FCC Commissioner Leaves To Become Lobbyist 309
An anonymous reader writes "Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the FCC Commissioners, is leaving the FCC to become a lobbyist for Comcast-NBC, just four months after approving their merger deal. She refused to put any significant conditions on the merger, saying that the deal would 'bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms.' Comcast has released an official statement saying that, 'Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills.'"
Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe before she leaves she can put the stamp of approval on AT&T / T-Mobile as a fallback.
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't make talking illegal. (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you make lobbying illegal? Politicians need to be able to talk to people to do their job, so you can really ban lobbying. I think what you mean is lobbyists should be arrested because of all the shady, back room stuff they seem to do. I don't think the problem is that there aren't enough laws and regulations, so much as it is that the stakes are so high that no punitive measures are grave enough to discourage people from engaging in these kinds of activities. The only real solution is to not consolidate so much power and authority in one place. That would limit the scope of abuses, and it would reduce the rewards of engaging in this kind of behavior (which should reduce the number of people willing to participate in it).
you can make bribery illegal (Score:2)
oh, actually bribery is already illegal.
too bad the 'rule of law' doesnt apply to the friends of the powerful.
Re: (Score:3)
"Do this and I'll give you money." - illegal. "Do this and you can expect a hefty donation to your political campaign" - legal.
Re:You can't make talking illegal. (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you make lobbying illegal?
By making paid lobbying illegal.
Re:You can't make talking illegal. (Score:5, Interesting)
So only people who are unemployed can talk to politicians. Or do you want to make it illegal to give someone that particular job title? Do you see what I'm getting at?
I think you're being particularly obtuse. There is no reason that you can't give anyone any job title you like so long as they are not a government official. What laws should do is make it illegal for corporations and foreign governments and organizations receiving donations from either to contribute money to election funds; run political advertisements; or provide gifts, food, travel/travel expenses, entertainment, lodging, etc. to anyone in political office (elected or appointed) or to their relatives.
Sure you may not be able to ban individuals from going to visit congress critters and appointed officials, but you can sure as hell make them less likely to be received since they won't be bearing gifts or swaying an election in exchange for wink wink whatever. Sadly because of absurd Supreme Court rulings, such a law would most likely require a constitutional amendment, one that specifically states corporations are not individuals with the rights of individuals. I actually think this is doable as a grassroots reform movement and people could really get behind an independent party or group of politicians honestly trying to reform the laws and clean up the system. It certainly has popular support.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly because of absurd Supreme Court rulings, such a law would most likely require a constitutional amendment,
Or a new Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You can't make talking illegal. (Score:5, Interesting)
"Politicians need to be able to talk to people to do their job,... "
And they need paid lobbyists to do that?
Politicians may as well auction off their policy positions on their website...
"$10000 to my re-election fund bans toxic waste, Or not."
Anyway, that's besides the point. The simplest thing to do would in this case would be to ban any paid work (for a "cooling off" period) for any entity you had government authority over. This hiatus helps undue influence cool off, and hinders possible abuses of authority (Commissioner: "I am looking into your merger plans. By the way, does your firm hire lobbyists ... I'm thinking of a career shift in a few months". Company: "Uh, yes - you'll have to wait 2 years though". Commissioner:"Okkkay").
Re: (Score:3)
Anyway, that's besides the point. The simplest thing to do would in this case would be to ban any paid work (for a "cooling off" period) for any entity you had government authority over. This hiatus helps undue influence cool off, and hinders possible abuses of authority (Commissioner: "I am looking into your merger plans. By the way, does your firm hire lobbyists ... I'm thinking of a career shift in a few months". Company: "Uh, yes - you'll have to wait 2 years though". Commissioner:"Okkkay").
Doesn't work because the position becomes available for the spouse or children.
Commissioner: "I am looking into your merger plans. By the way does your firm hire lobbyists? I have a daughter who is interested in a career in lobbying..."
Company: "As it happens, yes we do and we have a position available for someone with your daughter's qualifications, and a salary of around..."
Commissioner: "I think she mentioned she was looking for a base salary of $250K"
Company: "I was just going to say $250K"
Commissioner:
Revolving Door (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Revolving Door (Score:5, Insightful)
We already do feel the effects. Higher prices, rubbish/no customer service, lack of a true open market, marketing/advertisers tracking everything you do.
When the laws have failed us I see no reason to abide by those laws. I now ignore any law created to protect corporations.
Oh, this does not smell of corruption AT ALL. (Score:2)
So, how many of her corrupt little lackeys are going with her?
The federal revolving door (Score:2)
Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
Corruption just seems to be getting more and more visible and obvious, and nobody with the power to stop it gives a damn.
