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.'"

Comments

Disgusting

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe before she leaves she can put the stamp of approval on AT&T / T-Mobile as a fallback.

Re:Disgusting

[saneshark]

Everything that is wrong with politics and lobbying. Make lobbying illegal, dethrone corporate power.

Re:Disgusting

[Aryden]

It would do nothing. Not all of the bribes that go out are monetary in the sense of an exchange of funds. Promises to select x person for abc company's board after their time in office, appointments within the corporation for friends and relatives, even just calling up the right people to help pave the way for your dipshit son to get into Harvard/Yale/other ivy league drone factory will work.

Re:Disgusting

[camperslo]

Everything that is wrong with politics and lobbying. Make lobbying illegal, dethrone corporate power.

I think this is a good year for some changes. It's not like there's anything else going on.
An old phrase comes to mind "When you need to get something done, ask a busy person"
We're not the only ones with these problems.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110419p2a00m0na012000c.html

Maybe we should demand the FCC fix a few things:

1) More diversity in news production and in local ownership of broadcast stations

2) Full interoperable license free open standards for other to tie in with if MS buys Skype

3) Do away with paid political ads on radio and tv. Stations can choose how much free time to give as public affairs programming time on a balanced basis. (If ya can't get politicians to cut off the contributions they get, limit how they cam spend it!)

4) Bring back stations committing to a maximum number of commercial minutes per hour. They pick the number on the license renewal/application. If a competing applicant has a lower number, they may risk loss of the license. No more 18 minutes of ads in an hour show. No more infomercials.

Re:Disgusting

[Jesus_666]

As for number 3: I'd go further and force the stations to show political ads for free, however they have to do so in a balanced manner (balanced per-time unit per-party*, not per-ad) and they have to allocate a set amount of their advertisement time. Also, every party needs to prove that their ads didn't cost more than X USD per election in total or the ads need to be pulled and the party is fined. Set X to something sensible like 10.000 USD.

Essentially make it so that advertisement costs are a non-issue for any party large enough to even register on a federal election as far as radio and TV are concerned.


* Limited to parties you will find on the ballot, of course. If you want to inject your own ads to distract people from those of the big parties you will need to form your own federally-electable party in order to do so. In Germany a satire magazine has actually pulled that off once but generally it should keep the airwaves reasonably clean.

Re:Disgusting

[yuhong]

But limiting campaign donations still would help a lot.

Re:Disgusting

[montyzooooma]

Every time I see one of these stories where a lobbyist jumps into a watchdog or Government post, or vice versa, I get a little more sympathetic towards downloading a TV show or MP3. It's like that Tinkerbell fairies thing from Peter Pan, except every time they abuse their powers a little bit of my moral compass dies.

Re:Disgusting

[smelch]

You shouldn't limit contributions. It really infringes on people's rights. I really think we just need to hold on for a little bit until all the people not using the internet are dead then all the money in the world doesn't matter. We have the awesome power of the web to blast messages out on all kinds of free websites, and starting your own is pretty inexpensive. Campaign costs will drop dramatically in the next decade. You can't just write laws and magically everything is all better. You have to improve the culture.

Re:Disgusting

[Qzukk]

We have the awesome power of the web to blast messages out on all kinds of free websites

Except to customers of ComcastNBCUniversal, who will be redirected to corporate-approved messages.

Re:Disgusting

[smelch]

So the solution is common carrier status for ISPs, not limiting campaign contributions.

Re:Disgusting

[Unequivocal]

Not to be a wet blanket but I do not think that FCC has anywhere near the legal authority to do those things. Congress might have the legal basis, though recent Supreme Court rulings such as Citizens United suggest that they don't have the ability to regulate these things either.

Re:Disgusting

[Jesus_666]

True. I didn't think of the fact that the States have a two-party system.

With "federal election" I meant elections for federal offices. For instance, the presidential elections all seem to happen around the same time and are often treated like a single election (even though they're neither one election nor is the president elected during them).

Re:Disgusting

[jahudabudy]

You shouldn't limit contributions. It really infringes on people's rights

What rights? The right to buy political influence? How is that a right? Why should a wealthier person have more influence than a poorer person?

Re:Disgusting

[smelch]

The right to free speech, the right to free association, the right to not have onerous complicated tangling laws over the transmission of money, the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given.

If we get rid of money for political influence because nobody should have more political influence than anybody else just because of money, what does that leave for elections? Can't give money, maybe I can volunteer if I support a candidate. But why should people with more free time have more political influence than busy people? Ok, you can also spread the word, again the time thing, but also the number of friends you have and how well you speak, why should that affect your political influence? Are you implying ugly, awkward people should have less political influence than beautiful, captivating women asking for petition signatures? Don't be so obsessed with money, sometimes dealing with people is sticky and sometimes they won't do what you want. That doesn't mean you need to get your government out to force them in to the box of what you think is right.

Fuck man, I hate the people in this country. Its the fucking cigarette ban issue all over again. People decided they had a right to go to places they don't own and tell other people that they can't allow smokers there because it might damage their health. Well, if you who object to the smoking (campaign contributions) are unwilling to make the "sacrifice" of not going to the diner (not vote for the guy taking them, vote for a third party) or are not a sizable enough portion of the population where that changes things, then you have no right to dictate the situation.

Re:Disgusting

[jahudabudy]

The right to free speech, the right to free association, the right to not have onerous complicated tangling laws over the transmission of money, the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given.

Money isn't speech, no matter what the courts say. It's only in the incredibly narrow world of campaign contributions that anyone even pretends to believe this. Limiting campaign donations is not stepping on anyone's moral or natural rights to express themselves. It's prohibiting wealthy people/organizations from buying the political process in this country.

the right to willfully do what you want with what you earned or were given

You do not have any such right, nor should you. Society prohibits all sorts of things you do with your money. Paying for political favors is one of them, except when it is done under the fiction of "donating large sums to the campaign". I think we should get rid of that loophole in what most people agree is a pretty good prohibition.

But why should people with more free time have more political influence than busy people? Ok, you can also spread the word, again the time thing, but also the number of friends you have and how well you speak, why should that affect your political influence? Are you implying ugly, awkward people should have less political influence than beautiful, captivating women asking for petition signatures?

Yep, people with more time and/or ability to influence people have more time and/or ability to influence people. But unlike money, people with good looks aren't trying to influence government in order to become better looking. Wealth seeks to influence government in order to increase wealth. The really large donations come when people/organizations spend money buying political influence b/c they want a return on investment. They buy policies that are detrimental to society at large b/c it makes them money. Governmental policies become simply a cost of doing business.

