Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams
from the crony-capitalism-is-corruption dept
Via Larry Lessig we get series of Venn diagrams showing the revolving door between big business and government. When people talk about regulatory capture, this is what they mean. When people talk about corruption and crony capitalism, this is what they mean. If you want a quick visual idea of why so few people trust this government to do the right thing for the people, rather than the big companies, this is why:
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, politics, regulatory capture, revolving door
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hypocrisy from inside
Monsanto has been trying to use patents to abuse other countries for decades. This is the reason we can't get true patent reform. They have someone on the inside (a lot of someones!) to warn Monsanto of true reform until it's watered down to ineffectiveness.
We can't have copyright law that favors the public because of all of the regulatory capture. We have no say in the enforcement angle because ICE can download whatever they want while selectively using the law to put others in jail. And yet, I'm reading how ICE isn't all that good with doing their professed job. Now they want to add copyright to the mix. And they've done a fine job of mucking that up as well.
As I'm aware, the US has taken a truly bad turn. We have a society that has tried to involve the public (1st box). We are working to replace those in government who are bad (2nd box). I have no faith in the 3rd box, because those in the judicial system have been elected by corrupted officials of the 2nd box.
What truly worries me is if we get into the 4th (ammo) box.
If we can't steer our government from the fascism that it has turned into...
If we, the people, can't change our government with non violent protest...
If we, the people, can't find peaceful resolutions to the problems dominating our society...
Then how are we to call ourselves a free society? We can't. How are we to avoid that last liberty box? It'll be inevitable. We have a government using censorship and secrecy to oppress the people. There's a list of conspirators up above. Even if we can remove most of these people from offices of power, how do we change all of the damage that they've caused?
As I see it, there are a number of things that can be done:
- Change our voting system from electoral First Past the Post
- Eliminate money in politics
- Close the revolving door of politics
I'm sure that once these steps are taken, everything else can fall into place. If these steps are not taken, I'm sure the government will be the next thing taken down similar to Iraq (irony?), Libya, or Tunisia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy from inside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypocrisy from inside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy from inside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy from inside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy from inside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hypocrisy from inside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy from inside
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy from inside
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office
All officers of the seven Uniformed services of the United States take swear or affirm an oath of office upon commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is required by statute, the oath being prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code.[1] It is traditional for officers to recite the oath upon promotion but as long as the officer's service is continuous this is not actually required.[2] One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hypocrisy from inside
Actually, I had a feeling all along that the official narrative of the Iraq war was a veiled narrative for the domestic situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Companies hire people who have the right skills, the right abilities, the right experience, and yes, the right contacts. They do it all the time, in all sorts of areas.
Ever see a salesman moving from company to company? They are hired for all of the reasons, and they keep building up, and moving on to others where they can get more money or better conditions, using their built up skills and contact list as a selling point.
If you are an industry dealing with the government, would it not be good to hire people with government experience to head up that area?
If you are the government, trying to regulate an industry (say farming), would you not want to hire someone with farm industry experience, and perhaps someone who has experience on the other side of the "dealing with the government" issue?
Further, let's be clear here: Every time there is a change of President, change of control of congress, etc... there is always a long line of people who are pushed out of the door (loyal to the other party) and replaced by new people (loyal to the new rulers of the day). There is fairly high turnover in a number of government departments at the higher levels as a result of this. Some of the smart ones leave before the ax falls (usually in years 3 and 7 of a presidency), the dumber ones are culled after the election.
The diagrams are nice, but they just indicate something that is normal, and to be fair to both sides, usually the best option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paper Tigers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
It's not "normal" because it happens to happen, it's normal because all business (including those not dealing with the government) do the same things in hiring people.
They want the best candidates with the best experience, the best of everything. In the case of filling a job that would deal with a government agency, work experience at that agency would obviously be a benefit.
If I run a printing company, and I want to get into printing for commercial shopping malls, hiring someone who has experience either in selling to malls or someone who has worked as a buyer at the malls would be probably a good idea. It's NORMAL.
Your attempt to deflect isn't normal. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
Your printing company sales comparison is lame and stupid. A commercial printer is unlikely to be right laws that restrict the operations of other printers, or colluding with government to give special protection to your brand of product.