Re:Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
No kidding. The fact that the DoJ isn't as we speak executing a search warrant on her offices, her home and of the corporate headquarters of Comcast-NBC as her and the CEO and board of director's legal teams are being instructed not to leave the country indicates just how pathetic the justice system has become, and just how willing the big players are to flaunt it.
Re:Corruption (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't have to come to that. It's shocking that this is allowed; it should be in the contract when you sign up to work for a public body like the FCC that you can't then work for any company whose business you were involved in for at least x years.
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely the opposite where individuals are recruited to the gov. positions (which may or may not have competitive compensation) with the promise that they'll land highly sought lobbying positions after.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tough call for me, as I'm an atheist.
Re: (Score:3)
Corruption just seems to be getting more and more visible and obvious, and nobody with the power to stop it gives a damn.
Correction: Those who have power to stop it are generally benefiting from the situation.
Fair enough. (Score:2)
Care to share any and all correspondence between you and Comcast/NBC during the merger review, Ms. Baker? Not that I'm suggesting you would ever trade your vote for a cushy job, just to put any unfortunate rumors to rest, you see...
Yeah, somehow I don't think that is going to happen.
Now where did I leave my pitchfork and torch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the Comcast/NBC merger is that big of a deal. A cable company acquired a 4th place network and a few channels with sinking ratings. I think it will have as little impact as when UPN/WB bankrupted themselves & created CW, or when Sirius XM merged. Little impact will be noticed.
I do however think Comcast needs to be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act, forced into regulation, and price fixed just like the electricity and water monopolies. They are a utility and should be treated as such
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you are right, corruption involving the fourth largest corporation isn't a big deal and we should just look the other way. This isn't about allowing or disallowing the merger, this is about perhaps taking a look into why the person responsible for the decision is taking a cushy job with the same entity shorty after green-lighting the merger.
Most bureaucrats are bought and sold (Score:3)
They either come from Corporations (which means they are biased in favor of their former boss) or they know that the job will eventually lead from government to a cushy corporate position, if they just brown nose enough (hand down the right decisions).
I still think the FCC's decision to allow Internet Devices to broadcast over top existing TV channels demonstrates they care more about pleasing their once-or-future bosses (Microsoft, Google, Apple, ATT, etc), even if it means blocking consumers ability to watch free TV.
FCC == corporate tool.
Weird Statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd for a lobbyist to say something like "bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms", which confirms they believe there is a potential for abuses. A statement like that practically begs for someone to ask what these benefits are exactly, that she was able to even make such a statement.
Re: (Score:2)
This is SO wrong.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If by 'Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills.' they mean that she accepts bribes, er, a job offer from the people she JUST granted a favor to, then, YES.
What a coincidence (Score:2)
Government is corrupt... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Government is corrupt like crazy"
no, not really. Over all it's pretty good. excellent compared to most, if not all, other governments on the planet.
It is complex, so people like you peek into a keyhole and then complain about things that don't 'make sense. Completely ignoring the fact that you only have a tiny view that's only bit's of other things,.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>excellent compared to most, if not all, other governments on the planet.
I really, really hate this argument. Just because our pile of manure has whipped cream on it, while the other governments are just plain manure, doesn't mean we have to call it "excellent".
If we compare our government today, to what it was in 1900, it's clear that we've gone downhill. In fact..... I'd say we fell off a cliff. Why should stop comparing ourselves to the other corrupt governments of the present, and instead
Re:Government is corrupt... (Score:5, Informative)
If we compare our government today, to what it was in 1900, it's clear that we've gone downhill.
You're right, if you look at the decade between 1900 and 1910. However, before that you had the Whiskey Ring and Tammany Hall, after that, you had the Newport Sex Scandal and Teapot Dome. The US government has never been completely free of corruption and harking back to some mythical "Golden Age" does no one any good. The only reason why things look worse now is that the dollar amounts have increased - but that's inflation for you...
Re: (Score:3)
17/150 on the http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm [worldaudit.org] scale not that bad but not as good as Canada or Sweden (and both country are corrupt as hell but not as much as they were 50 years ago)
Re: (Score:2)
The unemployed do not have last names.
We'd run out of first names fast
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, representing huge, powerful businesses that operate in their states, against interests of everyone else living in their states?
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: Meredith's dedication to serving us during her tenure as FCC Commissioner, and her willingness to betray every principle, ethical or moral, makes her a perfect fit for our corporate atmosphere, much as a piece of shit makes a perfect fit for a septic tank. We look forward to long years of benefiting from her betrayal of the American people.