Don't be so obsessed with money, sometimes dealing with people is sticky and sometimes they won't do what you want

I am "so obsessed with money" b/c history demonstrates that some people, generally those with very little or a whole lot of money, will do anything to their fellow man in pursuit of it. Those with very little have little power to oppress me. Those with a whole lot have great power to oppress me; good government is one of the few defenses I have against that potential oppression. Why wouldn't I jealously guard that defense against being undermined?

Revolving Door

[elohel]

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.

Re:Revolving Door

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Revolving Door

[pckl300]

Action will only happen when people begin to truly feel the effects. Logic is lost on the masses.

Most people are so far removed from what happens in Washington that the cause/effect is hard to identify. They don't have anything to point to and be angry at.

Re:Revolving Door

[Wapiti-eater]

Na, that's the nutz way of doing things. Just makes one bloody mess for everyone else. FCC - like most of the inner beltway dwellers - just needs a re-boot.

Re:Revolving Door

[DigiShaman]

You and me both. Who knows. Maybe what we call corruption is just another social abstract layer. I say that because the Monkey Sphere outlines our individual social limitations very well.

Re:Revolving Door

[error_logic]

If you and everyone else thinking about it take that stance, no one is any different from "the masses."

Re:Revolving Door

[crackspackle]

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.

Fee the effects ? Here's a choice quotefrom Ms. Baker:

“I am privileged to have had the opportunity to serve the country at a time of critical transformation in the telecommunications industry,” Ms. Baker said in a statement. “The continued deployment of our broadband infrastructures will meaningfully impact the lives of all Americans. I am happy to have played a small part in the success.”

I hope there's lube with that meaningfully impact

Re:Revolving Door

[gstoddart]

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.

Here in Canada, they actually passed a law saying you can't be a lobbyist for a couple of years after leaving government service.

I think it's hard to trust the decisions of someone who approved a merger, and then a few months later goes on to be a lobbyist for that entity. It's hard not to believe that there aren't ethical (if not legal) issues which arise from this.

I'm actually surprised that this is still legal -- it definitely makes one seriously distrust the lobbyist economy -- it's way too stacked in favor of the companies who can throw money at getting whatever outcomes they want. So much for democracy.

Re:Revolving Door

[Unequivocal]

In fact Obama's administration makes political appointees sign a legal pledge to exactly that effect. I know, I had to sign one. The problem is that FCC commissioners work for Congress not the President and Congress doesn't make them sign such a pledge. Most of the US Federal gov't right now is fairly clean on this issue, as far as I can see. It's going to limit my future job opportunities but who cares, it's worth it.

Re:Revolving Door

[Unequivocal]

I found out that what I said is not true: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/

These commissioners did sign the ethics pledge which means she cannot lobby directly to many political people in DC.

Oh, this does not smell of corruption AT ALL.

[Jailbrekr]

So, how many of her corrupt little lackeys are going with her?

Re:Oh, this does not smell of corruption AT ALL.

[artor3]

None, of course. They need to stay behind, and occasionally go out to dinner with her (purely non-business, of course!). Otherwise, what use is she to Comcast? If they're good little lackeys, they'll get job offers of their own one day.

The federal revolving door

[hsmith]

Get a high level position in Congress, White House, any agency and get guaranteed a super high paying lobbyist job. How terrible public service is!

Re:The federal revolving door

[Unequivocal]

Not true for Executive branch political appointees (of which I am one). We all had to sign an "ethics pledge" which prohibits this revolving door for two years after our appointment, if we were a lobbyist beforehand. And all appointees can't deal with former employers at all for the first two years of their appointment, which is very annoying but if it helps with corruption it's worth it.

Problem is, this lady worked at FCC which is a Congressional commission and therefore not subject to the Obama ethics pledge, afaik.

Pledge we all signed here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ethics-commitments-executive-branch-personnel

Re:The federal revolving door

[Unequivocal]

I found out that what I said is not true: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/

These commissioners did sign the ethics pledge which means she cannot lobby directly to many political people in DC.

Corruption

[TheSpoom]

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

[MightyMartian]

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

[Tx]

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:Corruption

[godless dave]

The people with the power to stop it are all profiting from it.

Re:Corruption

[foniksonik]

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:Corruption

[independent123]

This revolving door is a far bigger problem than campaign contributions, yet it gets little attention.

Re:Corruption

[SlowGenius]

Set 'X' equal to at least 50, and don't forget to include spinoff companies. That way, chances are that if you've accumulated enough power to cause significant mischief, you won't be able to cash in until after you're dead. Not that that would stop everybody...

Re:Corruption

[Cwix]

Fine, lets ban lobbyists.

Re:Corruption

[flaming error]

It's not a "non-compete" - the FCC is not a competitor of NBC, it's a regulator.

The rule GP proposed was intended to prevent shepherding gigs from being a stepping stone to joining a wolf clan.

Re:Corruption

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a conflict of interests. When someone who is supposed to be working for the public good takes a payoff from a company that benefited from said public employee's actions, it is generally frowned upon, if not outlawed. The military has regulations in place covering exactly what happened here because of large contracts that had to be recompeted because of key decision makers taking high-paying post-retirement jobs with a contract winner. In the end, this kind of behavior costs this nation's taxpayers millions if not billions of dollars. In a time when our lawmakers want to cut wasteful spending (or just any spending they don't personally like), we should be holding our federal regulators to a higher standard.

Re:Corruption

[afidel]

Then they'll just hire the persons spouse to the lobbying position after they leave government.

Re:Corruption

[jd2112]

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.

Re:Corruption

[bill_mcgonigle]

Corruption just seems to be getting more and more visible and obvious, and nobody with the power to stop it gives a damn.

Power serves corruption and corruption serves power.

The government exists because the People have given it their power. It's beyond obvious (this being a text book illustration) that we've given too much power.

How to stop corruption at the FCC? Get rid of the FCC. Done, next?

Re:Corruption

[BancBoy]

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 .

It's already in effect! Apparently x = ~ .17

Re:Corruption

[Antony-Kyre]

That would be the American people. They have the power. They vote people in and out of office. See the quote you mentioned in your signature. If people would only vote their hearts at each election, rather than voting for the lesser of two evils.

The people as a whole have more power than any individual Congress member.

