DC Revolving Door: Ex-FCC Commissioner Is Now Head CTIA Lobbyist 170
jfruh (300774) writes "Up until three years ago, Meredith Attwell Baker was an Obama-appointed FCC commissioner. Now she's the newly minted CEO of the CTIA, the nation's largest lobbying group for the mobile phone industry. How can we expect regulators to keep a careful watch over industries when high-paying jobs in those industries await them after retirement? One of the most damning sentences in that article: 'More than 80 percent of FCC commissioners since 1980 have gone on to work for companies or groups in the industries they used to regulate.'"
Lets not forget Tom Wheeler (Score:5, Informative)
The current FCC Chairman was a paid lobbyist for the Telecommunications industry before he became the FCC chair....
As long as our politicians are bought and paid for, things will never change for the better.
I mean the recent issue with Verizon and the state of NJ, NJ let them off the hook for not building out the infrastructure promised in the early 90's by a mere technicality by considering heavily capped LTE as an alternative to wiring the entire state. Then stating that they would wire areas that do not have wireless service, only if 35 or more people request it.. except they know that wireless reaches every spot in NJ where there is no VZ service, so it is a cop out, they know, the PUC knows it, and how anyone in their right mind could possibly think that this is good for consumers. This only benefits the telecoms.
This is what we have in stall for our FCC chairs of the future.. not exactly this scenario, but people that would vote in a similar vein under the pretense it is good for the consumer.
Re: (Score:2)
Crony Politics as usual.. Actually, worse than usual for DC, unless you are from Chicago, in which case it looks like the wind driven snow...
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like he left the CTIA in 2004. IMO, he should be at the bottom of the list, if at all.
Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is one of the many reasons why the US really isn't a democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The US isn't supposed to be a democracy, it's a republic.
In a democracy, majorities can impose their will on minorities, no matter how stupid, or evil their ideas. In a republic, the constitution is supposed to limit the power of the government.
Unfortunately though, this is exactly what a representative democracy turns into: as long as the corrupt politician can convince 51% of his buddies to vote for his boondoggle (usually by promising to vote for theirs in return), it passes.
majorities can impose their will on minorities (Score:2, Interesting)
No more so than currently, and there are simply fixes for preventing such situations even in pure democracies (require 2/3 or more vote to pass basic laws, 85% or more to modify constitution, etc). A few years ago you could have made the claim that "well reps have more time to analyze the issues" but I think that myth has been pretty much debunked. Most congressman/woman don't actually read the legislation they are passing & can't even answer basic questions in regards to it. At bare minimum I think
Re: (Score:2)
if 90% vote against it the sponsors of the bill get permanently ejected from federal government work.
I like this idea. I would only add that the sponsors also get the guillotine. Otherwise someone else can try to adjust the wording of the law a little bit and keep trying to slip it through. We need zero tolerance for the people who abuse the constitution and pass illegal laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been a supporter of the super-majority requirement for a while (or better yet, the super-duper-majority: 80% or more). It's easy to get 80% of people (hopefully more like 99.999%) to agree murder, rape, kidnapping, arson, etc. are bad. It would be impossible to get 80% to agree to slavery, unjust wars, NSA spying, the Patriot [sic] Act, taxes for wealth redistribution (most of which in the US goes to the über rich banking and corporate crony crowd, not the poor), and other statist dreams.
Another
Re: (Score:2)
The US isn't supposed to be a democracy, it's a republic.
Republic is a type of Democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
That's absolutely false. A democracy is a majority rules system. A republic is a system where the government is limited in the powers it can exercise.
The founding fathers of the US knew the difference. Most of them despised the idea of democracy, because they knew it would devolve into corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it is a republic, I said supposed to be. It is a fascist, crony-laden representative democracy. It is the system Alexander Hamilton, and later the whigs and early republicans, dreamed of.
I am not any form of government, I am a human. The government that claims dominion over the land where I live and spend most of my days abandoned being an oligarchy long ago, it is now becoming a fascist police state. But then authoritarianism of one form or another is always the end state for any government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And this is one of the many reasons why the US really isn't a democracy.
Being nit picky... The USA is not and it's never been a democracy. We where founded as a constitutional representative republic, which is decidedly NOT a democracy.
What are they teaching in school these days? We tried democracy, determined it didn't work very well for large groups. So the founders went with a representative republic instead. Kids...