Only for high officials (Score:5, Insightful)
When my father retired from NASA, he had to wait two years before he could work for anyone who did any business with NASA.
Apparently this sort of thing doesn't apply to political appointees.
LBJ much?
Re:Only for high officials (Score:5, Informative)
When my father retired from NASA, he had to wait two years before he could work for anyone who did any business with NASA. Apparently this sort of thing doesn't apply to political appointees.
Executive order number 2, from Obama's first day on the job, bans lobbying for 2 years by former members of the administration. So no, there is no law, but there is an order in place that gets anyone in the executive branch meeting with her to discuss changes to laws or policies fired.
Re:Only for high officials (Score:4, Insightful)
So, no lobbying the White House, but Congress is fair game.
Tells you a lot about Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words that XO is completely ineffective, since lawmakers don't work in the executive office, and she's free to Lobby congressmembers all she desires. Starting immediately.
Re:Only for high officials (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words that XO is completely ineffective, since lawmakers don't work in the executive office, and she's free to Lobby congressmembers all she desires. Starting immediately.
Not completely ineffective, just not as effective as we'd like. The next FCC commissioner, for example, cannot have her over to discuss what Comcast would like changed by the FCC. That is a real benefit. The problem being that most people don't give a damn and are too easily distracted by other issues so they don't vote out the corrupt legislators that don't pass a similar ban.
It is actually quite interesting. The so called Tea Party is a combination grassroots movement and lobbyist/PR firm funded movement that manages to focus completely on issues other than lobbying. This is an issue where the vast majority of Americans: Democrat, Republican, and independent are in agreement. Not many people think it should be legal for companies and foreign governments to give gifts to or meet with lawmakers or provide them with campaign funds. It's just that people are too distracted by other issues to gather together behind reform candidates and vote on it. There is some chance, this is the purpose of the Tea Party, to prevent a real grassroots movement that does end up rooting out corruption and banning most lobbying.
Re:Only for high officials (Score:5, Insightful)
The teabaggers are what the Soviets would have called useful idiots. They'll be baited along just like the Christian evangelicals, being told "if you'll just vote enough Republicans into office all your problems will go away!", and somehow never figuring out that they're being had.
Re: (Score:3)
So she can just sit on her butt for the first 2 years and collect a huge paycheck. She is still effectively taking a delayed bribe for granting a favor.
And in the meantime I am sure she can provide lots of juicy insider info about the FCC players (like who else would be willing to take a bribe). And she could direct a team of lobbyists as long as she didn't show up herself. And as other mentioned, she can still lobby congress, just not the executive branch.
Non-compete (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad testimonial to the lopsided state of our nation's political system when we need non-compete clauses for elected and appointed officials to prevent them from leaping to the Dark Side immediately after their terms end.
Re: (Score:2)
A requirement that meetings between lawmakers and lobbyists be recorded and available under FOIA would make such things moot.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wouldn't. Even if it occurred only as a synergistic (/sarcasm) accident, it's still highly unethical.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly we need to adopt some new criteria that prevent these pre-meditated unethical people from ever getting into elected or appointed positions in the first place. If not the equivalent of Minority Report tech, then at least a battery of old-fashioned lie detector tests....
Re: (Score:2)
So... Minority Report tech, then?
3...2...1.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The next sound you hear will be bunch of grandstanding Senators investigating her. Give it a week, 10 days tops.
This is plain and simple fraud.
"Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills." - means we bought the bitch a long time ago, we just are now taking possession.
Re:3...2...1.... (Score:5, Interesting)
They owned her before she was appointed. It was how she was selected to be appointed. She's not leaving anything. This is a promotion in the same de facto organization.
Oh get it over with. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Put it on the Nasdaq and give us all a bid.
Contact the commisioner (Score:2)
ask for an investigation. also, the attorney general.
Back to Basics (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How do you define lobbying? If you're talking about something to do with money and gifts, it's already illegal, but hard to enforce.
In the ordinary definition of the word, lobbying is "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances".
My press release (Score:4, Interesting)
For Immediate release
Comcast-NBC announced today that Meredith Attwell Baker is joining the company as a lobbyist.
In our previous professional dealings, the company has found Attwell Baker to be wide open to hard and long discussions. Though faced with difficult positions, Attwell Baker was always flexible and willing to prod new and unexplored avenues. The drippings of our mutual efforts leave a permanent mark on the fabric of America and its citizens.
Comcast-NBC will introduce Attwell Baker Thursday morning. Just as soon as she cleans her chin.
Whore. (Score:2)
P.J. O'Rourke said... (Score:3)
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators."
