Bill to protect state parks from development clears first hurdle in Florida Legislature
A multitude of conservation groups stood with state Sen. Gayle Harrell Tuesday as she introduced a bill to protect Florida's award-winning state parks from development such as golf courses, tennis courts and luxury lodges.
The Senate's Environment and Natural Resources Committee cleared the measure with a unanimous vote; the bill (SB 80, the State Parks Preservation Act) has two more committees before it can be introduced on the Senate floor.
Harrell, a Stuart Republican, filed the bill in response to "The Great Outdoors Initiative" that the state's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) released last summer. After protests against the plan erupted across the state in August, Gov. Ron DeSantis shelved it.
Harrell's legislation came as a stunning GOP rebuke to the DeSantis administration's idea, released last year, of conservation-based recreation.
It proposed a golf course at Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County, 350-room luxury lodges at Anastasia State Park in St. Johns County and Topsail Hill Preserve State Park in Walton County, along with a flying disc course at the Alfred B. Maclay Gardens State Park in Tallahassee.
They'd all be forbidden at state parks under Harrell's bill. DeSantis has said the plan "was leaked. It was never approved by me. I never saw that ... If people don't want improvements, then don't do it."
Her measure ensures, Harrell told fellow lawmakers, 'that we are preserving our state parks for what they were originally intended for' and 'clearly defines conservation-based public outdoor recreational uses.'
State Rep. John Snyder, R-Stuart, has filed an identical bill (HB 209) in the House. There, it's been assigned to the Natural Resources & Disasters Subcommittee and State Affairs Committee; it's not yet been heard in either.
The legislation sets mandates for DEP management of 175 state parks, creating a straitjacket for park management in which the department is able only to promote traditional recreational activities and amenities, which it defines.
It also requires input from local advisory groups and written management plans every ten years. At least two public hearings will be held while the management plan is developed.
The plans include components that park managers will have to develop: Habitat restoration, hydrological preservation, cultural and historic resources audits, and habitat enhancements for imperiled species.
A representative for Audubon Florida, a conservation group that helped create the first state park in 1916 (Royal Park, now part of the Everglades National Park), said the measure provides guardrails for parks management, updates management practices, and 'ensures transparencies and opportunities for (public) participation."
'It draws a bright line between uses that are and are not appropriate for these vulnerable lands,' Beth Alvi said.
The only objections raised during Tuesday's meeting came from supporters who said, although well meaning, the bill did not go far enough to protect the state's parks. Indeed, more than 60 environmental groups called on Harrell and Snyder to strengthen their proposal.
Gil Smart, a director of Friends of the Everglades, said he fears loopholes for parks to be exploited could be created if the Legislature tries to list every prohibited use: 'We can't possibly list every inappropriate use, but we can cover our bases by explicitly stating we will not permit uses that disturb and harm the resources of our state parks,' Smart said.
The bill must go before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Agriculture, Environment, and General Government and Fiscal Policy Committee. Dates for those hearings have not yet been set.
The 2025 regular legislative session starts March 4.
James Call is a member of the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida Capital Bureau. He can be reached at jcall@tallahassee.com and is on X as @CallTallahassee.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Bill to protect Florida state parks from development gets first OK
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
21 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump-Musk Alliance Unravels Over ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
(Bloomberg) -- From the moment Donald Trump and Elon Musk joined forces, betting in Washington held that the president's bond with the First Buddy who bankrolled his comeback election win wouldn't last. ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars The breakup finally arrived this week, an escalating tit-for-tat between the world's richest man and the president of the US, who spent much of Thursday sniping at one another via social media posts and cameras in the Oval Office. Speaking to reporters, Trump pronounced himself 'very disappointed' in Musk over the billionaire's harsh criticism of a Republican tax and spending bill. Posting on X, his social media platform, Musk declared that Trump wouldn't have won a second term without his help. 'Such ingratitude,' the Tesla Inc. and SpaceX CEO declared. For a rift that had seemed inevitable, the descent into public recrimination was startling, even by Trump's volatile standard, which often sees former allies and underlings cast aside without fanfare. Musk spent the early months of Trump's second term offering obsequious praise and absorbing some of the political backlash of the slashing budget cuts and employee firings that have been a pillar of Trump's agenda. Trump, meanwhile, had elevated Musk, a government novice in a temporary role, to a position of unprecedented breadth to reshape and unmake the entire federal bureaucracy, with only occasional checks from the agency heads actually confirmed by the Senate. But on Thursday, their blow-up found Trump accusing Musk of trying to tank the spending bill because its elimination of electric vehicle credits hurt Tesla's bottom line, while Musk took to social media posts to deny Trump's Oval Office comments and taunt the president with his own past postings. 