

After approving NBC buyout, FCC Commissioner becomes Comcast lobbyist - kmfrk
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/after-approving-comcastnbc-deal-fcc-commish-becomes-comcast-lobbyist.ars

======
pstack
Who is surprised?

The committee that granted a trillion dollar bail-out of a few companies
including Goldman Sachs was staffed with plenty of current/former executives
from Goldman Sachs.

The FDA and agencies involved for approving bovine growth hormone (later found
to do freakishly hideous things to the poor cows and increase by incredible
amounts the contamination of the milk we drink from infected utters), the
Round-Up-ready patented corn seeds, and aspartame just happen to be largely
staffed by current/former Monsanto executives.

The FDA and agencies involved in inspecting the food production in the states
and making sure that it remains uncontaminated and safe and regularly
inspected have reduced the number of inspections by something like 85% and the
contamination rates increase, while under the watch of agencies staffed
largely by current/former executives of the few main companies being overseen.

The US government is beyond corrupt and beyond any possible reform and nobody
cares. Nobody gives a damn that almost every office and committee appointment
in the country is a matter of the wolves guarding the sheep. It has been this
way for decades and they are now so brazen about it that you can look at every
single person in every single job and do a simple search to trace the truth of
their position and appointment back and nobody gives a damn.

I mean, seriously, we let them give themselves a trillion dollars. We let them
poison our food supply with largely untested and unproven chemicals. We let
them cover up and manipulate right in front of our faces and we do nothing.
After thirty years of looking the other way on all of these things, what on
earth could possibly ever even remotely raise our eyebrows and make us do
something other than participate in the attention-occupying busy-body bullshit
of "durr durr republicans are stupid and evil" and "durr durr democrats are
stupid and evil" my team versus yours bullshit?

Maybe if the government and corporations decided that it was just easier to
require that all births be sponsored to make sure they can be cared for until
adulthood and then those sponsored children become indentured servants for
their sponsor company until the age of 40 . . . maybe . . . _MAYBE_ we might
_possibly_ take our eyes off Dancing With the Stars and the football game long
enough to do something other than pull the red or blue lever according to the
team we've associated ourselves with and demand that we have choices that
aren't part of the game and won't be part of the game and will radically
change things.

It won't happen in my lifetime. I know that much.

~~~
18pfsmt
I agree with you, but here's my attempt at devil's advocate:

These industries require domain expertise gained over years in order to
understand the fundamentals of these industries at macro and micro levels, So,
who better to help regulate them then people directly from the industry with
that expertise. Career politicians and bureaucrats simply have no real world
experience, so we must get industry insiders to provide insight.

~~~
Duff
Regulation and control is by its nature an adversarial relationship. You
cannot be an effective adversary if that will compromise your ability to be an
advocate or employee of whomever you're regulating.

Just as an auditor doesn't need to be a domain expert to audit a companies
books, a regulator doesn't need to be one, at least from an industry POV.

------
ck2
Corruption may exist in all forms of government but in the USA we have it
perfected (and legalized).

Did you know that lobbyists now meet across from the whitehouse to keep their
visits unrecorded?

This is almost as bad as the supreme court justices taking special interest
money through their spouse.

~~~
stretchwithme
The greater the concentration of power, the more likely it is that it will be
used for personal gain. And the less likely it is more meaningful competition
and choice to exist.

This can only happen when people don't have a choice. If a government is bad,
people should have a way to remove their property from its domain.

Cities and towns should be able to become part of a neighboring state or start
their own. The Swiss have this ability and can change cantons and create new
ones. Its rarely used, but its always there if needed.

And if the people had to approve many actions of the national legislature
(again, as they do in Switzerland), ridiculous actions are less likely.

Of course, results are what matter and Switzerland has the highest incomes in
the world and the least involvement in stupid wars. It must have something to
do with the difficulty in spending other people's blood and money without
their approval.

~~~
klenwell
Sounds like a recipe for white flight. Switzerland was also among the last
industrialized nations to allow women the vote (1970!). Provincialism is not a
panacea and government isn't the only place where power can be concentrated.

On the other hand, my idealistic version of political reform is so far from
reality, I won't even bother you with it here.

~~~
stretchwithme
Government isn't the only place power can be concentrated to be sure. But it
is the only place where power is concentrated using coercion.

Everywhere else, some value must be delivered in exchange and there are
competing choices. For example, the media has a lot of power but also a lot of
competition. And the more technology and choice we have in general creates
even more competition.

Your version of reform may not be reality, but nothing is until discussed.

------
sachinag
The best part about this, under Obama's ethics rules, she's not allowed to
lobby the FCC on any matters, nor can she lobby any executive branch member
about the Comcast/NBC merger until President Obama leaves office[1]. So she's
being hired as a lobbyist _even though she won't be able to lobby anyone_.

[1] [http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-
commi...](http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-
to-join-comcast/?hp)

~~~
18pfsmt
In this case, the "lobbying" was done from the inside as a regulator, and now
comes the cushy job in which she can barely operate except to dump her rolodex
and manage people.

------
runevault
While part of me isn't surprised, if both Comcast and she gets away with this
without repercussions, I'm going to be seriously disgusted...

edit: Actually a question comes to mind. What can we as the voting/etc public
do to make our will felt in this scenario? With the parties involved I don't
know of a way and that really, really irks me.

~~~
stretchwithme
In a free society, you make your own choices and live with the consequences.

But when government has its fingers in every pie, we all have to "make our
will known" about every freakin' pie.

And then watch as it is ignored because there are way too many pies for people
to notice everything everyone is saying about every pie.

But each pie is of special concern to some well-monied interest and they will
make their views known to those stuffing their pie holes.

