Sen. John Kennedy slams FCC over hurried approval of Soros massive radio station takeover

U.S. Sen. John Kennedy took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew questions about the Biden Federal Communications Commission’s approval of a deal for far-left activist financier George Soros to acquire more than 200 stations at once

Republican U.S. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana took to the Senate floor Tuesday to renew questions about the Biden Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) approval of a deal for far-left activist financier George Soros to acquire more than 200 stations at once, declaring something “weird” expedited the review.

In February 2024, Soros purchased $400 million of debt for Audacy, the second largest radio station owner (behind iHeartMedia) in the nation. Soros invested in the company after it filed for bankruptcy the month before with nearly $2 billion in debts. The investment comes with a yield of 50 cents on the dollar after the company emerges from bankruptcy, pending approval by a bankruptcy court of the company’s restructuring plan. Audacy stations carry the top names in conservative punditry, including Sean Hannity, Dana Loesch, Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, and Erick Erickson.

In September, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr testified before the House Oversight Committee that “the FCC is not following its normal process for reviewing transactions that it has established over a number of years. It seems to me the FCC is poised, for the first time, to create an entirely new shortcut.”

The New York Post added at the time that Carr told them “the Democrats in FCC leadership cut a secret, backroom deal – one that kept the Republican FCC Commissioners and perhaps others completely in the dark – and then hustled it out the door on a Friday afternoon” in a 3-2 party-line vote. The FCC approved the deal in October, with congressional Republicans vowing to investigate.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Kennedy began by recalling former President Joe Biden’s Farewell Address warning that “an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.”

Kennedy said he did not know which “oligarchs” Biden had in mind, but that Soros fit the description. He went on to detail how Soros took advantage of Audacy filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and became the majority shareholder, which triggered an FCC review process.

Approval of the deal, he said in his trademark style, “went through the FCC like green grass through a goose,” and Democrat commissioners “short-circuited” the normal review process.

“I’m not an FCC expert. I’m not a communications law expert,” Kennedy said. “But I’ve read, this has been widely reported and I’ve read about it in many reports. Normally on a deal of this size, when 220 radio stations are being transferred, their licenses, using airwaves that belong to the American people, and there’s a substantial percentage of foreign owners, it would take about a year to get through the FCC. FCC would do a complete investigation. Not this time! Noooo. This time was special.”

“Pass me the sick bucket,” Kennedy said after reviewing past commentary by Carr and others about the deal. “This isn’t right! But they did it. Now, this is America. You’re entitled to believe what you want. If it’s legal, you’re entitled to do what you want. And Mr. Soros is certainly entitled to his opinion. He is. I don’t agree with him, but he is certainly entitled to it in America. I’m not much into this cancel culture. And hopefully we’ve seen the end of it.”

“I am not saying it wasn’t done legally,” Kennedy concluded. “I am saying it looks funny. Not funny ha-ha. It looks weird the way this was done. It has the aroma of politics. And I hope the new FCC revisits this issue.”

Soros’ takeover of so many stations is alarming as the latest display of his willingness to use his vast wealth to influence American politics. A small sampling of the causes the billionaire has financed includes promoting legal abortion-on-demand worldwide under the guise of “reproductive health care;” supporting the election of district attorneys friendly to his politics in localities across the United States; pushing a “racial justice” agenda, including the narrative that America is systemically racist and promoting policies such as reparations for slavery; subsidizing “fact-checking” enterprises that attempt to discredit conservative media outlets under false pretenses, and funding Democrat political candidates.

In 2023, local news outlet Maine Public reported that the Soros-backed National Trust had gained control of Maine’s largest network of newspapers, acquiring five daily papers and 17 weekly publications. The National Trust received funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundation and left-wing Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss for the purchase of the media network.

Carr, who has since been appointed FCC chairman by President Donald Trump, is expected to investigate the deal.

Related Topics:#CalvinFreiburger #LifeSiteNews FCCSorosApproval SenatorJohnKennedy SorosAudacy SorosBuys200RadioStations

Up Next

Alaska, Florida and Louisiana Purchase show US offer to pay for Greenland makes sense

Don't Miss

The ESG Collapse: Al Gore, Intel, BlackRock, and the Failed Promise of “Sustainable” Investing

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

Business / 4 hours ago

Canadians paid $90 billion in government debt interest in 2024/25

Alberta / 7 hours ago

From Underdog to Top Broodmare

Business

Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

Published on October 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

There are ostensibly two approaches to economic growth from a government policy perspective. The first is to create the best environment possible for entrepreneurs, business owners and investors by ensuring effective government that only does what’s needed, maintains competitive taxes and reasonable regulations. It doesn’t try to pick winners and losers but rather introduces policies to create a positive environment for all businesses to succeed.

The alternative is for the government to take an active role in picking winners and losers through taxes, spending and regulations. The idea here is that a government can promote certain companies and industries (as part of a larger “industrial policy”) better than allowing the market—that is, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and investors—to make those decisions.

