Lawmakers investigate Soros ‘shortcut’ to buying radio stations before election

The U.S. House Oversight Committee is investigating why the Federal Communications Commission fast-tracked a deal that allowed a billionaire Democratic donor to buy a wide swath of American radio stations just weeks before the presidential election.

The major radio company Audacy Inc. fell into financial straits, but through a complex business deal Democratic mega donor and billionaire George Soros has gained control of the stations. Deals of this size require FCC approval, but in this case the FCC expedited the approval process.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr raised concerns about the deal at a Congressional hearing, telling lawmakers that “… the FCC is not following its normal process for reviewing a transaction.”

“We have established over a number of years one way in which you can get approval from the FCC when you have an excess of 25 percent foreign ownership, which this transaction does,” Carr said. ““It seems to me that the FCC is poised to create, for the first time, an entirely new shortcut.”

House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. and Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-N.Y., sent a letter to FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel Friday raising concerns about the deal.

“Despite the unprecedented nature of this action, the FCC majority has apparently decided to approve licenses on an accelerated timeframe for a company in which George Soros has a major ownership stake, and with stations in 40 media markets reaching ‘more than 165 million Americans,’” the letter said. “By all appearances, the FCC majority isn’t just expediting, but is bypassing an established process to do a favor for George Soros and facilitate his influence over hundreds of radio stations before the November election.”

Critics of the deal say it gives too much power to a heavily political, and liberal, billionaire just before the election.

“I have no idea why Soros would do this unless it was to manipulate the thinking of Americans and the information they listen to,” author and former member of the George W. Bush administration Mike Gonzalez told The Center Square.

“Conservative talk radio is huge, and there is no left wing talk radio because it’s just not interesting,” said Gonzalez, who is now at the Heritage Foundation. “Conservative talk radio is one of the few communications that conservatives have not a monopoly on but have a strong handle on, and he has bought stations that have Mark Levin and Sean Hannity and Dana Loesch and Glenn Beck.”

Critics also point out that Soros’ business partners in the deal include significant funding from sources overseas.

“The Audacy, Inc. deal, which will lead to Audacy, Inc. being partially ‘directly or indirectly controlled’ by foreign individuals or entities holding ‘more than one-fourth of the capital stock’ will require FCC approval to determine whether ‘the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license,’” the letter said. “In carrying out this statutory mandate under the Communications Act, FCC has years-long established processes and procedures for adjudicating broadcast licenses in such situations, most recently updated in 2016.”

Other wealthy media owners have faced scrutiny for potential abuse of their ownership power, such as billionaire Jeff Bezos when he purchased the Washington Post. However, Soros’ influence over so many radio stations may have even more influence over the country than one of the major papers, which Americans usually see as having a certain political leaning.

Soros is one of the most strategic and prolific funders of liberal organizations in the U.S.

“I don’t know why else he would plunk a pile of money this size unless it was to try to have influence over the thinking of Americans,” Gonzalez continued, adding that “this guy is committed to left-wing causes.”

Casey Harper

D.C. Bureau Reporter

Up Next

Elon Musk’s X Set to Reboot in Brazil After Final Fine Payment

Don't Miss

Israeli Airstrike In Beirut Kills Hezbollah Leader Hassan Nasrallah

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

Johns Hopkins University Announces Free Tuition For Most Students

Business / 2 hours ago

Parliamentary Budget Officer begs Carney to cut back on spending

Education / 2 hours ago

Why classroom size isn’t the issue teacher unions think it is

Education

Johns Hopkins University Announces Free Tuition For Most Students

Published on November 14, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jaryn Crouson

Johns Hopkins University (JHU) announced on Thursday it is making tuition free for families earning less than $200,000 and will waive both tuition and living expenses for those making less than $100,000.

The university stated that “a majority of American families” will qualify for the fee exemption, allowing most students to attend without contributing a single dollar. The decision is meant to help recruit “the best and brightest students to Johns Hopkins irrespective of their financial wherewithal.”

“Trying to understand financial aid offers can be overwhelming,” David Phillips, vice provost for admissions and financial aid at JHU, said in the announcement. “A big goal here is to simplify the process. We especially want to reach students and families from disadvantaged backgrounds, rural locations, and small towns across America who may not know that a Hopkins degree is within reach.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

In 2018, Michael Bloomberg donated nearly $2 billion to the university, the largest ever single gift to a U.S. university. JHU said it used this money “to become permanently need blind and no-loan in financial aid.”

The university also receives the most federal funding of any university, raking in more than $3 billion from the government in fiscal year 2023 for research and development alone. This is more than double what the next highest recipient of federal funding that year, the University of Washington, received.

Despite this, JHU in June complained that federal funding cuts forced it to institute a hiring freeze and pause annual pay increases for employees. In its message to the community at the time, the university also mentioned its disagreement with “recent efforts to limit or withhold visas from the international students and scholars.”

Some universities admit mass numbers of foreign students in order to pad their pockets, as such students often pay full tuition and fee costs without financial assistance.

Censorship Industrial Complex

EU’s “Democracy Shield” Centralizes Control Over Online Speech

Published on November 14, 2025

Todayville

By Christina Maas

Presented as a defense of democracy, the plan reads more like the architecture of a managed reality.

European authorities have finally unveiled the “European Democracy Shield,” we’ve been warning about for some time, a major initiative that consolidates and broadens existing programs of the European Commission to monitor and restrict digital information flows.

