What Corruption Looks Like: FCC Commissioner Takes Job At Comcast Months After She Voted To Approve Its Deal With NBC Universal
from the revolving-doors dept
A lot of folks are shaking their heads after learning that FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker is leaving her post to take a lobbying job at Comcast just a few months after she voted to approve Comcast's massive purchase of NBC Universal. Now, let's be clear: there's nothing illegal in her taking this job. While she can't lobby the FCC for two years, she can lobby Congress or other parts of the government. And, it doesn't mean that she's corrupt at all. But it's this kind of move that makes people trust our government less and highlights why so many people believe that our government is corrupt.When you have a massive revolving door, in which the people voting on important deals for companies are likely to get massive salary increases in jobs from those same companies a few months later, it's certainly going to make plenty of people assume corruption, even if there isn't any. So even if it's not corruption in the classical sense, it's hard not to see this as a form of regulatory capture. Baker's term is up in June, but it had been expected she would be re-nominated and would stay. But, making this decision so soon after voting on such a huge deal for the FCC certainly raises some questions about when she started talking to Comcast about a job and when she even decided she was looking for a different job.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: corruption, fcc, meredith attwell baker
Companies: comcast, nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Future news
Today in the news 7-12-2012 - All members of the Senate Judiciary's antitrust subcommittee have been hired by ATT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future news
Today in the news 5-12-2012 - All members of the Senate Judiciary's antitrust subcommittee have been hired by ATT.
Today in the news 6-12-2012 - The ATT T-mobile merger was finalized today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Future news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Future news
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
Okay, we can't know that the potential job at Comcast affected Ms. Baker's FCC decision, but I really believe we need to change the rules to eliminate the very possibility that it might occur.
I mean, this "revolving door" between government and corrupt corporations (and okay, I'm a radical, but I tend to think that our conscience-free corporate citizens are guilty until proven innocent) is becoming a disgusting cliche. Goldman Sachs executives go to work for the government and government officials go to work for Goldman Sachs. Regulatory officials go to work for BP and its associates. The list goes on and on.
And it must stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
Note the headline of the article, "What Corruption Looks Like", the point is very clear that this appears to be a corrupt politician (Is there any other kind?) that used her position in the FCC to garner goodwill with and a high paying job from a company that she was tasked with regulatory supervision of.
The threat of a Defamation/Libel Lawsuit is not insignificant in a case such as this so I can understand choosing your words carefully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
same wording as this time, if memory serves. problem is, this does Technically mean what mike wants it to, and is snappy. all the clearer alternatives are... not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
though much as it technically says what he said he wanted it to say, taking the words invididually, the phrase as a whole has a more specific meaning that is contrary to what he's trying to say, thus, bad wording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
But the cynic in me doesn't see it stopping any time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it doesn't mean she's corrupt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money in the wrong place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Random guy does something slightly suspicious: he gets detained and interrogated. (If the guy was at the airport, he doesn't even need to do anything suspicious)
Politician (who has more power and more responsibility) does something (slightly?) suspicious: nothing to see here!?
Are our priorities screwed up or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Politician does something highly suspicious of committing an act that has tons and tons of victims and impacts a whole lot of people, who cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it's the part that makes the statement true. heh.
i seem to remember something about underfunding leading to drug smugglers having their boats impounded... then the boats get auctioned off to cover costs and the smugglers buy them right back...
but i can't for the life of me remember the source for that bit of information so it's reliability is, of course, nill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Former FCC comm. moves to Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question Is ....
What else can we do???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Definitely unethical
In my experience, the standard in ethical professional behavior is to avoid the appearance of impropriety. One of the benefits of this standard is that we do not need to see an explicit quid pro quo to call foul. If chicanery is a reasonable inference, then the action falls below minimal ethical standards, even without actual bribery.
So basically we've become so inured to it, that we don't really view it as the corruption it is. My impression is taht even those of us who despise it view it in the same way we would view a shady used car salesman - distasteful, but still within the bounds of acceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "boys will be boys"
"There must be more to it ... she is a woman and you know women don't do unethical things like they are implying."
WHAT??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "boys will be boys"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's should be classified as treason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You know, Burke, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them f*ing each other over for a g*d percentage."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call it what it is
Whether or not taking the job at Comcast is corruption is a bit of a non-issue. The job itself is corrupt, which only adds support to the original thought of corruption.
