FCC Commissioner Leaves To Become Lobbyist
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.'"
Revolving door. Enough said. Honestly, I'm tired of caring about it. Action will only happen when people begin to truly feel the effects. Logic is lost on the masses.
Corruption just seems to be getting more and more visible and obvious, and nobody with the power to stop it gives a damn.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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.
Ice Cream has no bones.
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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?
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.
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.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Everything that is wrong with politics and lobbying. Make lobbying illegal, dethrone corporate power.
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.
Shouldn't lobbying be Illegal ?
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).
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.
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.
You are assuming that things like company towns and stores and oppressive corporate control in general is something that would happen by default without government regulation.
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?