I'm also not sorry your analogy is a stupid failure. You condescending twat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
It's normal to hire someone with the right skills or contacts. If Joe Smith leaves one big advertising firm and gets a job at another, that's normal. Joe Smith has skills and experience related to the job at the new firm. The one firm doesn't regulate the other firm. There's no unethical advantage to hiring Joe Smith after he leaves the other firm.
With the revolving door of government jobs, regulators end up working for the companies they were supposed to regulate and vice versa. Joe Smith doesn't do a bad or unethical job at his new advertising firm because he has a bias towards his old firm. But a former corporate employee employed by the government as a regulator of his former industry/company has a greater likelihood of showing bias towards his old firm. He might even go back there after his government employment is over. Thus, he will likely show preference to decisions that are beneficial to his old firm.
With the knowledge of the revolving door, regulators can make decisions, like approving a big corporate merger or purchase like with the Comcast scenario, that benefit corporations, but harm the public and competition, and they know they can get a more lucrative job in the industry as a reward.
This is "normal" in our corrupt system but in no way ethical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
What are you going to tell the guy? When the government changes and the political parties come through and clean house, appointing a boss over you that you cannot work with, who makes your life tough until you leave... you are not suppose to go get work in the same field?
You aren't playing with pieces on a chess board here... these are people, who need jobs, need income, need to work... you would limit their rights to work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
Someone who goes looking for work in Congress will most likely have gotten educated in political science (why the hell its called a science is beyond me).
The problem is that once those in Congress who have been educated in poly-sci have shown that they're willing to make backroom deals for certain industries (they have no background in that industry other than greasing palms with it) when their tenure in Congress is up they tend to move into that industry, in an upper management decision-making role.
On the other side of the coin, most people who end up in upper management roles in big industry have not been educated in the specifics of that industry, they have been educated in "business" in general, and for the most part, if they had to make decisions that would affect their product directly, their product would fail (they leave those decisions to the people educated in the specific field). When they see a need to sway legislation in their favor to stifle competition, and lobbying alone isn't netting the results they desire, they themselves run for office, in order to help the industry (or specific company) that they left, many times remaining on the board of said company.
That is how the revolving door begins, once their tenure is up in one, they move to the other, then back, lather, rinse, repeat. These people are not educated in the nitty gritty details that make their particular industry function, they are upper management whose job function is generic and can be moved from one industry to another with no noticable difference, from the recording indusrty, to the movie industry, to big pharma, to big oil, so on and so on. And that is why your analogy, and your argument in general is an epic FAIL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?
Because they should live up to a higher standard of integrity since they've chosen to represent societies interests as a public servant.
"But skilled people won't do it if it limits them!", you were about to say?
Fine with me. I'll take an honest public servant any day over a self-serving expert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The people responsible for deciding how much tax money (or whatever else they want from us) we give to these companies them shouldn't be allowed to take kickbacks since their decisions will be biased. Being hired by them later is a kickback. It's definately not the best option, it's a environment that promotes corruption in government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They are not allowed to take kickbacks now. Bribery is illegal. What is your real point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes people are hired based upon their skillset, they are also hired based upon the contacts they have.... I wonder why Chris Dodds was hired by the MPAA? He's been a politician since 1976, what does he know about the Movie Industry?
It's not rocket science... I'll scratch your back while in office and eventually you'll pay me $1.2 million to run one of the largest lobbying organisations in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you going to address this point our not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good for you? Perhaps. Good for the taxpayers? Not nearly as likely.
It's called 'conflict of interest' for a reason. There needs to be a moratorium or waiting period when any government employee can go work for the private sector on which they have had influence.
It's a slippery slope to be sure, but we're seeing it slide in the other direction badly based on the above charts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope you can see the difference here. The average Joe (not the crazy one I see here from time to time) doesn't have the ability to transform an entire industry and then quickly leave to take a new job which reaps the benefits (see the NBC/Comcast merger). I understand the gist of what you're saying, but the basic premise treats the politicians as regular people instead of the power-mad sociopaths that they typically are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you call the 'best choice' is the best choice for the private corporation, but not for the people the government represents. Your opinion seems very one-sided in that respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: usually the best option. What???