What's really funny is that the people who want the government involved in everything are the same who act outraged when the inevitable corruption follows.
somewhat agree hwoever (Score:2)
do you think there should be no regulation? there is a reason the FDA was created; people were dying from bad products being sold.
in China there's no FDA - instead they take the guy pointing out the baby-milk scandal and put him in prison for several years.
(Zhao Lianhai).
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to the cancer patients that are dying because they're denied access to experimental treatments? The FDA cuts both ways, and it's not at all clear to me that it's a net win, especially when you consider where health care could be if it were allowed to flourish like the computer industry.
Re: (Score:2)
PJ was making a joke. I think that even he knows that when buying and selling are not controlled by laws, the first things bought and sold are human beings.
Let's not fight THAT war again...
Re: (Score:2)
He was making a joke, yes- that's what he does. But that line reflects his (and my) actual views on the subject. Laws can set the general rules (eg. no fraud), but they can't get into the specifics of individual deals without inviting corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
Without regulations, companies don't compete. They collude.
We know this from experience. Companies will work with each other and create monopolies to fix prices and exploit consumers. This already happens to a large extent -- see the price fixing lawsuits brought by the DOJ against the SRAM and LCD panel sectors. Without laws and investigations and regulators, they would be completely unfettered, and we would be back in the bad old days of the late 19th/early 20th century. Working class folks would be
Do you need to look any further for proof? (Score:3)
QUIT VOTING REPUBLICRAT
If you are still under the delusion the United States has "two political parties" you're stupid. We have one political party in power with two sudo oppositional sides both of which are owned by different sets of corporations. It is obvious who owned this politician. If you think your politician isn't owned by a company or two and you vote Republicrat you're stupid.
More government regulation is the problem, not the solution, I don't really care where you're looking.
You want corporations to have less power? The only way to remove power from corporations is to remove it from the government, there really isn't much of a dividing line anymore. The corporations that are the most regulated are the ones that have the most government protection against new competition. Corporate power and government power are the same thing.
If you vote Democrat OR Republican you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It sure does sound fishy (Score:2)
Perhaps oaths of office should be expanded to include morality that might extend into situations like this. It's one thing to be fired in a changing of the guard and go back to work in industry but this sounds too much like an overt payoff. There should be changes to the law that allow business deals like this to be reevaluated.
Too big to fail = too big to live (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply put, the FCC should not exist.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'll bite. How would you solve the inevitable frequency anarchy if the FCC didn't regulate it? Or are you cool with it if I decide to step all over your cell connection with my homebuilt widget that operates on the same frequency at about 2,000 watts?
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:5, Informative)
More details in the link.
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:5, Informative)
More details in the link.
Fascinating. Simply amazing. Selling the airwaves PERMANENTLY. No regulation other than "you own that much of the spectrum".
Nobody could buy up the bandwidth to prevent competition? One TRILLION dollars is the value, according to this nutcase. Sorry, he's wrong. Someone doesn't need to buy it all to have a monopoly. All they need to do is buy all the spectrum of the appropriate kind in the limited geographic area and they'd have a lock on that medium for that area. One TV station in LA buys all the TV channels, he owns them FOR LIFE. No give-backs. Leave all but one sitting idle/empty. No take-backs.
Somebody buys channel A in one area, someone else channel A in another area, and they interfere with each other. A sues B, B countersues, both own what they own, neither is "at fault". Both are using their property in the manner authorized by their purchase agreement.
A buys a TV channel in LA. B buys a TV channel in LA. B decides he likes a new technology for doing TV so he switches. Viewers in LA now need TWO different TVs to watch those two channels, because nobody is there to tell manufacturers they need to support both. Hell, there isn't even anyone who can define the STANDARDS that apply, so two isn't the upper limit on incompatible uses.
The TV I buy has spurious emissions that blanket the other channels. All my neighbors get interference. They have to HIRE someone to come find the source, and then they have to SUE me to get me to shut the TV off. Lawyers make out like bandits.
The local cops buy a channel for their use. I start using it, too. They have to HIRE someone to come find me, and then they have to SUE me to get me to stop. They can't arrest me, there are no regulations! (And yes, that link is explicit in saying that lawsuits are how the issues are resolved.)
A buys the channels for public safety in an area. B buys the channels for cellular. After a while, everyone figures out that the use of cellular at those specific frequencies is interfering with the public safety users. What to do? The owners own the spectrum. You can't rescind the "license" because there is no license. You can't force anyone to move, they own the spectrum. (And if you think this is far-fetched, google for "nextel" and "rebanding".)
No, I'm sorry. The FCC still has a purpose. It may not have a right or reason to do some of the things it does, but that doesn't mean the baby needs to go out with the bathwater.
