MPAA Hires Four Ex-Federal Government Employees, Including One From ICE & Another From The White House
from the watch-that-revolving-door dept
It appears that the famed "revolving door" between government and the big entertainment industry lobbyists continues. The MPAA has announced four new hires -- all of whom come from roles within the government, and who raise significant questions about who they were working for when they were in their government positions.Alex Swartsel, who has worked for several Democratic senators and campaigns, is the new director of global policy. Brian Cohen, who has worked in the Justice Department and for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is the new director for external state government affairs.Two of these aren't huge surprises. The Pastarnack hire hit the news a few months ago, when people noticed that she jumped from being a point person on PIPA to working directly for the MPAA. Swartsel's name may also be familiar. We tangled with her last summer, when she bizarrely took to the MPAA's blog to attack reporter Janko Roettger for accurately predicting that bad economic news might lead people to seek out unauthorized sources of movies, rather than paying through the nose for authorized versions. Now, the MPAA's former boss had said the exact same thing, but according to Swartsel it's somehow "intellectually dishonest" to point out what might happen. Swartsel also was the one who flat out mocked the concerns of tech entrepreneurs concerning SOPA and PIPA. Turns out she did all this as a "consultant" to the MPAA -- and they thought she did such a bang up job that they've hired her full time as "director of global policy."
Lauren Pastarnack, who has worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is the new director of government affairs. And Kate Bedingfield, who joins the MPAA from the White House Communications Office, is the new director of strategic communications.
Given her former attacks on reporting the truth and concerns of the tech industry, it seems pretty clear that the MPAA is not moving in the direction of their promised open conversation with the tech industry and internet users concerning solutions to infringement. It sounds like they're moving in the other direction.
A further indication of that, of course, is the hiring of Cohen, direct from the MPAA's private police force... better known as ICE. Remember, when ICE launched Operation In Our Sites to illegally seize and censor websites, it did so directly from Disney's headquarters. The close relationship between ICE and the MPAA should worry everyone. The fact that there's a revolving door in employment between the two should be cause for an investigation concerning possible corruption. But, of course, that won't happen... when that kind of revolving door also includes someone like Bedingfield, coming straight out of the White House.
It's stories like this that make you realize why the MPAA is so powerful. It knows that it has a strong hold on government employees, because it's offering a bunch of them high paying jobs once they leave their government positions. And, as Jack Abramoff has explained, the best trick in a lobbyist's pocket is to tell a government employee that there's a job waiting for them any time in the future -- because they're technically working for the lobbyist from that moment forward.
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: alex swartsel, brian cohen, ice, kate bedingfield, lauren pastarnack, lobbyists, politics, revolving door, white house
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Déjà vu?
But practically everyone convicting him was a hypocrite since they were happy to take his money for their own campaigns.
Still... In order to change the system, we may need some new blood for the Presidency along with changing the rules elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
Rather than removing the speech, I'd rather more speech. All politicians must at all times display where their funding is coming from (much like Nascar), and every time they vote they must first state on the record who lobbied them, how much was spent or offered, and what the position they were lobbied for was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
They can still speak, they can hire a hall and invite their faithful, but take away their ability to foist it upon the rest of us, or inject it into a political campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
I really had my fingers crossed Colbert was running. I'd much rather vote for a comedian than the jokers in office who don't know they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Déjà vu?
Considering it was the House that pushed SOPA and PIPA, maybe taking out a slew of Republican Reps would be a better idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Déjà vu?
Don't get me wrong here, Obama has not been the shinning star many thought he would be, but then who is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
And you thought I was going to say Ron Paul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
Ill take Ron any day over the clown we have now.. and just like your opinion only matters to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
But he's just as bad for presidential nominations to an already extremely conservative court as well as continuing with income inequality. Mind you, I'd have rather voted for Johnson personally and I probably will, wasting my vote in our two party electoral system. The point here is that we need a new way to have 3rd party candidates have some sort of presence and punish political parties. Whether that's with a Mixed Member proportion party, a removal of the electoral system, or just plain moving to instant runoff votes, the key issue is that there is no way that two parties can accurately represent the entire population in all areas of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
It's a huge reason why I have to say that Lessig or even Abramoff are truly misguided in trying to just fight the money. Let's say that they accomplish their goal of turning back Citizens United. The Karl Roves of the US would find another way to undermine that decision. What they haven't done is allow more people to become engaged in the political process. They haven't done anything to fight how criminals get a right to vote. They haven't done anything to expose the problems of private prisons. They really haven't done anything to fight the underlying problems of the "money is speech" vote. And that's find a far better democratic system that removes (or at least limits) corruption. That's where I disagree with the underlying premise of Lessig.