Though branded as a safeguard against “foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI)” and “disinformation,” the initiative effectively gives EU institutions unprecedented authority over the online public sphere.

At its core, the framework fuses a variety of mechanisms into a single structure, from AI-driven content detection and regulation of social media influencers to a state-endorsed web of “fact-checkers.”

The presentation speaks of defending democracy, yet the design reveals a machinery oriented toward centralized control of speech, identity, and data.

One of the more alarming integrations links the EU’s Digital Identity program with content filtering and labelling systems.

The Commission has announced plans to “explore possible further measures with the Code’s signatories,” including “detection and labelling of AI-generated and manipulated content circulating on social media services” and “voluntary user-verification tools.”

Officials describe the EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet as a means for “secure identification and authentication.”

In real terms, tying verified identity to online activity risks normalizing surveillance and making anonymity in expression a thing of the past.

The Democracy Shield also includes the creation of a “European Centre for Democratic Resilience,” led by Justice Commissioner Michael McGrath.

Framed as a voluntary coordination hub, its mission is “building capacities to withstand foreign information manipulation and interference (FIMI) and disinformation,” involving EU institutions, Member States, and “neighboring countries and like-minded partners.”

The Centre’s “Stakeholder Platform” is to unite “trusted stakeholders such as civil society organizations, researchers and academia, fact-checkers and media providers.”

In practice, this structure ties policymaking, activism, and media oversight into one cooperative network, eroding the boundaries between government power and public discourse.

Financial incentives reinforce the system. A “European Network of Fact-Checkers” will be funded through EU channels, positioned as independent yet operating within the same institutional framework that sets the rules.

The network will coordinate “fact-checking” in every EU language, maintain a central database of verdicts, and introduce “a protection scheme for fact-checkers in the EU against threats and harassment.”

Such an arrangement destroys the line between independent verification and state-aligned narrative enforcement.

The Commission will also fund a “common research support framework,” giving select researchers privileged access to non-public platform data via the

Digital Services Act (DSA) and Political Advertising Regulation.

Officially, this aims to aid academic research, but it could also allow state-linked analysts to map, classify, and suppress online viewpoints deemed undesirable.

Plans extend further into media law. The European Commission intends to revisit the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to ensure “viewers – particularly younger ones – are adequately protected when they consume audiovisual content online.”

While framed around youth protection, such language opens the door to broad filtering and regulation of online media.

Another initiative seeks to enlist digital personalities through a “voluntary network of influencers to raise awareness about relevant EU rules, including the DSA.” Brussels will “consider the role of influencers” during its upcoming AVMSD review.

Though presented as transparent outreach, the move effectively turns social media figures into de facto promoters of official EU messaging, reshaping public conversation under the guise of awareness.

The Shield also introduces a “Digital Services Act incidents and crisis protocol” between the EU and signatories of the Code of Practice on Disinformation to “facilitate coordination among relevant authorities and ensure swift reactions to large-scale and potentially transnational information operations.”

This could enable coordinated suppression of narratives across borders. Large platforms exceeding 45 million EU users face compliance audits, with penalties reaching 6% of global revenue or even platform bans, making voluntary cooperation more symbolic than real.

A further layer comes with the forthcoming “Blueprint for countering FIMI and disinformation,” offering governments standardized guidance to “anticipate, detect and respond” to perceived information threats. Such protocols risk transforming free expression into a regulated domain managed under preemptive suspicion.

Existing structures are being fortified, too. The European Digital Media Observatory (EDMO), already central to “disinformation” monitoring, will receive expanded authority for election and crisis surveillance. This effectively deepens the fusion of state oversight and online communication control.

Funding through the “Media Resilience Programme” will channel EU resources to preferred outlets, while regulators examine ways to “strengthen the prominence of media services of general interest.”

This includes “impact investments in the news media sector” and efforts to build transnational platforms promoting mainstream narratives. Though described as supporting “independent and local journalism,” the model risks reinforcing state-aligned voices while sidelining dissenting ones.

Education and culture are not exempt. The Commission plans “Guidelines for teachers and educators on tackling disinformation and promoting digital literacy through education and training,” along with new “media literacy” programs and an “independent network for media literacy.”

While such initiatives appear benign, they often operate on the assumption that government-approved information is inherently trustworthy, conditioning future generations to equate official consensus with truth.

Viewed as a whole, the European Democracy Shield represents a major institutional step toward centralized narrative management in the European Union.

Under the language of “protection,” Brussels is constructing a comprehensive apparatus for monitoring and shaping the flow of information.

For a continent that once defined itself through open debate and free thought, this growing web of bureaucratic control signals a troubling shift.

Efforts framed as defense against disinformation now risk becoming tools for suppressing dissent, a paradox that may leave European democracy less free in the name of making it “safe.”

Become a Supporter

You read Reclaim The Net because you believe in something deeper than headlines; you believe in the enduring values of free speech, individual liberty, and the right to privacy.

Every issue we publish is part of a larger fight: preserving the principles that built this country and protecting them from erosion in the digital age.

With your help, we can do more than simply hold the line: we can push back. We can shine a light on censorship, expose growing surveillance overreach, and give a voice to those being silenced.

If you’ve found any value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.

Your support helps us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this work.

Please become a supporter today.

Thank you for your support.