"Baker is leaving her post to take a lobbying job at Comcast"
Just substitute the other word for the SAME act and you get:
Baker is leaving her post to take a BRIBERY job at Comcast
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption is an Institution
By these standards almost no politician and or political appointee could lobby for an organization or an individual with a vested interest was impacted by one or more of their previous decisions. In a like fashion they would be required to recues themselves from voting and or influencing other voting members on matters where they had previously represented private or commercial interests.
Government has no guarantee of free speech and thus its members have no guarantee of free speech independent of the interests of ALL of their constituents. Simply put the mere implication of impropriety precludes the elected and or appointed official from holding a “personal” right to that action.
Thus the FCC commissioners actions of announcing her intention to leave the organization for a specific job the intention of which is to leverage her unique experiences to the benefit of their client is an act that is inconsistent with her oath to “we the people” she is still representing on behalf of those we elected.
Bluntly put she misused her pulpit (free speech) of her office and our trust if only in her disdain for the office our elected officials appointed her too.
The question we all need to address are not clear violations such as the FCC chair’s requirement not to do harm “while” in office but similar violations of the pulpit we have given them “after” they leave office. The coat tails of power extend well beyond 2 years especially for those who are career influencers who bounce in and out of appointed power w/o ever being elected directly by anyone.
We have not seen the last of the FCC chair, a woman who has proven her ability to influence agendas in favor of commercial entities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sickening
Why doesn't the law say (basically) "If a moron in a hurry would consider it corruption it is [end of legal jargon]"
How does one go about starting to fix this crap? Who can I vote for who isn't looking forward to benefiting from the setup (and stands a snowballs chance in hell)?
damnit, this is getting really old (and quite demoralizing)
god help us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sickening
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sickening
(melamine)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sickening
such things as 'my party didn't win, therefore it's corruption' (facts and reality aside) make this standard an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go make some sammiches bish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm...
FTC - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10766.pdf
DOD - http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08485.pdf
Safe to say it could be applied government-wide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Enemy Within.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Y'All tend to forget
Besides how many of you so called radicals are willing to quit your jobs in the corporate world???? Kind of hypocritical to sit and talk about how corrupt they are as you take the paycheck to the bank don't you think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'All tend to forget
They aren't consumers, they aren't people, they aren't citizens. They are corporate entities run by a select few individuals. It's these individuals that determine how their political money gets spent.
They almost get to vote twice. Once at the polls and again with all the lobbyist pressure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'All tend to forget
Consumers vote. Corporations purchase laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'All tend to forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'All tend to forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Y'All tend to forget
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Combating the Seeds of Corruption
Legitimacy for appointed officials starts by prohibiting the appointment of lobbyists to non-elected positions. Lobbyists being defined here as anyone who has received payment, directly or through their employer, to influence government employees, appointees and or elected officials.
The “Once a Lobbyist Always a Lobbyist” clause would create a one way door through which lobbyists would pass preventing them from receiving a future appointment as a non-elected official not vetted by we the public at large.
I should point out that it would not prevent a lobbyist from being vetted by and subsequently elected by “We the people” at large. We deserve the government we elect! That’s why we only give them about 4 years. We make mistakes and we know it!
The implications of these simple but powerful prohibitions on conflict of interest are easy to understand. Their absence is not!
Taking action means speaking action. If you want a change you have to tell your elected officials what you want and expect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This context is no different. The approval for the NBC deal should be rescinded until it can be reviewed impartially and a new policy should be implemented to block this kind of corruption. Even if everything here is on the up-and-up, which I seriously doubt, when you hold a public position appearances are just as important as reality. At best, this shows contempt and bad judgement. At worst, it is blatant corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inherently corrupting
So they screw over the public today knowing they can cash in later, because all the other regulators who screwed over the public cashed in later. All without anyone offering anyone any kind of illegal payoff.
In other words, suppose this is all on the up and up. What is the next regulator in her position going to be thinking about when Comcast asks to merge with every other cable company in America? How much it will hurt consumers? Or how nice a house she can buy when Comcast (which hasn't said a single word to her about a job...yet) hires her in a few months?
If gratitude is "the lively expectation of favors to come", then every regulator has reason to be "grateful" to these companies, even if they haven't taken a dime from them...yet.
The only way to stop this would be to have an absolute ban. Any company that has ever had any regulatory dealing with a regulator should not ever be allowed to hire the regulator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]