It’s never purely one or the other but governments tend to generally favour one approach. The Trudeau era represented a marked break from the consensus that existed for more than two decades prior. Trudeau’s Ottawa introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the government termed the “green” economy.

The scope and cost of the policies introduced to actively pick winners and losers is hard to imagine given its breadth. Direct spending on the “green” economy by the federal government increased from $600 million the year before Trudeau took office (2014/15) to $23.0 billion last year (2024/25).

Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects (Bill C-69), banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia (Bill C-48), proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.

Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs.

Consider the share of the total economy in 2014 linked with the “green” sector, a term used by Statistics Canada in its measurement of economic output, was 3.1 per cent. In 2023, the green economy represented 3.6 per cent of the Canadian economy, not even a full one-percentage point increase despite the spending and regulating.

And Ottawa’s initiatives did not deliver the green jobs promised. From 2014 to 2023, only 68,000 jobs were created in the entire green sector, and the sector now represents less than 2 per cent of total employment.

Canada’s economic performance cratered in line with this new approach to economic growth. Simply put, rather than delivering the promised prosperity, it delivered economic stagnation. Consider that Canadian living standards, as measured by per-person GDP, were lower as of the second quarter of 2025 compared to six years ago. In other words, we’re poorer today than we were six years ago. In contrast, U.S. per-person GDP grew by 11.0 per cent during the same period.

Median wages (midpoint where half of individuals earn more, and half earn less) in every Canadian province are now lower than comparable median wages in every U.S. state. Read that again—our richest provinces now have lower median wages than the poorest U.S. states.

A significant part of the explanation for Canada’s poor performance is the collapse of private business investment. Simply put, businesses didn’t invest much in Canada, particularly when compared to the United States, and this was all pre-Trump tariffs. Canada’s fundamentals and the general business environment were simply not conducive to private-sector investment.

These results stand in stark contrast to the prosperity enjoyed by Canadians during the Chrétien to Harper years when the focus wasn’t on Ottawa picking winners and losers but rather trying to establish the most competitive environment possible to attract and retain entrepreneurs, businesses, investors and high-skilled professionals. The policies that dominated this period are the antithesis of those in place now: balanced budgets, smaller but more effective government spending, lower and competitive taxes, and smart regulations.

As the Carney government prepares to present its first budget to the Canadian people, many questions remain about whether there will be a genuine break from the policies of the Trudeau government or whether it will simply be the same old same old but dressed up in new language and fancy terms. History clearly tells us that when governments try to pick winners and losers, the strategy doesn’t lead to prosperity but rather stagnation. Let’s all hope our new prime minister knows his history and has learned its lessons.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Business

Canadians paid $90 billion in government debt interest in 2024/25

Published on October 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss, Tegan Hill and William Dunstan

Next week, the Carney government will table its long-awaited first budget. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Carney launched a federal spending review to find $25 billion in savings by 2028. Even if the government meets this goal, it won’t be enough to eliminate the federal deficit—projected to reach as high as $92.2 billion in 2025/26—and start paying down debt. That means a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars will continue to flow towards federal debt interest payments, rather than programs and services or tax relief for Canadians.

When a government spends more than it raises in revenue and runs a budget deficit, it accumulates debt. As of 2024/25, the federal and provincial governments will have accumulated a total projected $2.3 trillion in combined net debt (total debt minus financial assets).

Of course, like households, governments must pay interest on their debt. According to our recent study, the provinces and federal government expect to spend a combined $92.5 billion on debt interest payments in 2024/25.

And like any government spending, taxpayers fund these debt interest payments. The difference is that instead of funding important programs, such as health care, these taxpayer dollars will finance government debt. This is the cost of deficit spending.

How much do Canadians pay each year in government debt interest costs? On a per-person basis, combined provincial and federal debt interest costs in 2024/25 are expected to range from $1,937 in Alberta to $3,432 in Newfoundland and Labrador. These figures represent provincial debt interest costs, plus the federal portion allocated to each province based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their share of Canada’s population.

For perspective, it’s helpful to compare debt interest payments to other budget items. For instance, the federal government estimates that in 2024/25 it will spend more on debt interest costs ($53.8 billion) than on child-care benefits ($35.1 billion) or the Canada Health Transfer ($52.1 billion), which supports provincial health-care systems.

Provincial governments too spend more money on interest payments than on large programs. For example, in 2024/25, Ontario expects to spend more on debt interest payments ($15.2 billion) than on post-secondary education ($14.2 billion). That same year, British Columbia expects to spend more on debt interest payments ($4.4 billion) than on child welfare ($4.3 billion).

Unlike other forms of spending, governments cannot simply decide to spend less on debt interest payments in a given year. To lower their debt interest payments, governments must rein in spending and eliminate deficits so they can start to pay down debt.

Unfortunately, most governments in Canada are doing the opposite. All but one province (Saskatchewan) plans to run a deficit in 2025/26 while the federal deficit could exceed $90 billion.

To stop racking up debt, governments must balance their budgets. By spending less today, governments can ensure that a larger share of tax dollars go towards programs or tax relief to benefit Canadians rather than simply financing government debt.