'Where is this guy today??' Musk wrote. Musk went so far as to poll his social media followers about whether he should 'create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' Their relationship first blossomed at the height of the 2024 presidential campaign and deepened as Musk joined the new administration to slash the federal bureaucracy — a role that aligned with the tech titan's commercial interests and his politics with the philosophy of others in the incoming administration, like Russ Vought, the director of the Office and Management and Budget. But it unraveled this week over the unavoidable task of putting the administration's rhetoric about spending into practice, via a tax bill that's the centerpiece of Trump's domestic agenda. With posts on social media urging lawmakers to reject Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' Musk exposed a rupture that had been growing between him and the president for weeks, fueled at first by clashes with cabinet members over agency cuts and differences with the administration's sweeping tariff plans. Musk's public break with Trump threatens further fallout for the allies he helped to install in key positions across federal agencies during his time overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency that he prodded Trump to create. It also raises questions about whether the biggest billionaire spender of the 2024 election will remain a reliable source of campaign funding to sustain Republican control of the House in the midterm elections and to make permanent Trump's political movement. Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist who was deputized in 2017 to confront Musk about his demands for EV and battery mandates, said he cautioned Trump and his inner circle about the entrepreneur after the 2024 election. 'I warned people in the transition, this guy is unpredictable, immature and a narcissist, and he'd turn on anybody — including the president — when it suited him,' says Bannon, who has frequently criticized Musk on his 'War Room' podcast. Bannon says Musk's downfall from his status as 'Chief Buddy' was inevitable, because he could not produce the $1 trillion in budget cuts he claimed he could during the transition. 'He was too incompetent and lied about being able to find a trillion dollars of cuts in waste, fraud and abuse,' says Bannon. 'He misled everybody, including the president.' Trump's Orbit Administration officials who have bristled at Musk's power and bedside manner have been moving to reassert their influence in the executive branch since he announced his departure from DOGE, people familiar with the matter said. That includes the installation of a close associate of White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles as chief of staff at NASA – an agency that is crucial to SpaceX, a company that makes up a third of his net worth. People familiar with the matter said the withdrawal of the nomination of Jared Isaacman, a Musk ally who was poised to run the space agency, was driven by Sergio Gor – the director of the Presidential Personnel Office, with whom Musk had sparred during his DOGE tenure. 'A lot of Musk's power stemmed from the fact that he was seen as an extension of Trump,' said Stephen Myrow, who runs Beacon Policy Advisers. 'But now that there's distance between them, that power might be waning.' 'I always talk about the 'evolving orbit' around Trump – people are always drifting in and out,' Myrow added. 'I wouldn't say Musk's relationship with Trump is severed. But between Isaacman's nomination being pulled and his public criticisms of the tax bill, he looks to be in the waning phase of his orbit.' Earlier: Former NASA Nominee Suggests Ties to Musk Caused His Ouster A White House official in an email pointed to multiple past donations that Isaacman had made to Democrats, suggesting that was the reason his nomination was nixed. In a podcast interview Wednesday, Isaacman said he didn't believe that was the reason, given the information had long been publicly available. 'President Trump is the ultimate decision maker on who has the privilege of serving in his historic administration,' White House spokesperson Liz Huston said. 'Any claims to the contrary are completely false.' Musk didn't respond to a message seeking comment. On X, his social media platform, one user said Isaacman's removal was a 'gut punch for the space agency,' to which Musk responded with a '100' emoji, indicating he agreed 100%. 'At Great Personal Cost' The fissure caps a roller-coaster 11 months from Musk's endorsement of Trump in July of 2024. Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Trump and Republicans in 2024, and when the once and future president defeated Kamala Harris in November's election, he turned to Musk to lead an effort to slash the size and scope of government. Musk scythed through the federal bureaucracy while Trump unleashed a flurry of executive actions, each seeking to dismantle the administrative state at what the White House came to call 'Trump speed.' Yet swift progress on conservative priorities came with a price tag for Musk, who has seen his own net worth plummet in part because of reputational tarnish at home and abroad from his political actions and affiliation with Trump. Musk's net worth — much of it tied to the performance of Tesla — has dropped an estimated $64.1 billion so far this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Billionaires Index. It's the largest on-paper loss of any of the world's 500 richest people. And now, on his top political focus point of deficit reduction, any success Musk can claim — achieved, in his own words, 'at great personal cost and risk' — may be drowned out by the president's own signature legislation. The Congressional Budget Office projected that the House-passed tax and spending bill at the center of Trump's legislative agenda would add more than $2.4 trillion to US budget deficits over the next 10 years, slashing revenues by $3.67 trillion while only cutting spending by $1.25 trillion. That's way above even DOGE's most optimistic savings estimates. Its government website listing estimated savings states that DOGE has saved taxpayers about $180 billion year-to-date. However its 'Wall of Receipts' — a line-by-line list of contracts, grants and leases canceled since Inauguration Day — only accounts for less than half of that number. Adding to the risk for Musk's bottom line, Trump's bill would wipe out some valuable tax incentives that bolster his own companies. Musk personally appealed to House Speaker Mike Johnson to save tax credits for electric vehicles, according to a person familiar with the matter, but ultimately lost that fight. In an interview with Bloomberg