Re:Corruption

[MightyMartian]

I'd say the Glorious Revolution had a tyrant (though admittedly James II was a pretty lukewarm tyrant as tyrants go) who was toppled without a good deal of bloodshed. Parliament enacted the Bill of Rights, 1689, which is pretty much the modern foundation of the liberties enjoyed throughout the English-speaking world, and shopped around for a King that would sign it.

Re:Corruption

[mldi]

Yep, and it's getting ridiculous. This deserves prison time - I don't see how this kind of a move could even possibly be legal!?

Re:Corruption

[osgeek]

Exactly. Government that asks for more money, power, and complexity should be curtailed as a matter of course. Portions of it should be torn down and rebuilt periodically, just to get rid of the old assumptions and cruft. To do this effectively, government must be extremely transparent so that everyone can get in and take a look at it.

The above principles are good for software development, and they'd be great applied to our government.

Re:Corruption

[Unequivocal]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ethics-commitments-executive-branch-personnel

It *is* like this for the executive branch government right now.. This lady worked at a congressional commission, not for the president and so, afaik, wasn't obligated to sign such an ethics pledge.

Re:Corruption

[Unequivocal]

I found out that what I said is not true: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/f-c-c-commissioner-to-join-comcast/

These commissioners did sign the ethics pledge which means she cannot lobby directly to many political people in DC.

Re:Corruption

[TheSpoom]

Wow, blame the victim much? I'm a permanent resident and therefore cannot vote. If I could, I would (and I absolutely will once I become a citizen in a couple of years). As for contacting my representatives, well, rocking the boat would not be good for my situation seeing as how I have to file again with USCIS in a few months. Any idea how easy it is to take someone's green card?

Fair enough.

[demonbug]

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:Fair enough.

[f8l_0e]

Let me know if you can't find them. I'll pick you up a set at the hardware store on the way to the mob rally point.

Re:Fair enough.

[cpu6502]

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:Fair enough.

[praxis]

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.

Re:Fair enough.

[Unequivocal]

The fact is, Comcast didn't need to buy her vote they were getting it for free. She was not the swing vote on this issue by a long margin. Comcast had her in the bag without resorting to anything resembling bribery.

I'm pretty sure while this looks like payola (and is offensive), that this deal is being done b/c she'll make a good lobbyist, not b/c of something she did for Comcast while at FCC. Until recently I worked at FCC and we all knew which way the wind blew for this lady - no large corps needed to resort to anything as banal as quid pro quo to get her vote.

Comcast wants her because she used to be a commissioner and has a lot of contacts and power in DC. Not because of what she did per se while a commissioner in exchange for a deal. Only sloppy/ignorant politicians play out corruption in such a direct and obvious fashion.

Most bureaucrats are bought and sold

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Most bureaucrats are bought and sold

[segin]

Yes, but free TV's business model is the same as Google's - to sell eyes to advertisers, in turn, to make money for advertisers by having the eyes buy what the advertiser is selling.

In short, free TV depends on you running out to the store and buying everything in sight.

Kettle, pot, black

[Anonymous Coward]

This just screams of conflict of interest, and big time pay off...

Weird Statement

[Adambomb]

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:Weird Statement

[starfishsystems]

Yeah, though I tend to notice the "potential harms" bit. At least it's mentioned, which is a gesture approximating honesty.

Re:Weird Statement

[Syberz]

She's a consumer, she got a high paying, little doing lobbyist job out of it. NBC and Comcast are consumers of something and they got a good way to screw over their customers.

So there are the benefits to the consumers, you just assumed that "consumers" meant "regular people".

Just Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought there was a law against this.... Don't you have to wait two or so years before you can do this???
That is how the banking industry about brought the U.S down

Re:Just Wrong

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

This is SO wrong..

[yossie]

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

[Dyinobal]

I quit my job as a geological surveyor for Exxon bought a plot of desert land with absolutely no significance what so ever and then out of coincidence am rounding up investors for a business that's just so happened to be named Black Gold LLC. Nope no conflict of interest ever existed here.

Government is corrupt...

[TamCaP]

Government is corrupt like crazy (see also all the D- Reps from places like Alaska or Louisiana protesting abolition of tax-breaks for big oil...). No news, really. They should actually have titles like Comcast Commissioner (FCC), or Rapiscan Secretary of Homeland Security (looking at you, Chertoff). At least it would make the situation clearer. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Government is corrupt...

[geekoid]

"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:Government is corrupt...

[cyberchondriac]

The unemployed do not have last names.

We'd run out of first names fast

Re:Government is corrupt...

[cpu6502]

>>>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 try to return to the government we used to have. Small, efficient, and non-intrusive (i.e. not stopping people and forcing them to random searches or X-rays).

Let's start enforcing the Tenth Amendment for a change. Congress shall exercise no power it was never granted to do. (Those powers are reserved to the Local State government, which is directly accountable to the people.)

Re:Government is corrupt...

[frank_adrian314159]

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:Government is corrupt...

[JonySuede]

17/150 on the http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm 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:Government is corrupt...

[zippthorne]

Ironically, the example you just cited is actually not an example of corruption. It's actually an example of ordinary, somewhat respectable short-sightedness. They do represent their respective states' interests, after all.

Re:Government is corrupt...

[Alex Belits]

You mean, representing huge, powerful businesses that operate in their states, against interests of everyone else living in their states?

Re:Government is corrupt...

[zippthorne]

Not really, no.

You can compare states with oil (and other) resources whose population wants to exploit those resources (texas, alaska,..) to states with states with resources whose population doesn't want to exploit those resources (louisana, fl, ...). You'll find that the representatives generally go with the population's wishes.

Drilling for oil means oil company profits, yes, but it also means local jobs.

Translation

[MightyMartian]

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.

Still much better

[iMadeGhostzilla]

... than an FDA member leaving to work for Monsanto.

Only for high officials

[boristdog]

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

[blair1q]

So, no lobbying the White House, but Congress is fair game.

Tells you a lot about Congress.

Re:Only for high officials

[cpu6502]

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

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

[danlip]

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.

Re:Only for high officials

[slashqwerty]

The FCC is an independent government agency which is not part of the executive branch and is largely independent of presidential control.

Re:Only for high officials

[Nimey]

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:Only for high officials

[dcw3]

Your use of the term "teabaggers" alone is enough to make your post a troll. You, and the people who bumped your post up to +5 should be ashamed of yourselves. Maybe, instead of slinging mud, you could post an actual logical argument, or something enlightening. It's so sad to see this forum become a place where people just pile on when someone complains about an opposing viewpoint.

