GAO Report Slams FCC

eldavojohn writes "The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has made a report available today that was requested a year ago by a Democratic senator that finds the Federal Communications Commissions has been favoring lobbyists a little too much. 'The report says that some people at the commission warn lobbyists when a particular issue is about to come up for a vote. Typically, the commission chairman circulates an item for vote three weeks before a meeting. Under the rules of the FCC, meeting agendas are published one week before a vote is scheduled. Once the agenda is published lobbying is banned. The report says that the two-week window allows lobbyist plenty of time to "maximize their impact."'"

Comments

Accountability!

[cez]

The FCC responded to the report saying that it feels its processes are always open and transparent and that Chairman Kevin Martin is looking for ways to make the commissions workings even more transparent and open.

Of course they feel that way. I feellike I should get a million dollars for this post. That doesn't make it happen.

The GAO obviously feels like they are not transparent, as the report indicates. How bout some actual accountability from the Government Accountability Office now? What are they going to do about it?

Besides hurting their feelings

Re:Accountability!

[SatanicPuppy]

That's not their job. They're not supposed to have enforcement power. Not that it's not an attractive mental image to have an elite squad of GAO commando's busting into an FCC meeting, grabbing corrupt politicians and hauling their asses off to PMTA prison, but that's not what they do.

A congressman asks the GAO, "Hey is playing fair? Are they doing what they're supposed to do?"

GAO does some research, and responds, "Nope."

Then Congress has the opportunity to bust out massive whoopass, slash their funding, sell their children into slavery, etc, etc...They have the ability to do all kinds of enforcement, and even pass it up the line to the executive, who can call in the commandos, etc.

Though they probably won't do anything, because when does Congress ever do anything good? But they could, and that's how the system is supposed to work.

A little too much?

[Anonymous Coward]

the Federal Communications Commissions has been favoring lobbyists a little too much

"a little too much" ? Isn't that like saying "the government is committing crimes a little too much" ?

Any amount of favoring lobbyists is a problem. I'm not saying lobbyists can't exist. But the (idealized) purpose of a lobbyist is to bring pertinent information and arguments to the attention of political officials. They should have no political influence beyond the persuasiveness of their arguments and the truthfulness of the data they present.

Perhaps I'm getting overly agitated by a simple little comment... but I am troubled by the fact that people increasingly accept that lobbyists will be able to influence the democratic process, and that their influence has to be balanced against other influences (e.g. voter opinion). This is not how it should be! Lobbyists should have no influence per se. As I said, the only thing that should matter is valid arguments about what is best for the populace.

Re:A little too much?

[dkf]

The problem is not the practice of lobbying, but the endless need for money to campaign with. Since we don't have any effective spending limits and flimsy donation rules, the problem can only get worse. In other words, this is transforming a Representative Democracy into a Plutocracy (and an Oligarchic one at that, though that doesn't follow from what you said).

So what's the problem?

[GodfatherofSoul]

If big business wants it, it's obviously good for the American people! The market has spoken!

Re:So what's the problem?

[Opportunist]

Contrary to corporates' ideas, the market consists of supplyers and demanders.

Re:Government & Business

[purpledinoz]

A perfect example, the merger between XM and Sirius. The NAB (National Association of Broadcasting) is heavily lobbying against this merger, because that would mean a stronger competitor. And the result? The merger has been debated for months, and it's still going on. In the meantime, other huge mergers have been approved within a week.

business and government are run by aliens?

[Quadraginta]

Who do you suppose "lobbyists" represent? Aliens from Mars?

"Lobbyist" is just a short way to say "a representative of a group of citizens who all have some common interest and pool their money to hire someone to let elected officials know how they feel (and will vote)." Business groups (like oil companies) have lobbyists, and so do unions (like the UAW, CWA, or AFL-CIO), and so do consumer groups, environmental groups, senior citizens' groups, animal breeder groups, Jewish groups, Muslim and evangelist groups, pro- and anti-immigration groups, pro- and anti-gun control groups, PETA and cattle ranchers, et cetera and so forth.

Or are you thinking "citizens" means only those folks who have no "business" interests at all? Folks without a job, who own nothing? Teenagers living in mom's basement?

In the real adult world, we all have economic interests. If we're employed in the radio industry -- making radios, selling radios, selling products on radio shows, hosting radio shows, reporting on the news, et cetera and so forth -- or if we make use of the radio industry -- we listen to radio shows and watch TV, or we use cell phones -- then we have opinions about how the FCC should regulate use of the airwaves. Almost certainly conflicting opinions.

Do you feel those opinions should not be presented forcefully to the government bureaucrats who make decisions affecting our interests? Should we just wait around, silent and respectful, while our betters on the FCC tell us what's good for us? Should every one of us who wants to be heard be forced to take time off from work to fly out to Washington to testify every time the FCC holds hearings (every four weeks, maybe)? Or does it sound kinda' reasonable and economical if a bunch of us with similar interests and opinions might hire some good talker to go to Washington and make our case for us on a regular basis? Which is what lobbying is.

Maybe what you're doing, in the hysterical spirit of the times, is confusing lobbying ("speaking up about what you want to your elected officials") with corruption (bribing elected officials). They're not the same. For one thing, the latter is a crime. For another, it's inherently anti-democratic, whereas there's very little more democratic than groups of citizens vying for influence through their freely chosen representatives (i.e. those evil lobbyists).

Re:business and government are run by aliens?

[Knara]

unfortunately.. I believe your confusing the way lobbying SHOULD work, with the way it works in practice.

Correct. While the poster presents an excellent view of how lobbying would work in a perfect world, in reality lobbyists are quite often highly paid contractors that express the desires of a relatively small number of people who have large amount of resources directed towards legislative action that directly benefits themselves, not the population as a whole.

Rock on, GAO!

[DoofusOfDeath]

Is it just me, or has the GAO been a bright ray of honesty and objectivity in a government that otherwise continuously erodes our respect?