~~~
ntownsend
Libertarian clap-trap. Governments and pies only become a bad combination when
there is no meaningful oversight or regulation. Your point of view makes sense
in America where this is the case.

~~~
stretchwithme
So the problem is that government is making non-meaningful regulations? And is
regulating in a non-meaningful way?

What would give their activities meaning?

And how do you define clap-trap?

------
sandipc
It's amazing that there aren't conflict of interest laws or regulations to
prevent this sort of thing.

~~~
benmathes
How would such laws be created with such a personnel system in place? If they
existed, who would enforce them?

I'd love to be proved ignorant on this and see some unrelated-to (and
therefore incorruptible-by) enforcement agency slap the fuck out of Ms.
Corrupt Lobbyist, but I'm doubtful.

~~~
phlux
You have a law that states:

\---

(that) any official in a position within a government body, whether elected or
appointed, which regulates a particular industry, area of industry, or the
laws and compliance of said industry, may not take a position within any
company that benefited directly from any regulatory or oversight decision of
the oversight body within the last 5 years on any case where the stated
company or organizations competitive status with respect to monopolies, anti-
trust, or anti-competitive business environment was considered.

\---

This would mean that anyone who was in a position of oversight for a given
industry and who had to consider, directly, regulations which may or may not
benefit a particular company may not accept a position with that company for
at least 5 years after their departure from that official position.

~~~
btilly
The immediate reaction to this proposal will be the argument from every corner
that you have just barred anyone with industry knowledge or expertise from
being willing to take any government regulation position. Thereby guaranteeing
incompetent regulation. (Insert long list of examples where unknowledgeable
regulators have proven incompetent to regulate.)

You can be sure that this argument will be accompanied by large donations to
lobbyists, and by outrage among all government regulators who were expecting
to wind up in the industry that they regulate (and that they frequently came
from).

~~~
onedognight
This is addressed by the above suggestion. It lets them take a job with ABC or
Time Warner, just not Comcast/NBC.

~~~
btilly
Sorry, no. The FCC has been pushing a relaxation of media ownership rules that
benefits the whole industry and has the active support of both ABC and Time
Warner. (Active up to and including the level of buying newspaper ads to sway
people towards their position that the FCC should be allowed to do this.) That
fact would bar people in the FCC from working in the entire industry if the
proposed anti-corruption rule were in place.

If you look farther, I am sure that more specific rulings in favor of ABC and
Time Warner can be found. Let's see. For instance see
[http://seekingalpha.com/article/119975-time-warner-cable-
fcc...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/119975-time-warner-cable-fcc-approves-
split-from-parent-company) in favor of Time Warner.

------
rglover
It's really become a sad state of affairs in the telecom industry. All of
these "leaders" claim to foster innovation with their decisions when they're
actually just lining their pockets. It's comforting to know that the old
regime is slowly dying off. Let's hope the future wave of leaders call out the
bullshit and actually do something with their time. Really disappointing to
see this taking place.

------
MatthewB
There is a ton of inbreeding on capitol hill and top corporate companies. This
is ridiculous but not more ridiculous than banking ex-CEOs giving bailouts to
their former companies.

------
lawnchair_larry
Looking forward to Al Franken's reaction to this one.

------
natmaster
The idea that the government is out to protect your interests is an incredibly
naive viewpoint. The government is not some mystical ideal immune to
corruption - it is a collection of people as weak and human as you.

This is why the only humane, practical government is one with significant
checks and balances, limitation of power. Libertarianism is the only way to
solve real world problems, instead of idealistic naive thoughts.

~~~
msg
Your comment is eating its own tail.

Let's get really practical: public-only financing of elections, plus conflict
of interest rules with teeth (no job in the industry you regulated for X years
after you left) will make it significantly harder for special interests to
exert undue influence on our elected officials. At least, if they sell out to
corporations, it will be out of deeply felt corporatist convictions rather
than for intellectually bankrupt cash considerations.

~~~
natmaster
Non-sequiter?

------
sriramk
People change jobs all the time. The folks in government commissions are
probably from that industry and when they do want to change jobs, will
probably find work in that industry. It is a bit unfair to cast aspersions on
people. It is also interesting that to stop this would require something akin
to a non-compete policy which is typically frowned upon in HN :)

~~~
pstack
Yeah, it's wrong to cast aspersions on people who go to work for the
government and act as extended arms of the industry and corporations they just
left. Like the many Goldman Sachs people on the committee that authorized a
trillion dollar bailout for companies that primarily included Goldman Sachs.
Or the Monsanto guys who ran the FDA and other government agencies and made
sure chemicals like rBGH, aspartame and others (from the DDT/agent orange
corporation) were given a green light. There's nothing going on there at all!
Why golly, it's just government in action! And the guys from Raytheon and GE
certainly have no vested interest in agitating national fears and military
spending at all.

~~~
Duff
That's the problem with big government... it size as a consumer builds in a
need for companies to schmooze with and influence the government. The US
government EVERY DAY than ExxonMobil makes in a year.

That doesn't excuse crony capitalism or outright corruption. But it does help
to know where it comes from.