Re:Only for high officials

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, Teabagger.

Re:Only for high officials

[Nimey]

The thing about the useful idiots that make them useful is that they don't realize they're being used.

Can't be arsed.

Non-compete

[macraig]

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:Non-compete

[PetiePooo]

... we need non-compete clauses for elected and appointed officials ...

I was hoping someone would bring this up. Thank you, macraig.

Re:Non-compete

[blair1q]

A requirement that meetings between lawmakers and lobbyists be recorded and available under FOIA would make such things moot.

Re:Non-compete

[macraig]

No, it wouldn't. Even if it occurred only as a synergistic (/sarcasm) accident, it's still highly unethical.

Re:Non-compete

[macraig]

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:Non-compete

[macraig]

So... Minority Report tech, then?

Re:Non-compete

[Alex Belits]

But what are you going to do when it will show that ALL your government officials and top corporate executives are sociopaths?

Re:Non-compete

[macraig]

Then I guess we'll finally start the long-overdue rebellion?

Re:Non-compete

[macraig]

BTW, you seem to be living here if not a native, so they're YOUR sociopathic overlords, too. I'm just sayin', ya know, 'cause where revolutions are concerned the more the merrier and we sha'n't be picky about who wants to join us with pitchforks.

If you think this is corrupt, look at the Olympics

[WillAffleckUW]

The kickbacks for IOC chairs and board members are in the billions.

But, yeah, this is pretty darned corrupt. Figures.

Hint: Corporations are not, and never will be, People.

3...2...1....

[Virtucon]

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....

[blair1q]

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.

Re:3...2...1....

[blackbeak]

Smart. And probably true. Mod up regardless.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[scumdamn]

Progressives have nothing to answer for this. She failed to use federal government power to block a merger. She didn't use power that she should have.

Oh get it over with.

[VortexCortex]

Can we just accept the fact that they're all corrupt, and simply require that politicians publish their price, and who's pocket they're in so that the general public can try to buy a few?!

Re:Oh get it over with.

[blair1q]

Put it on the Nasdaq and give us all a bid.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Lunix Nutcase]

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:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[calmofthestorm]

Because Mechanical Turk is cheap.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Rewind]

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

[blair1q]

Horseshit. When states overstep that clause, they get their expectations reset by the other clauses. Too bad for them. Good for the nation.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Lunix Nutcase]

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:The sad truth is...

[Barrinmw]

No, because I wouldn't be caught dead working for Comcast-NBC.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[ryants]

She shouldn't have had that power in the first place.

Simply put, the FCC should not exist.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Lunix Nutcase]

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...

Contact the commisioner

[geekoid]

ask for an investigation. also, the attorney general.

Re:If you think this is corrupt, look at the Olymp

[geekoid]

really, the IOC chairs all became billionaires over night?

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Lunix Nutcase]

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".

Back to Basics

[M0j0_j0j0]

Shouldn't lobbying be Illegal ?

Re:Back to Basics

[mattcsn]

Who would vote for such a law?

Re:Back to Basics

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:Back to Basics

[ChrisMaple]

The problem is that it is almost impossible to prevent lobbying. Basically, any person in legislative office, any person capable of making executive decisions, and all judges, would have to be isolated from all outside contact during their terms in office. To prevent lobbying, they'd have to work in absence of external contact, including news, during their terms in office. In short, they'd have to work in ignorance. Not a good idea.

For a more practical approach, lobbying should be made physically difficult. Locate Congress in an small guarded isolated community in an inaccessible place like the north coast of Alaska. Move it every year, to places like Mt Whitney and Bikini Island, to prevent the buildup of fixed communities of camp followers.

Re:Back to Basics

[istartedi]

Locate Congress in an small guarded isolated community in an inaccessible place like the north coast of Alaska. Move it every year, to places like Mt Whitney and Bikini Island, to prevent the buildup of fixed communities of camp followers.

Let me guess. You're a lobbyist working for an association of airlines and adventure travel guides.

Re:Back to Basics

[Alex Belits]

Freedom of speech must remain one of the foundations of this country.

You mean, spamming all forms of media with political ads.

Considering the length of a typical soundbite spewed by political propaganda, I would rather see it all done using public money, making sure that all messages are _heard_.

Of course, "freedom of speech" only applies to speech to the public in the first place. Paying for privileged access to the public officials (what supports lobbyists in the first place) is clearly a form of corruption.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Galactic Dominator]

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

[Lunix Nutcase]

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

[NeutronCowboy]

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:If you think this is corrupt, look at the Olymp

[WillAffleckUW]

more their families, their relatives companies, their relatives foundations, the construction firms their brother-in-law owns ...

Pretty much, though.

My press release

[Morris Thorpe]

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.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[shadowfaxcrx]

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?

You can't make talking illegal.

[mosb1000]

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).

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[negRo_slim]

How can you make lobbying illegal?

By making paid lobbying illegal.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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:You can't make talking illegal.

[rhook]

I'm pretty sure that was in reference to the bribes, I mean "campaign contributions" lobbyists give to politicians when they want something.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[rhook]

Did you know that lists of campaign contributors are public information?

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[sonamchauhan]

"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:You can't make talking illegal.

[nbauman]

Sadly because of absurd Supreme Court rulings, such a law would most likely require a constitutional amendment,

Or a new Supreme Court.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[ghostdoc]

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: "Excellent, let's take a look at those merger plans then..."

Traditionally this was considered socially unacceptable and anyone being this openly corrupt would be forced to resign from public life because of it.

These days the only way we can deal with it is to formalise it and make it a known factor in politics, with a set of rules about how it operates. We should probably start selling the positions that we now elect as well, since it would make it simpler for everyone.

Reserve price of $1Million for a seat on congress, renewable annually, bids are open...

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like it is in Canada where they've avoided your horribly corrupt system through laws and their enforcement? Shocking!

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[smelch]

No, you just never had anyone build a business powerful enough to flex its muscles on the government.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[smelch]

Right now there may be a good reasno to claim corporations have too much influence over the government. However, at some point a government hostile to industry may actually opress businesses and there are completely valid reasons that a corporation or industry organization of some kind (funded by corporations) should be able to lobby their government. The problem, as usual, is the voters. They're the ultimate check and balance, they just never seem to fucking do their jobs.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[Qzukk]

They're the ultimate check and balance, they just never seem to fucking do their jobs.