Television on Thursday, Johnson did not confirm whether Musk had approached him over the credits, but said the two would speak later in the day, adding that Musk seems 'pretty dug in right now, and I can't quite understand the motivation behind it.' Musk's criticism of the spending package built slowly. On Tuesday, however, Musk lashed out, posting on his social media platform, X, that the bill was 'pork-filled' and 'a disgusting abomination.' Adding insult to injury for the White House, Musk has embraced the very argument that the administration has been trying to combat, noting the bill would significantly widen the federal budget deficit. By Wednesday afternoon, Musk was posting about 'debt slavery' and sharing an image of Uma Thurman holding a samurai sword — the poster for the film 'Kill Bill.' Widening Rift The rift between the two billionaire showmen — each renowned for seeking out the spotlight, and not for sharing it — had seemed to be widening for a while. Even as Musk embraced his DOGE role and continued making periodic appearances at the White House, he broke with some of Trump's policies. Musk has criticized tariffs, the primary tool in Trump's economic agenda, but one that has shown the potential for massive disruption in markets Musk moves in, including those for batteries critical to the fate of Tesla's automotive and energy units. An outside Trump adviser said the president remained furious about an incident, reported by The New York Times, in which Musk angled to obtain a classified briefing from the Pentagon about the upshot of a war with China, where Musk has extensive economic interests, especially via Tesla. As public furor grew over DOGE's unilateral cuts to federal agencies, Trump publicly reined Musk in, asserting that cabinet officials would have final say over proposed reductions. In a May 20 appearance at the Qatar Economic Forum, Musk told Bloomberg's Mishal Husain he intended to pull back from political giving, only months after spending nearly $300 million to boost Trump's successful campaign for the White House. Sour Taste Behind the scenes, Musk's sojourn through the West Wing left a sour taste for some officials, according to the outside adviser and one person within the administration. The outside adviser particularly noted Musk's brusque treatment of Wiles, who managed Trump's victorious campaign before joining the administration. It was a longtime Wiles ally, Brian Hughes, who was sent to serve as NASA chief of staff, a position from which he could serve as a check in an agency that is central to SpaceX's fortunes. A senior White House official said Wiles and Musk had a cordial and collaborative relationship, and that the chief of staff met weekly with the tech entrepreneuer as he led DOGE. The official said Hughes had long wanted to work at NASA, and that his placement there was not an effort to keep tabs on Musk and SpaceX. A person familiar with SpaceX discounted the chance that bad blood between Musk and Trump would have an immediate negative effect on the company, because it has carved out such a dominant position in the launch business even as corporate rivals have struggled. But the person said there is frustration that the company's brand has been damaged, first with Democrats who were appalled by Musk's embrace of Trump and DOGE's tactics, and now with Trump supporters in Washington, who will likely side with the president over Musk. But Musk's time with Trump has already yielded benefits in other ways, said Myrow, especially in areas where the administration or DOGE pulled the plug on aspects of the regulatory state that had previously tangled with his companies. 'For Musk personally, the SEC stuff went away,' Myrow said, referring to Securities and Exchange Commission investigations. 'And he's long wanted to turn X into an 'everything app,' and now a lot of the regulations that would have inhibited that are going away.' --With assistance from Nancy Cook, Erik Wasson, Annmarie Hordern, Lisa Abramowicz, Michael Shepard and Derek Wallbank. (Updates with Musk, Trump remarks in paragraphs 3, 6; Bannon remarks in paragraphs 12-14) Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. 'I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,' state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. 'We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.' Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the '60 Minutes' interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. 'This is a really important case,' said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. 'Legislators are starting to raise alarms.' But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. 'We would have to have a lot more facts,' Cummings said. 'Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.' Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the '60 Minutes' edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. 'If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law.' Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay 'a lot' of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. 'You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,' Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a '60 Minutes' interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show 'Face the Nation' used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, '60 Minutes' aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered 'mental anguish' as a result of the interview. CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team 'essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,' Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS '60 Minutes' lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is 'because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,' said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. 'This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,' Stern said. Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. 'The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,' Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. 'If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests.' UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could 'legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities,' Cummings said. 'He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' ' 'Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,' Cummings said.