Remove Tom Wheeler. Restore Net Neutrality (Score:2)
we need to pay gov employees like CEOs (Score:5, Interesting)
if you don't want any conflict of interest. pay the agency heads $20 million a year and stipulate they are not allowed to work for any private entity for 5 years after they leave government
Hire me! (Score:3)
Hell, pay me 20 million and I will sign a contract that I won't work anymore ever! :)
Re: (Score:2)
No. These people are already socially disconnected from the public they are supposed to represent. Ludicrous wealth makes that kind of problem worse, not better.
Conflict of Interest vs Right to Work (Score:2)
No, I am not a big proponent of this action as it "smells" funny. That being said...
Did anybody else notice she held the position from 2009-2011 in a two year appointment? She didn't jump right from the FCC to the CTIA.
She hasn't been working for the FCC as a regulator in three years. My guess is her contract or appointment included a clause restricting her from working for the CTIA or other groups she regulated for at least 1-2 years.
Naturally, the CTIA wants her as they hope she has the connections to
Re:Conflict of Interest vs Right to Work (Score:4, Interesting)
You are correct, she did not go directly to the CTA..
Even worse, she jumped to Comcast 3 months after pushing for the Comcast NBC merger. Bought and paid for by your tax dollars.
This was the restriction placed on her (came from wikipedia, so take with a grain of salt.)
"While Baker may immediately lobby Congress and supervise employees who directly lobby the FCC, to comply with President Barack Obama's ethics pledge, she may not personally lobby any executive branch political appointee (including the FCC) while Obama is in office. However after two years, she may lobby non-political appointees at the FCC. Additionally she may never personally lobby anyone on the Comcast/NBC merger agreement"
Conflict... or just good business? (Score:4, Informative)
The conflict of interest is pretty unmistakable, here... but we have to keep in mind that even absent that conflict, this would still be the most obvious choice for both the former FCC commissioners and for the lobbying groups. The commissioners obviously have an interest in the field, and the lobbying groups would want to hire someone who knows more then a little bit about the inner workings of their "arch nemesis."
I mean... sure, moves like this will always have that sort'a greasy slimy feel to them, no matter how you cut it. But where else are they going to go?
(Plus, there's some pretty darned good scratch in going all turncoat!)
Let's all remember (Score:3)
"Hope"
"Change"
And please don't ASSume that we live in some sort of binary world where criticizing Obama means I think Bush 2 was any less of a piece of crap. However, I don't recall Bush 2's election(s) being accompanied with the sort of priapic panegyrics about how "everything was going to be different" and the administration was going to be "lobbyist-free", either.
Re: (Score:3)
Crony politics at it's best... (Or worst, depending on how you want to look at it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the first to suggest this - a surtax on earnings above the government salary is a *really* good way to deal with this.
University of Tennessee law professor and blogger Glenn Reynolds is one of the more outspoken proponents of this approach (he suggests a 50-75% surtax on earnings above the government official's salary for five years after leaving office.)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/... [usatoday.com]
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit... [pjmedia.com]
Although it's just a small step in eliminating cronyism and corruption, it's a
Running the show (Score:2)
Money rules (Score:3)
Votes do not.
Welcome to the new world order. The age of enlightenment seems to be over.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the vote.
John Q. Public vote: not very valuable.
US House of Representatives vote: Valuable.
US Senate vote: Quite Valuable.
Regulatory Commissioner vote: Extremely Valuable.
Presidential Veto: Invaluable.
Re: (Score:3)
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
back in the days (when FCC did their job) when those gasoline tanker trucks had huge lettering INFLAMMABLE but people were confused, "does that mean it is inflammable?" So to avoid confusion it was changed to FLAMMABLE. Of course everyone knew those rolling tanks labeled Flying A, ESSO, and Richfield contained explosive liquid so a warning of inflammable was not needed.
The Beatles had it right (Score:2)
Money can't buy you love, but can and does buy influence.
Not unusual (Score:4, Insightful)
It's how a fascist (a.k.a. mercantilist, cronyist) economy works.
Just so much wrong here.... (Score:2)
Like the other article yesterday about net neutrality, this just goes to show people that in the end big company's like Verizon can just buy anything they want and make the regulators and politicians dance to their tune and it's the general public that gets the short end at every turn and the regulators who are supposed to protect the interests of the people are not doing their jobs.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd vote for that since I never plan on working for the feds. However, how would this work for someone who works as a "contractor". What about retired military personnel. What's keeping congress from writing themselves out of the law. What about income from investments (i.e. dividends or capital gains.) vs earned income? Do benefits count for gross income in this law?