It's a representative democracy, they're doing their jobs perfectly fine. After all, who else is going to decide which candidate has the correct view on abortion?

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[JTsyo]

All meetings with lobbyist and an elected official should be recorded and released to the public.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[Kelbear]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Crossroads

See Crossroads GPS. Not required to report contributors.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[tlhIngan]

You mean like it is in Canada where they've avoided your horribly corrupt system through laws and their enforcement? Shocking!

Not for long. Harper's going to repeal the $2/vote thing that makes it valuable to seek actual votes. After that, it'll be "campaign contribution" time. Sure there are limits ($5000 or so) per *person*, but those are so easily circumvented it's silly by corporations.

Perhaps it's best if the parties were beholden to the voter - raise the per vote subsidy, and ban all contributions. Then it matters less if a party has 50% of the popular vote but cannot get many seats (as can happen in FPTP). There would be great incentive to get the vote out, and the parties would be beholden to the voter rather than corporate interests.

Even this system isn't perfect, for it rewards short term gain at the expense of long term foresight, and there can be silly situations where one party can command 80% of the vote.

Maybe spending limits? Each riding can only spend as much as the poorest candidate can spend?

And hell, at least your FCC has teeth. The CRTC is so lopsided it's silly. While your Comcast-NBC merger was going on, we've had our content producers get gobbled up by content distributors (Shaw and Bell mostly), and we've got crap like cableboxes that are useless outside the system (no CableCARD, and no one will activate someone else's box), etc.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[mosb1000]

Yeah, there's no corruption in Canada.

Re:You can't make talking illegal.

[trevelyon]

The more power you concentrate in any one set of hands the more corruption that will result. Be it business or government this seems to hold true. This is the primary reason I'm a large supporter of smaller, layered government. With business you can turn elsewhere (unless there is a government supported monolpoly) but with government your only remedy is to move to another country. Businesses are much more apt to do this than natural people but immigration numbers show that even then many people are willing to make that change.

There are IMO very few things that absolutely need to be done on the federal level. Interestingly a few of those things I feel really should be done on the federal level include ecological protection (actual a global level but the federal government makes those agreements) and patent/copyright. Both areas that the federal government has been stellar in it's failure with and both due to rampant corruption/corporate influence.

Power has concentrated in DC considerably in the last 30 years and we see the results everyday (bailouts, resource driven wars, monopoly encouraging/strengthening rules, infringement of personal rights for industry gains, total perversion of patent and copyright system, legal obfuscation, complete inability to set meaningful environmental requirements). US politics are in a sad state that I think will not change until both Republican and Democrat parties are thrown out of office. IMO both parties are too dependent on corporate influence to ever make meaningful changes to eradicate the corruption.

Whore.

[unity100]

Or jigolo. all of them. its as simple as that. disgusting.

P.J. O'Rourke said...

[Dr. Sp0ng]

"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.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[rbrander]

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:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[Dr. Sp0ng]

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:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[artor3]

So your argument is that since regulators can be bribed into not enforcing regulations, we should just get rid of regulations entirely? What would that accomplish, aside from saving corporations the money they currently spend on bribes?

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[ChrisMaple]

Let's see, the alternatives are:

• I can buy something at a moderate price,
• or the government can make it illegal, either
• making it impossible to buy, or
• making it more expensive, and making both me and the seller criminals, all while

• providing an undeserved income at my expense for a self-righteous and corrupt government bureaucrat.

Guess which one I like.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[ChrisMaple]

Government corruption is impossible in the absence of government.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[Dr. Sp0ng]

The general idea is that it would force corporations to compete by meeting their customers' needs instead of buying political influence.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[joshbosh]

The general idea is that it would force corporations to compete by meeting their customers' needs instead of buying political influence.

Can you explain how a lack of environmental regulations would result in better air quality? Why would Corporation X, which produces luxury goods, want to limit the pollution created by its factories if said factories were located near only low-income people who are not customers of Corporation X?

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[Dr. Sp0ng]

Lack of regulations wouldn't. But stronger property rights, which are another essential ingredient, would. Their neighbors should have the ability to sue when their property is polluted (read: damaged) by the nearby factory.

This requires no strong central government or anti-business regulations, and would not be prone to political manipulation by the rich and well connected. Simply apply the same rules to everybody.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[joshbosh]

But stronger property rights, which are another essential ingredient, would.

Thanks for responding. I had originally included a paragraph in my post containing questions about the enforcement of property rights in matters relating to air pollution, but I deleted it.

What I wanted to know is this: without environmental regulations, would everyone need to monitor the air quality on their property, determine the cause(s) of any pollution, and successfully sue the polluter(s)? If so, I think that would be too difficult for most people, including myself.

I've known people who have sued over blatant property rights violations that were relatively simple to understand, and the process was very difficult and time-consuming. I imagine that suing over air quality (e.g., an AQI of 51) would be far worse.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[Dr. Sp0ng]

No, everybody wouldn't need to. The threat would be enough of a deterrent in general, and in the area immediately surrounding the polluter it would not be a difficult case to make.

You're right that the devil is in the details. But this is even more true when you're trying to attack such problems head-on with direct, one-size-fits-all legislation. A legal framework based on property rights would decentralize these decisions and apply local considerations.

"I've known people who have sued over blatant property rights violations..."

Yeah, but this isn't surprising since property rights are not properly protected these days. Instead of clear lines, there are fuzzy rules fraught with exceptions and loopholes.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[joshbosh]

A legal framework based on property rights would decentralize these decisions and apply local considerations.

As you said, the devil is in the details. If detailed proposals for both 1) an optimal legal framework based on property rights and 2) an optimal set of locally-enforced environmental regulations were available, a more thorough comparison could be made.

For example, I'd be interested in seeing how an optimal legal framework based on property rights would address violations involving diesel exhaust. Who could be sued when a dangerous level of submicron particulate matter pollution from diesel exhaust is found in a person's lungs by their doctor? Individual truckers? Truck manufacturers and sellers? Diesel fuel producers and sellers? The owners of the (private?) roads?

Yeah, but this isn't surprising since property rights are not properly protected these days.

Is this due to corruption? Also, do you think that the enforcement of property rights given an optimal legal framework would be less susceptible to corruption compared to the enforcement of equally optimal environmental regulations? Would corruption of the former be less harmful?

Sorry for all the questions. I find this very interesting.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[artor3]

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 living in overpriced slums, eating unsafe food, working for companies that are free to treat them like crap.