By the way, who "sells" the bandwidth for frequencies and uses that are worldwide in nature? HF radio frequencies travel around the globe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I suppose me having to sue my neighbour who decided to use a high-power transmitter on the frequency I was using for something like my wi-fi is not anarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I suppose me having to sue my neighbour who decided to use a high-power transmitter on the frequency I was using for something like my wi-fi is not anarchy.
I'm sorry, did you BUY the frequencies you are using, or are you just using them anyway? Just how does one split up the WI-FI frequencies into geographically-relevant sized pieces so that people can buy the frequencies they use?
And what happens when you move? I'm sorry, your neighbor owns the WI-FI frequencies for this part of the block, you don't get to use any. Wait, you're on the fiftieth floor of an apartment building and he's on the second? Hmmm. Multiple sales of frequencies based on VERTICAL separa
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:4, Informative)
Why do progressive have to answer for a Republican FCC commissioner?
In 2009, Baker joined the FCC as one of two Republicans on the five-person commission.
Re: (Score:2)
Because Mechanical Turk is cheap.
They don't. But... (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Attwell_Baker [wikipedia.org]
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:4, Informative)
Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.
Yes, let's ignore the last 50 years of US politics and post such a lame comeback.
Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.
And a choice quote from Baker:
“I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue [net neutrality] that has no immediate need for us to act,” Baker said.
She is by no means a "progressive".
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:4, Informative)
BTW your comeback is about as lame as saying "Democrats are segregationists" which purposefully ignores decades of political shifting that went on within the political parties. Seriously, lame trolling is lame.
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.
She wasn't a progressive but a statist. And yes, you can have Republican statist but getting rid of them is one of the reasons why we have the tea parties.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The president designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairperson. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business.
Re: (Score:2)
According to the people who wrote the US Constitution, consolidated power == tyranny.
Progressives have a lot to answer for.
What does this have to do with progressives?
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:4, Funny)
Don't you listen to Rush Limbaugh? This is all part of evil plan set in motion by Bill Clinton and carried out by his minions. The Republican former FCC commissioner was a progressive sleeper agent.
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:4, Insightful)
Progressives have a lot to answer for.
As long as the citizenry believe that one party or the other are too blame then the citizens are just useful idiots. Conservatives like to consolidate power too, it's just you probably happen to agree with their reasons for doing it so it's ok. It's those lousy progressives. Also, in this particular instance it was the lack of using that consolidated power that is the problem.
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:4, Interesting)
The funny thing is that this person is a conservative Republican with such choice quotes as:
“I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue [net neutrality] that has no immediate need for us to act,” Baker said.
Yep, that sounds very much like a progressive to me. Oh wait...
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:5, Informative)
Let me ask you something: in the absence of the FCC, what would have been different? There would not even have been a review of the merger. Conservatives seem to forget the reasons why regulation exists in the first place. I think they should spend some time talking to thee grandparents working in coal mining towns, complete with script and company housing. Fun times.
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:5, Insightful)
Why wouldn't they be? Unregulated monopolies are a great business model! (They just generally suck for everyone but the owners of the company) And why would it matter if "the public actually starts to care about specific abuses" if the government has no regulatory power to do anything about them?
Re: (Score:2)
Horseshit. When states overstep that clause, they get their expectations reset by the other clauses. Too bad for them. Good for the nation.
Re: (Score:3)
Of this part: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Sort of like the "right to privacy" that we are told by the right doesn't exist because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet what happens when the "Right to Privacy" collides with the actual right to freedom of speech. answer? Look at the UK and the gag orders put on the media by the courts to protect the wealthy s privacy (and their misdeeds which can be embarrassing).
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, just because someone says something is a right, doesn't mean it is a right, enumerated or not.
Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (Score:4, Insightful)
Privacy is a right. What do you think it means to be secure in your person, papers, and effects? If they're all public that's not very secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just Wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought there was a law against this.... Don't you have to wait two or so years before you can do this???
Congress refuses to pass a law. The Obama administration, on the other hand, issued an executive order the very first day banning lobbying by former members of the administration to executive branch employees. So because the legislative body is corrupt, she can lobby Congress. The executive is slightly less corrupt, so she theoretically can't talk to former co-workers or anyone in the executive branch (including the FCC) about law and policy changes without that member of the executive being fired. That's about as close to honest as we've been able to come in recent decades.
There is a law (Score:3)
18 USC 207 [cornell.edu] puts restrictions on lobbying by past public officials. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure whether it applies in this case, but it seems like it does.
Re: (Score:2)
really, the IOC chairs all became billionaires over night?