Luxury Seats. Billion-Dollar Decisions. Same Company.

Federal Communications Commission website magnified on browser.

Federal regulators who control billion‑dollar TV deals quietly took luxury gifts from Paramount, raising sharp new questions about whether Washington’s media watchdog now answers more to corporate giants than to the public.

Story Snapshot

FCC Chair Brendan Carr accepted high‑dollar entertainment gifts from Paramount while its merger and broadcast interests depended on his approval.
Ethics records show Carr and another commissioner enjoyed elite Kennedy Center Honors access provided by Paramount, worth tens of thousands of dollars.
The same FCC is now moving to scrap the 39% national TV ownership cap, a long‑sought goal for large, politically connected broadcasters.
Both conservatives and liberals see the episode as more proof that media rules are written by and for powerful corporations, not ordinary viewers.

Pricey Gifts for the Officials Who Hold Paramount’s Fate

Investigative reporting shows that Paramount gave Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr and Commissioner Olivia Trusty access to one of Washington’s most exclusive events, just as Paramount needed friendly regulators. Ethics disclosures obtained by watchdog group Accountable.US reveal Carr accepted two tickets worth about $11,724 to the Kennedy Center Honors Gala and Reception in December 2024, while he was the incoming FCC chair and Paramount’s merger with Skydance was pending. The same records and follow‑up reports say Trusty received Kennedy Center Honors tickets valued around $12,000, also provided by Paramount. Carr and his wife were even seated in a private skybox with Paramount Skydance chief executive David Ellison and other company executives, a perch estimated at roughly $125,000. For many Americans, this looks less like “public service” and more like a cozy club where regulators and media moguls share champagne while deciding who controls the news.

Paramount’s gifts did not occur in a vacuum; they landed at a moment when the company’s future depended on FCC decisions about its broadcast licenses and merger plans. Under the Communications Act of 1934, any transfer of television licenses, like those held by CBS‑owned stations, must be judged by whether it serves “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” That public‑interest test is supposed to act as a safeguard so that powerful companies cannot buy more control over the airwaves without real scrutiny. But when the referee is taking expensive hospitality from the player, many viewers doubt that the game is still fair. For Americans already angry at “the swamp” in Washington, the idea that media giants can wine‑and‑dine the very officials who approve their deals confirms their worst fears about regulatory capture.

Paramount–Skydance Approval and Concerns About Political and Editorial Influence

The FCC’s approval of the Paramount–Skydance merger did more than rearrange corporate logos; critics say it pushed the agency deep into the business of shaping what Americans see and hear in the news. The decision reportedly relied on conditions tied to how CBS would handle its news coverage, a step that clashes with the FCC’s own long‑standing rules against meddling in editorial choices. The commission has long said it has only “narrow” authority to act on complaints about bias or accuracy in news, because federal law bars censorship and protects a broadcaster’s right to choose what stories to air. Yet Chair Carr framed merger approval as requiring “fair, accurate, and balanced” coverage by licensees, language that sounds more like a political media strategy than neutral regulation. For conservatives, this raises fears of government deciding which viewpoints are allowed; for liberals, it looks like big business trading editorial promises for federal blessings. For both, it is another sign that deals and speech are being shaped in back rooms, not in open debate.

After questions surfaced, Carr defended the Paramount–Skydance approval as routine and good for the public. In an August 12, 2025 letter released by Reuters, he insisted the review followed standard FCC practice and that the endorsement “serves the public interest.” He rejected claims from Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal that the agency’s decisions were tied to payments to former President Donald Trump. Still, even a perfect paper process can look tainted when the official overseeing it took luxury gifts from the company seeking approval. Many Americans have seen this pattern before: whether under Republican or Democratic administrations, big corporations hire lobbyists, fund galas, and find ways to get close to regulators, while average citizens struggle to get anyone in Washington to answer an email. The result is a deep, bipartisan frustration that the “public interest” has become a slogan, not a serious standard.

Repealing the 39% Cap and the Bigger Fight Over Who Owns the News

At the same time these gift stories emerged, Carr has been leading a charged effort to repeal the 39% national TV ownership cap, a rule that limits how much of the country’s audience any one broadcast group can reach. Under current FCC guidance, a single company can own many stations nationwide, as long as its outlets reach no more than 39% of United States TV households. Carr announced plans for an August 6 vote to scrap that hard limit and replace it with a case‑by‑case review of large deals. Industry groups like the National Association of Broadcasters argue the FCC has full legal authority to repeal the rule and say a broad coalition of broadcasters supports ending the cap so they can grow and “compete” in today’s media market. To everyday viewers, however, killing the cap likely means more consolidation, fewer independent local voices, and more power concentrated in a handful of national corporations tied to whichever party controls Washington.

FCC to repeal 39% TV ownership cap in boost for Trump-friendly news organizationshttps://t.co/HFRTveoq9X

— Annie van Leur (@AnnevanLeur) July 15, 2026

Legal scholars and lawmakers are sharply split over whether the FCC even has the right to erase the cap, and their fight underlines how complex laws can still be bent toward the powerful. The National Association of Broadcasters claims the commission’s statutes let it repeal the ownership rule and cites Section 629(3) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act as leaving that authority intact. Former FCC general counsel Thomas Johnson has testified that the commission can revisit and remove its own rules under its mandate. On the other side, the American Television Alliance’s white paper argues the text, structure, and history of the law “leave the FCC no room” to revise or waive the 39% cap. Yale scholar Lawrence Spiwak says Congress clearly stripped the FCC’s power to change the limit, and Representative Frank Pallone has warned Carr that trying to eliminate the cap “violates law.” As this legal clash heads toward possible court review, ordinary Americans see yet another example of a system where big‑money lawyers argue over commas in statutes while the practical result is simple: larger companies gain more control over what goes on the air, and citizens have less say.