I feel like by the time congress is done "debating" such a law it will be toothless and full of pork. Why not just be blatant about this and l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. O-4 and above.
That would exclude the rank-and-file Lieutenants and the odd Captain, but include anyone close to policy making.
Re: (Score:2)
50%, no deductions, no credits, just outright confiscation to ensure less profit from leveaging any potential leads from the government to win insider deals.
Executives don't gets a salary, they get a "compensation package."
Stuff like the company paying for a car, use of a private jet, free hotel rooms, an executive assistant, etc etc etc.
And if you're good at negotiating, the gravy train doesn't have to end when you quit,
as some Executives keep getting these perks while they're between jobs.
So really, there's a lot more to the job than just a paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't sound much like a libertarian. More like a Republican trying to look cool.
Marvel > DC (Score:3)
Oh you mean DC.....
Slowly revolving door (Score:2)
In general a person who makes contracting or regulatory decisions must wait a year after leaving government before working for a company related to their government work in the US. Other countries have different waiting periods (e.g. France is three years).
That's not perfect, but I don't see anyone suggesting a better alternative. A permanent ban on working in the industry after government service is unrealistic; Ms. Baker is 45 years old and has spent her entire career in telecom, I doubt you could get any
And yet, no calls for less Washington power (Score:2)
People are told to hate corporations and give the government more power. That power gets co-opted by corporate interests to be used against the people.
Will anyone ever learn that power should not be concentrated in government hands?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you state that corporations are corrupt and will use their power against people but you still blame the government....wow...that's some pretty tortured logic.
What is the alternative? (Score:3)
I can easily see why this would cause problems, but the one thing no one seems to address is what is the alternative? If we want someone to head the regulatory body for telecommunications (for instance) we need someone who has a vast knowledge of the telecommunications field. That means pretty exclusively someone who has worked for years in telecommunications businesses. You can't pull someone from another field because they don't know anything about what they are meant to be regulating. When these people leave the government regulation jobs, they are obviously going to go back to the telecommunications field (with the other option being lobbying for the telecommunications field since they now have telecommunications experience and government experience).
So what are our options? We can't ban them from going back and working in the field, since that is what their expertise is in no one would take the job. We can't the hiring to people not in the field, since that is just silly. We could try to limit hiring of industry insiders but that severely limits your hiring pool and potentially swings the pendulum too far the other way. The only thing I can think of that is reasonable and doable is to try and regulate the quid pro quo going on, but that is all but impossible. So what exactly is the fix?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a subtle political problem (Score:2)
We keep voting for these politicians - BUT - the politicians who make it through the primary process are the only ones we are allowed to vote for, and they are already beholden to those special interests which facilitate their victory. 3rd parties are aggressively suppressed.
Very interesting TED talk by Lawrence Lessig on the issue: "There is a corruption at the heart of American politics, caused by the dependence of Congressional candidates on funding from the tiniest percentage of citizens. That's the [ted.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We don't vote for these people. Heck, half the times the exit polls are in total conflict with the results. Districts show no or less votes than people who actually cast their ballots.
What we need is a national election website. Where every candidate basically has a page. Can discuss their views on specific issues. Post videos. Etc.
And then we can elect the one we actually like. Instead of getting selected politicians.
Pay them more (Score:2)
If we want to get top-quality people for a job like FCC Commissioner, which doesn't last that long and doesn't pay well, but don't want them to take industry jobs when they leave, we need to pay them more. Pay the Commissioners $2 million a year each, plus $1 million per year for the ten years after they leave the FCC, but make a condition of taking the job that they can't take outside employment in the industry during that ten year period. The incremental cost to the budget would be trivial, and it would
Pass a law (Score:2)
The law would state that government employees with regulation powers are prohibited from working in the industry they regulated for a period of 10 years after they leave their government position. This would apply to commissioners as well as congressmen.
At least FCC streamlined getting accepted type (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wow. being purposefully ignorant is twice as blissful.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Informative)
wow. being purposefully ignorant is twice as blissful.
Yeah, ignorant - and only HALF of the story in this headline.
Tom Wheeler, the new incoming FCC Chairman is a leading industry lobbyist. GIGO.