Why improve working conditions, if you're buddies with all the local businesses, and they treat their employees just as bad? Why keep contaminants out of your food, if you've already got a deal with other grocers that they won't sell on your turf? Why make your building safe and sturdy if your tenants have no safer place to go live?

This isn't speculation. It's what happened about a century ago. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[speedlaw]

Thank you. Corporations are inherently amoral. not immoral, but amoral. They are machines. You don't have six local eating places, you have two and four chains. Likewise, you get competition between fios and cable ONLY if they are on your street. Otherwise, slow speeds and no customer service. Government should be a counterweight to smooth out the rough edges of Capitalism. All religions teach us this. They are right and I'm an atheist. A just society cares for all to some extent. We get crazy as we won't toss anyone out of an emergency room but won't pay for it. The hypocrisy means paying customers get hammered while some don't pay. We still use private, 30% profit "companies" for our insurance pooling when even poorly run a public option is better. We don't get this, we get "private" insurance for all. The AMA came out with a study showing most markets have two insurers, maybe three. At that level our history of railroads teaches us that the players go for a beer and come back with high prices for us. The rand nuts then collide with hippies and we end up with no result. Corporate America games the system and I now pay more for disaster health insurance than I used to for actual pays-for stuf[- health insurance.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said...

[knirps]

Just as funny as when the ones who want government out of everything are surprised to find the robber barons even more corrupt and destructive. Very snarky but typically useless. Shall we re-run the Standard Oil movie again for you? How about instead of trying to one-up each other with cute little remarks to impress "our side" we actually try to make reasonable rules that at least slow the corruption down? Something like the suggestion of a waiting-period for individuals with policy-level authority would help.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[ryants]

One idea: Why the FCC should die

Abolishing the FCC does not mean airwave anarchy. What it means is returning to bottom-up law rather than the top-down process that has characterized telecommunications for the last 80 years.

More details in the link.

you can make bribery illegal

[decora]

oh, actually bribery is already illegal.

too bad the 'rule of law' doesnt apply to the friends of the powerful.

Re:you can make bribery illegal

[SuricouRaven]

Depends how you define bribery.

"Do this and I'll give you money." - illegal. "Do this and you can expect a hefty donation to your political campaign" - legal.

They don't. But...

[webbiedave]

Meredith Attwell Baker was nominated for a seat on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama on June 25, 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Attwell_Baker

Re:And why not flaunt it?

[MightyMartian]

Tough call for me, as I'm an atheist.

somewhat agree hwoever

[decora]

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:somewhat agree hwoever

[Dr. Sp0ng]

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:somewhat agree hwoever

[ChrisMaple]

Your argument is completely void of validity. One of the biggest complaints against insurance companies is that they refuse to cover even some standard procedures, and controversial ones are frequently rejected out of hand.

Re:somewhat agree hwoever

[Qzukk]

where health care could be if it were allowed to flourish like the computer industry

"Our patients only crash once a day!"

Do you need to look any further for proof?

[pecosdave]

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:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[Dutchmaan]

I disagree. Regulation is beneficial, but what we are lacking are public servants who have the integrity to actually serve the public good. Allowing corporations free reign because they corrupt is a rather backwards argument. Corporations corrupt *to get* free reign, so suggesting that as a solution just leads me to believe that you're part of the corruption.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[pecosdave]

The definition of insanity is repeating the same process repeatedly and expecting different results.

You're the one who wants to give the government more power. Enforce laws on their intent, stop making new laws, simplify the laws and get out of everyone's business.

Yes, something like the corruption around the early railroad would reoccur if we didn't enforce laws, but the American people will not allow corporations to control the country without holding the reigns of the government today. The reason we wont is because there are so many people like you against it. Giving the government power is still giving it to corporations. Take it from the government and act like groups of people in a local environment with ties to other local groups instead of one massive broken hoard. When companies try to take power that doesn't belong to them the people have the power to stop it as long as the companies do not wield the power of government. If we keep going your route we can keep dealing with politicians creating laws trying to force us to give our money to companies they designate. Health care bill? Military contracts? Lessening government power is the only way to slow the forced filtering of our money to the companies you want to stop.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[currently_awake]

Government is the only thing between corporations and total power. The problem is government isn't held accountable for their mis-deeds. If the dems and reps both sold out then stop voting for both parties. If there's nothing better then run for office. That IS how the system works.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[pecosdave]

I agree, unfortunately the dumasses don't quite comprehend this and get taken in on stupid things that are distractions from the real issues.

Abortion
Gayness - all of it
gun rights

These issues are important, but they're diversions from the real issues. As long as the "two parties" can keep those three things at the top of the list they're free to take turns winning and losing regions while making sure the real elephants in the room are ignored. As far as I'm concerned the "two parties" are co-operating on this strategy to protect the real money flow from our pockets, to the corporate pockets and back to their own.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[Dutchmaan]

The definition of insanity is repeating the same process repeatedly and expecting different results.

and yet you're the one who wants to go back to a Laissez-faire style of government. Even noting of the corruption that will occur. Ironically it was regulation that took down the rail barons.

You're the one who wants to give the government more power. Enforce laws on their intent, stop making new laws, simplify the laws and get out of everyone's business.

Is that what you took from it? I seem to recall mentioning integrity of public servants and regulation being beneficial

Yes, something like the corruption around the early railroad would reoccur if we didn't enforce laws, but the American people will not allow corporations to control the country without holding the reigns of the government today.

You know what.. the American people ARE allowing the corporations control the government. The solution is not to dismantle or weaken the government, but to reduce corporate influence.

The reason we wont is because there are so many people like you against it. Giving the government power is still giving it to corporations. Take it from the government and act like groups of people in a local environment with ties to other local groups instead of one massive broken hoard. When companies try to take power that doesn't belong to them the people have the power to stop it as long as the companies do not wield the power of government.

and how exactly do people stop abusive monopolistic practice.. without government to represent them? Are you going to start up on the virtues of the free market system? Because the free market certainly can't be corrupted in any way, right? The only and I mean ONLY thing that's going to stop corruption of the system in placing integrity in the system, because a system only works how it's supposed to work when you have people actively trying to make it work instead of trying to circumvent what it's trying to accomplish.

If we keep going your route we can keep dealing with politicians creating laws trying to force us to give our money to companies they designate. Health care bill? Military contracts? Lessening government power is the only way to slow the forced filtering of our money to the companies you want to stop.

