limited to either seeking an acquirer or reorganizing under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

In closing, it is appropriate to bring The New York Times’ op-ed columnist, Maureen Dowd, into the picture. She recently savaged executives from A.I.G., Bank of America, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and the U.S. automakers; deeming them to be incompetent, self-serving charlatans. In this January 28, 2009 op-ed piece titled Wall Street’s Socialist Jet-Setters, she calls these executives “boobs,” “dumb,” “obtuse,” and “…careless ghouls who murdered the economy.” So Ms. Dowd, what do you think of the executives who “murdered” The New York Times Company’s balance sheet? What names would you like to call them?