This is very interesting on multiple levels.

The first level is that AT&T has been donating large sums to various non-profits, apparently in exchange for their favorable "public comments" to the FCC on issues of interest to AT&T, in this case a merger.

Politico ran a piece last week examining progressive non-profits that received AT&T donations.

Some of them, including GLAAD, then wrote in support of the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, and in the case of GLAAD, wrote to the FCC opposing possible net neutrality rules.

GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios resigned moments ago.

Its interesting that the views of a group like GLAAD would have an impact on a question like this - it goes to show you the amount of influence that the feelings of a politically active constituent group can have. Is it possible that the merger (a business transaction) could be held up if GLADD said that they don't like AT&T for reasons that have nothing to do with the legality of the merger?

The FCC wants views from the public on its regulatory decisions. The real public is largely uninformed on these issues. So the companies are out corralling "commentary" which comes from the leaders of public constituent groups - a class of people who are as abstracted from the real "public" as the politicians themselves, and clearly subject to the same influences.

Would this make sense from a governance standpoint if these groups were not taking money from the organizations that have stakes in these decisions? Do we want GLAAD (and other, similar organizations) commenting on FCC issues as a way of ensuring that someone is paying attention?

Its interesting how Net Neutrality played into this. AT&T seems to have tricked GLAAD into submitting an anti-net neutrality letter to the FCC. This ticked off liberal activists and was the smoking gun that led to the unraveling of this particular relationship. Although I see net neutrality as a mostly phoney political issue I have to admit that it was useful here.

However, I'm not sure exactly what the solution is. Clearly GLAAD's membership should have been better informed that GLAAD was commenting on issues like this, and what GLAAD's positions were.

Should community advocacy groups refuse to accept corporate money?

This is literally a "money where your mouth is" kind of question for those who are interested in campaign finance reform. Could you do all that "great work" you are doing influencing the system if you were only funded by the actual constituents you represent?

That is a challenging question.