As opposed to your route of having the corporations just abuse us with no recourse other than maybe some feeble grass roots uprising. You seem to be confused as to who is the corrupting influence here. Money is the corrupter and the corporations have the money. You say government is corrupt when it's the corps placing people there to corrupt it.. and your solution is to dismantle or weaken what the corps want out of their way in the first place.

The government is supposed to represent the people.. and it's representing the corporations because they're placing their own representatives in there.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[pecosdave]

The government is supposed to represent the people.. and it's representing the corporations because they're placing their own representatives in there.

They're not doing it. We're the assholes electing the other assholes over and over again. If a new "uncorrupted" political party shows up the assholes will simply move from their sinking ship to the new party, but at least it will throw things off balance for a while. In the end, new boat, same people on it that were on the old boat, same problems again. The only way to fix it is for the people to take the power back, and we don't have the permission of our government to do that. If we try they'll sick the TSA on us.

I don't see how limiting the power of the government in places where it doesn't belong (most places not covered in the constitution, and no, this isn't a suggestion to increase the size of the constitution like they've done to the Texas one), is handing power to corporations. You've been drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, it's served from a donkey shaped pitcher, but don't worry, the conservative Kool-Aid is served in an elephant shaped pitcher and the pitchers are filled from the same tap and the Kool-Aid is made of both socialism and fascism.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[Theotherguy_1]

Unfortunately we live under a first-past-the-post system. You literally have no choice. If you want to give 3rd parties more clout, campaign for a different voting scheme. Otherwise, you really are just wasting your votes.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[Culture20]

I agree, unfortunately the dumasses don't quite comprehend this and get taken in on stupid things that are distractions from the real issues. Abortion

You might see this as a stupid issue, but some people truly believe abortion kills people.

gun rights

You might see this as a stupid issue, but some people truly believe gun rights kill people.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[TheGreatMcCluck]

That IS how the system works.

No. That is how the system is currently OPERATING. It clearly ISN'T working. In theory, gov't is the only thing between corporations and total power. In reality, they got total power while everyone was too busy watching Fox News and lining up around the block to get the next shiny toy (I just gots to have my iPad2) to notice. I'm oversimplifying and missing about a billion points here, but the fact remains: What happened in the article really happened, and that is a function of a system that is not working.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[pecosdave]

I actually like a vote against system, something akin to the Australian system, moves the most objectionable candidates down and the folks that are least objectionable to the top. Five votes of decreasing values, best vote to first choice, go down the line, the guy that winds up being everyone's second or third choice is the likely winner.

Re:Do you need to look any further for proof?

[pecosdave]

I'm not arguing the issues themselves here, yes, they are important. As I said below the list they are tools of manipulation to keep people voting Republicrat. It's as though the "Two parties" agree to never actually settle the issues just so they can make a big deal about them each election by dividing the company between the "two" parties, which in reality regardless of which one wins they achieve the same objectives, maybe some of the money gets filtered to one company instead of the other, but it's still same thing.

It sure does sound fishy

[BlueCoder]

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.

Re:It sure does sound fishy

[currently_awake]

Making rules against government misdeeds only works if the rules are enforced (warrantless wiretapping?). Passing another law to ignore is just window dressing, the real solution is to hold politicians accountable. It doesn't matter how much money they get in bribes/lobby funds if half the voters in the county/state turn up at his office and demand change.

Too big to fail = too big to live

[currently_awake]

The bigger companies get the smaller people become. I propose we set a maximum limit on corporations, anything larger can't do business in our country.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Obfuscant]

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:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[praxis]

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:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[JDAustin]

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:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[JDAustin]

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:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Obfuscant]

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 separation. What a cash cow for the government.

By the way, make sure you sell the next tenant the frequencies so he can use his WI-FI when he moves in.

Then you get to worry about someone using his frequencies in a way that is incompatible with your use. Only then.

By the way, what government agency is responsible for doing this splitting up by region and allocating bandwidths to chunks of spectrum? We'll have to create one. Maybe call it "Federal" because it is a federal agency. Then something about "communications" because it deals with communications. Not sure what other words might apply...

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[independent123]

Dated, but a good article. I smell a libertarian here, so I guess you'll agree that this was always about power rather than the public. Certainly at this point in time there are few resources that are as abundant as bandwidth. Not much reason there for heavy regulation or a natural monopoly.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[tnk1]

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

[Pyrion]

Because Obama appointed those two Republicans. And though Obama is by no means a progressive, progressives nonetheless voted for him.

Looks funny, but investigation?

[TiggertheMad]

Isn't this why the FOA was created? You should be able to file a few requests to start digging into the nature of the relationship...

This is why government should be as 'open sourced' as possible. I don't think that a DOJ investigation needs to be opened every time someone leaves public office, since people who are involved in a given aspect of government are going to gravitate towards the same sort of work in the private sector. However, the system should be transparent enough that anyone who is suspicious of things like this can easily poke around for evidence of a conflict of interest.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Drgnkght]

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).

And that has what exactly to do with the United States Constitution? Not saying it isn't true, but it's not all that relevant. If I remember correctly Truth isn't a liable/slander legal defense in the UK. I seem to recall that, indeed the law there is written to protect the important from being "embarrassed" publicly by their actions. (Someone from the UK want to comment on that?).

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[mr_mischief]

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:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[rhook]

If a band is crowded I doubt anyone is going to make a device that uses it. The industry is also pretty good at making standards, the FCC has nothing to do with those.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[scumdamn]

Both of your replies were excellent. I wish I could have modded them both up.

Re:Evil

[ChrisMaple]

Yep, nothing like keeping people alive and providing them with a way to earn a living, to identify evil.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[ryants]

One TRILLION dollars is the value, according to this nutcase. Sorry, he's wrong.

As far as I can tell, that figure was pulled out of the author's ass. Equally your rebuttal. A little bit of googling reveals it is at least on the order of hundreds of billions.

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.

In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money. The people voted with their wallets (well, eyeballs). If you, as a concerned citizen, see someone buying up the spectrum in a way you don't like, then you should pony up your own dough and make a bid. Or you could start broadcasting on the web, or some other hitherto unknown technology, and render all that TV spectrum they purchased worthless, and they'd be bankrupt. Capitalism is a harsh mistress.

Somebody buys channel A in one area, someone else channel A in another area, and they interfere with each other.

That was addressed in the link:

Huber proposes that the government sell off standard units of spectrum-- ... -- using existing geographical contours for each type of frequency.