Your argument would be stronger if it actually worked. Instead we have former bank executives letting banks leverage their positions at ridiculous levels, and elected officials regulating industries they know nothing about.
(to paraphrase: I know nothing about how the internet works and I don't want to hear from any geeks. I just want to pass this bill.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I offered you a job with a salary equal to or greater than your government salary after you finish your term if you promoted policy favorable to my business, wouldn't you be tempted to sell out?
What is normal is for Comcast to hire the former VP from Time Warner or BP to hire the CEO from Shell. That is hiring people for their qualifications. Hiring from the government agency that regulates them is trying to buy favorable policy (i.e. bribery).
It should be illegal for people whom take regulatory/legislative positions in government to later take positions in the industry they were charged to regulate. A 5 or 10 year waiting period after the end of their final term may be necessary to remove incentive for offering these cushy jobs to people doing the regulating. Nor should any former employee of such regulated industries take a position in government that regulates their former employer. That is to say, no one from Comcast may serve in the FCC nor no one from Monsanto may serve in the FDA, etc.
Before you start crying about how that is unfair, remember that these people took this job for the welfare of the the American citizens and they took an oath to such effect. It is a public service job and that must come before their own ambitions. If they are using these positions for personal gain, they are not serving the public good and do not merit the responsibility of such an office. If that is the case, then they should be looking for work in the private sector as that is where that type of ambition belongs. If you work in government, you serve the people, not yourself. There are plenty of jobs out there for self-serving types.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, you need experience. We saw in the GW Bush administration where bringing in people with no knowledge of the areas they were administer led to total dysfunction. You need someone with experience and that will mean a tie to industry. But they should be forced to recuse themselves in areas of potential conflicts of interest but as we've seen this doesn't happen. All to often these administrators become internal lobbyists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For one, you think the high turnover rate leads to new people regulating an industry or working for that industry. In fact, many literally are revolving door hires that go back and forth between regulating an industry and working for that industry. So, they make the rules, then benefit from them--rinse, repeat.
On top of that, the very ephemeral nature of public office you describe gives insiders even *more* incentive to rig the game in their industry's favor because when they're out of office, that's where they need to go again to get a job. Or with your understanding of how the business world works, do you think these highly accomplished people, both from a practical standpoint and a social standpoint, want to make it *harder* for businesses that they're soon going to be interviewing with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How would you like to face a judge for something you know you didn't do, and he owns stock in a private-owned prison? It's happened!
Your name belies your true, compliant nature...you should tack on "taitor" at the end...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 8:05am
Play devils advocate somewhere else. And unless youre one of them, why dont you wake the heck up!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mussolini
These diagrams illustrate how that is occurring in American govt. today....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mussolini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mussolini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mussolini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mussolini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mussolini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mussolini
If one becomes too powerful, it will run over the others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mussolini
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mussolini
There is a 'radical' version where the government independently creates their own supply chain for everything and be unable to sell only give away excess in appropriate ways to prevent the government productions from being a business. Said system would be highly inefficient if corruption resistant. Full version with separation resulting in not being able to tax or regulate businesses however would clearly be nonviable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Republicans?
But when it boils down to it, it is still the same lard being dished up to the general populous, while the cheese and butter are being reserved for those who can be the fat cats. 'Tis a rare politician who will stand for the people he/she represents. We look upon the independents here as mostly ones who are waiting to be bought. Though the Greens and the Sex Party are influential wack-jobs here.
Enjoy your day y'all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's called "Regulatory Capture"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the data correct?
That said, both parties are corrupt, particularly if defined as not acting/voting in the country's long term interest. It's like choosing between eating rancid meat and drink spoiled lumpy milk. Washington needs a massive amount of reforms and more transparency. Way way way too much money sloshing around and little or no accountability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Open fascism
2) Revolution
I don't think anyone wants that, but it's gonna happen. As Americans, these people always been taught that our country stemmed from righteous rebellion, and conditioned to believe that it is morally acceptable. So if they get pushed too far, I suspect that would happen again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams
I agree there are serious issues with crossover between government and industry, however would you make the same diagrams if the folks were from a "good" company like Google?
And you criticize Congress for being uninformed about internet issues with SOPA, yet you chide government for employing people who are experts in their field. This seems disingenuous and hypocritical.