"Wheeler has been around telecommunications policy circles for years and has served as a lobbyist for the cable industry's trade group, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, and the wireless industry's trade association, CTIA-The Wireless Association. He spent 12 years as the head of the CTIA."
http://www.cnet.com/news/senate-confirms-tom-wheeler-as-fccs-new-chairman/ [cnet.com]
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still a conflict of interest and ripe for quid pro quo job opportunities. Essentially, don't make our company suffer and we'll land you a lucrative job you'll be able to retire on once you leave government.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Insightful)
I see that there's the potential for abuse there, and I'm sure it is abused this way sometimes, but I don't see the job offers as proof that it's happening. It DOES make good sense for these companies to hire people with inside, high profile jobs from the governing organizations, whether or not the policies they enacted hurt the company (in some ways probably more so). These are very strong job candidates even without bribery being a consideration. Even if we were omnisciently certain that no quid-pro-quo existed, these are people who would get (and arguably deserve) great job offers.
The questions then become how do we identify actual abuse (vs normal labor market forces) and how do we stop it?
In non-government positions, if this were a concern (not to the public, but to the original employer), there would be a non-compete clause of some sort. I'm not aware of government jobs ever having non-compete clauses, but it would probably be prohibitively difficult to do (not that it shouldn't be done, but it's so difficult to fire most US government employees that I can't imagine it being easy to implement even more labor restrictions). We could perhaps lobby for that, but it's doubtful to happen. I'm open to suggestions, but without other options this just seems like unconstructive complaining.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Insightful)
You're naive.
Often, such abuse only surfaces after the damage is done, and after fabulous sums in attorney's fees are paid, with a likely outcome of plea deal-- if it gets that far.
The ethics problem here is huge. These were insiders, and party to all of the internal sausage that makes decisions work, and know intimately, the vulnerabilities. Fueled with the grease of lobbying money, they arrive again with seemingly wonderful arguments, except that instead of representing the people of the United States, they now represent shareholders looking for revenue, two completely and potentially opposite ideals.
This very constructive complaining, as net neutrality is the egalitarian backbone principal of Internet access. It's being destroyed with a "more equal than other equals" sort of Orwellian lie perpetrated by the telecoms strictly for favor of their shareholders. Open your eyes to what's happening in front of you: a new privileged Internet, where privilege comes directly out of your wallet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if I'm naive... I admitted it happens, although I may underestimate how much (and you may overestimate how much; it's really difficult to know). But I asked for possible solutions; I even offered non-competes as a conversation starter. I suppose there's some value in just complaining about it, since it brings attention to a topic, but it's MORE constructive to actually discuss solutions as well as the problem. What do you propose? Force someone who retired from a government job to avoid an
Re: (Score:2)
You offer binary solutions to a problem that has none. There's often a time-out period for government employees that's imposed as a condition of their employment, before they can lobby the entity from where they were employed. It's a good practice.
Your voice == 1. Paid voices, those that hold the purse strings to campaign funds and legal bribes== an exponentiation of 2.
If you're looking to seek a rational or workable solution, consider campaign finance reform. Consider the mandate of arduous public policy h
Re: (Score:2)
See? That wasn't hard. :-)
Where government spying is actually useful... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More and more, I believe that it's already taken place, and the NSA buys its own policies via blackmail and extortion, J.Edgar Hoover-style. It's one of the few non-partisan issues that seems to be stanched by, ummm, important officials.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of easy constructive ideas:
1) vote
2) boycott
3) inform those in Wash DC of their folly
4) vote with $$ just like the big guys do
5) present the facts, and let people decide.
Etc. Doesn't take imagination. We've been here before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not the issue. The issue is if the regulator, instead of stopping abuse, let it slide for the promise of a future high paying job. In my book that is bribery, and I'm sure many people agrees with me.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:4, Insightful)
What I can't put my finger on is exactly when this behavior and conflict of interest in general because fine. It's rife throughout government. We see it in a big way in the SCOTUS, and the state governments are even worse than the federal government. But *NO ONE* seems to care. This wasn't the same in the 70s and 80s, or perhaps it was and the difference is that these idiots aren't even embarrassed by it any more.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:4, Insightful)
This was going on in the 70's and 80's and before that. The difference now is we have the Internet and the 24x7 news cycle so you are actually hearing about it. It also isn't just the regulatory agencies that are in on this scam. Look how many former members of congress land at suspiciously cushy jobs after they retire. My fear is that what we have here is effectively a bribe laundering scheme. Oh yeah you do what we want and you get a nice office, important sounding title, generous salary and a big benefits package for your post Government life.
