Slashdot Mirror
DC Revolving Door: Ex-FCC Commissioner Is Now Head CTIA Lobbyist
jfruh (300774) writes "Up until three years ago, Meredith Attwell Baker was an Obama-appointed FCC commissioner. Now she's the newly minted CEO of the CTIA, the nation's largest lobbying group for the mobile phone industry. How can we expect regulators to keep a careful watch over industries when high-paying jobs in those industries await them after retirement? One of the most damning sentences in that article: 'More than 80 percent of FCC commissioners since 1980 have gone on to work for companies or groups in the industries they used to regulate.'"
wow. being purposefully ignorant is twice as blissful.
It's still a conflict of interest and ripe for quid pro quo job opportunities. Essentially, don't make our company suffer and we'll land you a lucrative job you'll be able to retire on once you leave government.
That is not the issue. The issue is if the regulator, instead of stopping abuse, let it slide for the promise of a future high paying job. In my book that is bribery, and I'm sure many people agrees with me.
This combination doesn`t exist: ETIs that know about humanity and want to see us dead. Otherwise we wouldn't exist.
What I can't put my finger on is exactly when this behavior and conflict of interest in general because fine. It's rife throughout government. We see it in a big way in the SCOTUS, and the state governments are even worse than the federal government. But *NO ONE* seems to care. This wasn't the same in the 70s and 80s, or perhaps it was and the difference is that these idiots aren't even embarrassed by it any more.
Regulator and lobbyists do not have a 'field', their skills are not related to any particular domain or technology. They could leave the FCC and go work for the farm industry and have pretty much the same transferability.
This is rewarding regulators with well paying jobs.
And this is one of the many reasons why the US really isn't a democracy.
This isn't unusual, nor should it be unexpected. Regulatory agencies are there to provide advantages for the established companies over upstart competitors and their customers. The stories about working for the interests of the consumer are just what the politicians tell voters, as they take money from politically connected companies, to create bureaucracies that further the interests of those companies.
It's how a fascist (a.k.a. mercantilist, cronyist) economy works.
This was going on in the 70's and 80's and before that. The difference now is we have the Internet and the 24x7 news cycle so you are actually hearing about it. It also isn't just the regulatory agencies that are in on this scam. Look how many former members of congress land at suspiciously cushy jobs after they retire. My fear is that what we have here is effectively a bribe laundering scheme. Oh yeah you do what we want and you get a nice office, important sounding title, generous salary and a big benefits package for your post Government life.
That isn't the only such scheme in place in government either. Look at politicans setting up various not for profits, charities and think tanks. That looks like outright bribe laundering. Also some of the members of congress have really suspicous investment dealings that look like outright money laundering.
What I can't put my finger on is exactly when this behavior and conflict of interest in general because fine. It's rife throughout government. We see it in a big way in the SCOTUS, and the state governments are even worse than the federal government. But *NO ONE* seems to care. This wasn't the same in the 70s and 80s, or perhaps it was and the difference is that these idiots aren't even embarrassed by it any more.
What changed? The size of the federal government.
Federal, State, Local Spending in 20th Century
At the start of the 20th century, government spending was principally local government spending. Out of a total of 7 percent of GDP, a full 4 percent was spent at the local level. Federal spending spiked in World War I, but in the 1920s, local government still represented about half of all government spending. In the 1930s this changed, and federal spending surged to about half of all government spending. After the spike of World War II the federal share increased again and state government spending also began to increase as a percent of GDP, so that by the 2010s federal spending checked in at over 20 percent of GDP, state spending amounted to 8 to 9 percent of GDP and local spending exceeded 10 percent of GDP.
Spending equals power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
So why the hell do people think we can solve our problems by giving this government MORE power?
Giving this out-of-control power-mad government more money and more power will make things BETTER? For WHO?
I see that there's the potential for abuse there, and I'm sure it is abused this way sometimes, but I don't see the job offers as proof that it's happening. It DOES make good sense for these companies to hire people with inside, high profile jobs from the governing organizations, whether or not the policies they enacted hurt the company (in some ways probably more so). These are very strong job candidates even without bribery being a consideration. Even if we were omnisciently certain that no quid-pro-quo existed, these are people who would get (and arguably deserve) great job offers.
The questions then become how do we identify actual abuse (vs normal labor market forces) and how do we stop it?
In non-government positions, if this were a concern (not to the public, but to the original employer), there would be a non-compete clause of some sort. I'm not aware of government jobs ever having non-compete clauses, but it would probably be prohibitively difficult to do (not that it shouldn't be done, but it's so difficult to fire most US government employees that I can't imagine it being easy to implement even more labor restrictions). We could perhaps lobby for that, but it's doubtful to happen. I'm open to suggestions, but without other options this just seems like unconstructive complaining.
Government agencies regard the people as a rancher regards his cattle.
So... can we have less government power over everything in everyone's life then? Since it ends up being used against us by Washington insiders...?
You're naive.
Often, such abuse only surfaces after the damage is done, and after fabulous sums in attorney's fees are paid, with a likely outcome of plea deal-- if it gets that far.
The ethics problem here is huge. These were insiders, and party to all of the internal sausage that makes decisions work, and know intimately, the vulnerabilities. Fueled with the grease of lobbying money, they arrive again with seemingly wonderful arguments, except that instead of representing the people of the United States, they now represent shareholders looking for revenue, two completely and potentially opposite ideals.
This very constructive complaining, as net neutrality is the egalitarian backbone principal of Internet access. It's being destroyed with a "more equal than other equals" sort of Orwellian lie perpetrated by the telecoms strictly for favor of their shareholders. Open your eyes to what's happening in front of you: a new privileged Internet, where privilege comes directly out of your wallet.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.