This is just muckraking, below the level of journalism I have come to expect from this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams
Yes, I would. Businesses have no place in government policy making.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams
Regardless, companies can still be judged by their actions. That their underlying motivation is money doesn't prevent that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams
but Corporations are more of an extension of their shareholders wishes. They can be non-profit save the whales wishes, or make me money at all costs wishes or somewhere in between. When they are publicly traded, the shareholders wishes are going to be make money at all costs as long as I don't get in trouble.
Regardless, companies can still be judged by their actions. That their underlying motivation is money doesn't prevent that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams
Woosh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the scope of that diagram was too large for the author to contemplate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better analysis
Government employee to public sector
Public sector to Government employee.
It would make things more clear and probably clear up a lot of the misconceptions you are propagating with the current data. Not that I have missed the point, but it would just be a better representation I believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is the congressional staffers, the former elected officials, and others of similar ilk who have little to offer but access to decision makers within the USG, that I find particularly troubling. Unfortunately, and this is where we have a significant disconnect in our system of laws, it is not at all unusual for Congress to pass laws of general applicability, but not applicable to Congress. I am unsure if this special dispensation carries as well over to the executive branch, but I have no reason to believe it does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would be more surprised if these lists didn't intersect, that would mean that either business isn't selecting the appropriate people for the job or the government isn't. This is non-news, and an non-issue.
If you really want to track government corruption follow the money trail and see what congressional members do after leaving office. They are paid off after the fact by being given jobs on the board of companies they assisted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A likely scenario.
Big Oil Boss: "Great, after you've relaxed regulations and oversight for us and weakened our competitors, you can come back to a promotion with a big boost in salary and a new company car!"
Big Oil employee: "As you command my master!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about a partisan information set.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently, I need to get a job in congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like mostly democrats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the Chart Does not Show
You don't see people on the right side of the chart in the Industry Sector moving into the Government Sector.
What you do see, are government officials both elected and appointed who have taken contributions, vacations and other perks from many Industries. Then these same politicians voted for policies that are very favorable to an industry when common sense would indicate it was the wrong thing to do. Just months later these government officials then get high paying jobs, often doing nothing in the very companies that they found for or created polices favorable to.
Some real fast numbers. There are like 115 people on the list. About 80 are staffers and 35 are former Congressmen/Senators.
So 35 congressmen, 34 are democrats and 1 was Republican
80 Staffers. 1 Ford, 2 Reagan, 1 Bush Sr, and 3 Bush, totaling 7. With a breakdown of 73 Democrats and 7 Republicans.
Mind you, that is just a quick eyeballing of the list. It does not take in account voting records. It looks like for all the talk of protecting the little people from big business. Democrats talk a big talk, but then stand up for and get jobs with big business far more often than Republicans do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What the Chart Does not Show
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what do you expect
where else would you expect them to work after they have worked for the government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Useless Venn Diagram Is Useless
Bullshit.
All this is is a partisan attack on anything Democratic or liberal (notice the heavy lean toward the Obama administration in the list?) while trying to appeal to Occupy and similar crowds. This is just a bait and switch.
Astroturfing at its finest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Things aren't a hell of a lot better in Canada, mind you, though there are several more degrees of separation but it's here too.)
I doubt it would be any different under a Republican presidency in the United States than it is under Obama. Like as not most of the names wouldn't change either.
Welcome to the real world of realpolitik. It's not at all pretty is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh my...
I'm only surprised the 1% doesn't institute a forced program where everyone in the 99% has to register tissue types then when someone in the 1% needs an organ, they simply tell someone to give up the organ. Might be hard to enforce, especially if a heart transplant is needed, but then haven't the 1% had their hearts replaced by rotary pumps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it's Kang and Kodos, but let's be sure to remember that not only is Kang a carnivorous alien, so is Kodos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Venn/Obama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Very interesting - but also very very very slanted
It doesn't serve anybody to have you present slanted evidence of this sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Article V Convention
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42592.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative Common Attribution
I do not see that there was any recognition of her or her efforts. Since I consider her a friend, I thought I would remedy this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mapping Out the Revolving Door... Article above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]