That isn't the only such scheme in place in government either. Look at politicans setting up various not for profits, charities and think tanks. That looks like outright bribe laundering. Also some of the members of congress have really suspicous investment dealings that look like outright money laundering.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:4, Insightful)
What I can't put my finger on is exactly when this behavior and conflict of interest in general because fine. It's rife throughout government. We see it in a big way in the SCOTUS, and the state governments are even worse than the federal government. But *NO ONE* seems to care. This wasn't the same in the 70s and 80s, or perhaps it was and the difference is that these idiots aren't even embarrassed by it any more.
What changed? The size of the federal government.
Federal, State, Local Spending in 20th Century [usgovernmentspending.com]
At the start of the 20th century, government spending was principally local government spending. Out of a total of 7 percent of GDP, a full 4 percent was spent at the local level. Federal spending spiked in World War I, but in the 1920s, local government still represented about half of all government spending. In the 1930s this changed, and federal spending surged to about half of all government spending. After the spike of World War II the federal share increased again and state government spending also began to increase as a percent of GDP, so that by the 2010s federal spending checked in at over 20 percent of GDP, state spending amounted to 8 to 9 percent of GDP and local spending exceeded 10 percent of GDP.
Spending equals power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So why the hell do people think we can solve our problems by giving this government MORE power?
Giving this out-of-control power-mad government more money and more power will make things BETTER? For WHO?
Millions of people care... (Score:2)
But what difference does that make. People have realized that voting, if you even still believe your votes are valid, doesn't make a difference.
People basically feel that a) this is wrong b) no one listens c) there is nothing they can do
And if you think this is going to go on forever, look at BLM and Nevada. People are starting to feel their only means of stopping such corrupt government beauracracy is the use of arms.
That is sad...we should never be at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
We started at that point. This country was founded by people who would nowadays be libeled* as "terrorists," remember?
Maybe it's about time for the "tree of liberty" to be refreshed.
(*not a typo)
Regulatory capture (Score:5, Informative)
The issue is if the regulator, instead of stopping abuse, let it slide for the promise of a future high paying job. In my book that is bribery, and I'm sure many people agrees with me.
That's part of it, but there's more. The topic is called regulatory capture [wikipedia.org]. An inherent problem in all regulation is that those being regulated have a vested interest in "capturing" the regulators and influencing them for their own interests. It's often not as simple as bribery or a promise of a future job. It can be (and often is) things like convincing regulators that certain kinds of regulation are great ideas, regulations that 1) make the regulators think they are doing something, 2) can be easily implemented by that regulated entity, and (entirely coincidentally!) 3) hinder the competitors of the regulated entity. Whenever you read about bankers being in favor of Dodd-Frank, or health insurers being pro-Obamacare, or a large company that supports raising the minimum wage, look for something like #3. Such support does not usually come from the goodness of their hearts.
As pointed out in this thread, who knows the complexity of a set of regulations better than someone who used to be in charge of them? So too much separation between regulators and regulated would be dysfunctional: you don't want carpenters regulating doctors, or vice versa. But the whole field shows some of the inherent problems of all regulations, especially complex ones.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Insightful)
So... can we have less government power over everything in everyone's life then? Since it ends up being used against us by Washington insiders...?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So instead of choosing smaller government overlords or bigger government overlords, let's just not have any level of government control most of the things in our lives.
But if there has to be government control, then it should be as local as possible so it's easier to escape by just moving away.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Insightful)
This is rewarding regulators with well paying jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, but knowing all the relevant laws and regulations and the workflow of the agencies you will work with is a big help
Re: (Score:2)
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Insightful)
Government agencies regard the people as a rancher regards his cattle.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:4, Interesting)
In theory, true.
Just like a good manager can manage anything. [dilbert.com]
In practice, however, a lobbyist is much more valuable if he or she has cultivated contacts and inside access to a particular regulatory bureaucracy. They guy pestering the Assistant Deputy Undersecretary in the lobby is vastly less effective, and commands much less money, than the guy who can dial the private phone number of the department head's own secretary and schedule a couple hours with his immediate successor in the job of department head.