Hell, there isn't even anyone who can define the STANDARDS that apply

Standards only come about via government dictat? USB, HDMI, 33 1/3 rpm records... ? If a bureaucrat doesn't think of it, it can't exist?

The local cops buy a channel for their use. I start using it, too.

I'd say that is akin to trespassing. The link may say lawsuits only, but I can see a criminal case similar to trespass.

A buys the channels for public safety in an area. B buys the channels for cellular.

Sounds like someone fucked up the auction, then.

The FCC still has a purpose.

Even if that were true, I'd like to see where among the enumerated powers Congress gets the authority for even creating or continuing the FCC.

By the way, who "sells" the bandwidth for frequencies and uses that are worldwide in nature?

Good question! Who regulates it now?

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Wandering Idiot]

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?

Lobbyist

[JohnVanVliet]

viva-la -revolution
time for a change .

There is a law

[pavon]

18 USC 207 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.

tar and feathers

[reasterling]

For times like this God gave us tar and feathers.

Contact your Senators and Reps!

[acoustix]

I have contacted both of my senators and my representative. I urge all other US citizens to do the same.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Nimey]

Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

How's it feel to be a fucking retard? TR was the last liberal Republican president. The parties began switching positions about the time of FDR, and this was completed either by the time of McCarthyism or when the Dixiecrats left the Dems to become Republicans because they wanted to continue being racist, and the national Dems weren't having it.

Look, I know Internet Libertarians aren't known for being grounded in reality, commodore64_love, but really.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Nimey]

I'll ask you the same question: how's it feel to be a fucking retard?

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[nbauman]

But Obama *appointed* her, didn't he?

I don't understand. Was this another example of his "post-partisanship"? http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/04/the-adventures-of-middle-man/

Silver Lining

[Steauengeglase]

At least that leaves McDowell as the only commissioner left who suggests that the FCC should be sued back into the stone age whenever the FCC decides, that it maybe, might consider to think about doing anything. Not that it matters, it is all theater anyway.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[Bespoke]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
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:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[shadowfaxcrx]

Yes. Yes it does.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[shadowfaxcrx]

"What if disputes over spectrum arose? The answer is simple. Whoever owned the rights to that slice of virtual real estate would locate the illicit broadcaster, march into the local courthouse and get a restraining order to pull the plug on the transmitter."

Yeah, I loved that one too. Talk about overcrowding the courts. Someone starts fooling around on my frequency. So I sue them and win and they stop. Then someone else decides to start fooling around on my frequency. Now I have to sue the new guy too. Pretty soon I'm in court more often than most lawyers, and meanwhile until the lawsuit is decided I can't use my frequency. Tough shit, you might say, if I'm a television station, but what if I'm the fire department?

"The FCC shouldn't exist" is the call of the obnoxious anti-gubmint anarchist. Nothing more.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[TouchAndGo]

"In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money."

Cause absolutely no one who owns a station STARTED with any money, it was only accrued through them being the most successful station. You're advocating hard for letting those with money do whatever they want to those without.

Corporations are not the problem here

[Shivetya]

the problem is Congress. We should not ban corporate lobbying anymore than we ban lobbying from any group. What we should is reform the election system so that it does not take millions and millions of dollars to become an elected official. This is the inroad that all the money has. This is how corporations, unions, and special interest groups, get control of Congress. They buy the campaigns. They can do this because we don't have limits on how much a campaign cost.

Three methods.

One method would be to set a financial limit on how much a campaign for a specific office can be spent. This includes putting costs on volunteer work as well. We have the very real chance of a billion dollar campaign for the office of the President in 2012. You think Wall Street is going to give up what they (and yes they won it) in 2008? Like hell.

Yet at the same time it will require reigning in all these new shadow groups that Congress writes into law like the 527 groups. Simple attempts by Congress to allow their buddies to keep them in office while dodging all the restrictions they attempt to place on those who attempt to keep them out.

The second method

Term limits. One term in Senate and three in the House.

The third

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and go back to having state legislators appoint their Senators.

Who contributes money is not a problem, its how much and why it is of such influence. It has such influence because you can nearly buy an election (sometimes that fails) and once in your nearly there forever.

subject

[Legion303]

These cocksuckers don't even try to be subtle any more.

Kabuki

[ThatsNotPudding]

The next FCC commissioner, for example, cannot have her over to discuss what Comcast would like changed by the FCC.

Meaning they will have to dicussion doing Comcast's bidding over a four-star lunch instead.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[smelch]

Bingo. The premise that the right to privacy isn't in the constitution is false.

Pure Genius

[Avatar8]

1. Serve in government position, pushing BS about technology your legal career cannot comprehend.
2. Create a mega network for the worst managed sinkhole of ancient technology in history.
3. Profit$$$$$$$$

I think she is brilliant on a business level. She's already screwed over the customers of Comcast and NBCU. Now she's going to screw over the tax payers by soliciting for funds to patch the sinking ship. Meanwhile she rakes in dumpster loads of cash while she shovels what remains of her morales out the door.

Simple Solution, good luck with that.

[DarthVain]

Ban corporate political donations. Set a cap on individual political donations to 1000$. Make tough laws for electoral fraud, and enforce them.

All your problems are solved.

Good luck getting the politicians who receive millions of dollars in "donations" to agree to that.

I put quotes around donations because I believe at a certain threshold they cease to be about supporting a political group and their bid for election because they have similar ideals, and more about a BRIBE from special interest groups so that their ideals and agenda with become part of the parties to do list.

Re:And why not flaunt it?

[Gizzmonic]

Then what of your .sig featuring moped Jesus?

Re:And why not flaunt it?

[MightyMartian]

Then what of your .sig featuring moped Jesus?

Listen, I just report the news, I don't make it! :)

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[cpu6502]

I consider our previous president (Bush) and his Republican-majority Congress to be progressives.
Is that recent enough for you?

Even now the so-called "tea party" Republicans are just a small minority. The Republicans in charge are still pushing forward with a progressive, "ignore the constitution as if it doesn't exist" agenda.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato

[dgatwood]

If I remember correctly Truth isn't a liable/slander legal defense in the UK.

It's not an absolute defense in the U.S., either. If the information is private and the person is a private citizen, you can still get into trouble for invasion of privacy.

Federal ethics law?

[slapout]

I don't know about federal law, but the state law were I live forbids a state official from taking a job with a company they regulate until they've been gone from their state job for at least two years.