And that's where the conflict of interest lives: a person gained access and personal trust in the context of public service. He cashes in on that asset, originally conferred for the benefit of the public, for his own personal benefit (bigtime lobbying contracts) and the benefit of his private clients (in the regulated field). Plus, you know, regulatory capture. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Right, that explains all the former FCC chairmen now lobbying for ConAgra and Monsanto.
Re:80% of people working in a field (Score:5, Informative)
That's a poor-ass strawman and you know it.
This isn't about fields of expertise. This is about being beholden to specific economic interests. You can get doctors in the FDA that aren't beholden to Pfiser or Eli Lilly.
The "oh, but they are experts" is a very weak defense of corporate behavior that captures regulatory organizations.
Re: (Score:3)
Regulator and lobbyists do not have a 'field', their skills are not related to any particular domain or technology.
Yes we must purge the FDA of all doctors, the NRC of all engineers, FWS of all biologists, etc because clearly they are all beholden to their special interests and thus can't be trusted.
You mean they haven't done that already?!
Purge the FDA (Score:5, Informative)
Have you bothered to look up Meredith Attwell Baker's history? She Is a Lawyer & Lobbyist by profession with connections to various politically families (Bushes, Bakers, etc). Her education is in Spanish & journalism, what about this would make her a good fit for the mobile phone industry. She is a career lobbyist, nothing more, nothing less. Why she was ever the FCC commissioner is beyond my comprehension.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
when they leave the place they work for, move to companies in a similar field?
wow
people with a knowledge of telecom/rf going on to work at telco's unpossible
No, its far more sinister than that. It isn't even really a job, it is basically just a cushy retirement package. They get paid for doing nothing. They offer this AFTER the person has already plaid ball for years. Everyone in government knows this, and knows if policy offends too many in the industry, their retirement is screwed. Why do you think presidents because millionaires after they leave office? They get hundreds of thousands of dollars for what amounts to giving 30min inspirational speeches. Bill Cl
Re: (Score:2)
> plaid ball
Usually referred to as a ceilidh [obantowndiary.co.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an innocent employment move. It's retroactive bribery.
Re: (Score:2)
She should be barred for life for working at any companies that were affected by the regulatory body she was in charge of for at least 5 years.
It's a conflict of interest otherwise. You cannot regulate an industry for the best interest of citizens while being in bed with the same people you plan on regulating.
Re: (Score:2)
What?
Re: (Score:2)
If they accepted bribes in the form of a well-paying job after leaving the regulatory position ,and if that new job has no access or authority sufficient to harm the new employer, then yes. The whole issue here is the perception if not the actual action of the job being the bribe.
Re: (Score:2)
98% of the voters approve... You gotta give them what they ask for, or they might end up voting for somebody else, right?
Where are you getting the 98% number?
Re: (Score:2)
2012 election... 51.1% democrat + 47.2% republican = 98.3%
I'm off by 0.3%. Sue me...
Congressional reelection rate around 91%
Yes, the voters most definitely approve, despite all their whining.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when they have passes laws preventing any alternatives. What choice do you have?
And you're doing your math wrong. You are saying 98% of voters support it. But you're forgetting that the percentage of voters is rather low, around 50% of eligible voters. And lower than 2004 and 2008. So in that regards, at least half the population has voted NO to the Democrats and Republicans.
http://www.abc15.com/news/nati... [abc15.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I only counted the ballots. If the people who don't vote disapprove, then they need to raise their voices, otherwise they get written off, rightly or wrongly, as lazy and apathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Dang clever there with your figures..
Just to throw a spanner into all this math you are doing... I voted in 2012, and along with almost half of the actual voters here, do not approve of what this administration is currently doing... Just ask Cruz, I voted for him too. Was I in the 2%? No, there where a lot more than 2% who voted as I did, even nation wide. In total, it was within 5% on the national race for president, and many of the elections for congress finished within 10% (Even the with his gaf
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try... I didn't approve of most of this and voted accordingly but my view didn't prevail. Nearly 50% of voters didn't approve of it either. Then figure not everybody voted last time and there is NO WAY 98% agreed to anything.
What's that saying?
There are Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
or was it?
Figures never lie, but lairs figure..
Full Stop..
Re: (Score:2)
Hey now.. They don't RUN the place... Yet.... At least that's the story.
This is Crony politics as usual...
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to be some non-compete in their contracts that prevents them from taking a job in the industry they regulated for a certain amount of time
There already is. Although it probably doesn't apply in this case since she's working for a lobbying group, which the FCC would not have any regulatory authority over.