What I would propose is an alternative vote, which takes away the minority rule issue that we in the US currently face. You can vote in order of preference, and it forces politicians to do one thing... Listen to their constituents.
Finally, in order to get over the representative disproportionment in Congress, I would propose a Mixed member proportion system. Reason being, you have more people, but then you have more representation based on political parties. This forces political parties to respond to what their constituents are saying and not outside forces.
So in effect, by changing the system, you force the republic to be that much stronger. But having only two parties in government is the worst decision we can continue to have..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Déjà vu?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The usual cover story for corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixing your quote...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, I do love how you shills complain in one article that if someone is a part of the tech industry, they're obviously biased and can't comment or weigh in on anything going on, but when your companies are buying politicians, those politicians are completely capable of being impartial to their bosses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have a guess at which one occurs before leaving office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Namely that their supposed job working for the interests of the people should somehow translate 1:1 with working for the colluded interests of the Media Industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with you, but sadly, whether you don't buy or you acquire their product through illegal methods or even through methods they don't approve of, such as Netflix, you are still a pirate in their eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What? I was just breathing.
Yeah, but I already breathed that air. It's mine now and you're stealing it.
But you're not losing anything by letting me breath.
Only my god-given right to control who does what with my air that I breathed with my own blood sweat and tears, you damned pirate!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dirty Pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty Pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty Pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty Pool
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dirty Pool
I thought the Software Alliance already does that - sorta like the Chamber of Commerce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list
Out of the hundreds of these bailouts. not one is attributed to "content theft". They were all do to bad buisness models, and greed of their CEO's. So maybe The RIAA and MPAA need to look at that. It's not 'content theft" that is hurting them, it's their own leadership.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's look at some of the EFF people.
Example, Andrew Bridges, one of the members of the EFF advisory board. Did you know that he"
"served as a law clerk for the Honorable Marvin H. Shoob, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta. The World Intellectual Property Organization's Mediation and Arbitration Center has selected him as a domain name arbitrator, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has appointed him an early neutral evaluator."
You may draw your own conclusions. I suspect that most every lawyer at EFF at some time or another worked for the government. Hmm!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually you can't - and you just proved it.
EFF is a non-profit.
Look at how much the EFF pays and compare it with what Mr Bridges could earn working in the corporate sector.
Those official appointments you mention are also not a way to get rich.
You just painted a picture of a moral man, working for the public interest at the expense of his own bank balance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That companies like Google tend to do their lobbying through proxies rather than directly sort of tells the tale, and is why I chose to mention them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia's SOPA blackout was bought by Google; look at the numbers Mr. Google Billionaire has thrown at them in the past couple years.
Millions.
Wikipedia survives entirely on funding from Google.
Of course they were going to go political and black out their page.
Their corporate masters, who feed at the trough of piracy would not allow any other kind of behavior.
Jimmy Wales couldn't survive without that money. They own him.
They know, and so does he, that the parasites don't want to pay for anything.
"Innovation". lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But all those guys are bought out by Google now. Look at that horrible company's numbers- good lord. That ginormous pile of money to throw around to do their lobbying.
The rumor that there is no pertinent online voice that hasn't seen Google bucks, somehow becomes so much more believable. They hide it really well. But thankfully there is a lot of investigative digging going on now- thanks to the SOPA protest scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We also need to get the real dirt out via hacks or any methods to throw the dirty laundry from MAFIAA/WASHINGTON in the face of the Public.
We need a Wikileaks to attack the MAFIAA and it needs to be done now.
Wish I was a real IT Genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If anything that may be the point. The US is criminalizing an entire generation and more (I'm in the same age range) with their policies.
I would think the prohibition and the unwinnable, endless drug war would have been enough to prove that a government can't make average things that average people do - illegal.
But I guess those SWAT teams need employment too. I wonder if they have Blackwater (AXE) on contract for this too?
What else is there to spend money on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's make them irrelevant. The next generation is ready to respond and with equipment small and better and CHEAPER they’ll be screaming foul all the way to the poor house.
I got your piracy right here dinosaurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Less than 30% of music content is RIAA member associated according to independent label associations. That figure is not including self-published. If you go to the RIAA website they still claim 90% and offer a list of "approved" online retailers that excludes most of the websites that feature independents like bandcamp, cd baby, artist direct and others.
Don't forget they want to add .music so that only "accredited" musicians have access to the internet.
Just look at Blogger DMCA take downs for music blogs. The majority featured "non-commercial" music - independents and out-of-print or no digital copy available. The ones featuring the new stuff are left untouched. This has been going on for decades. The most popular torrents are often 20+ years old. RIAA doesn't want competion in a very BIG way - at any cost.
You can numerous instances where they signed a band and told them "bye" - they just didn't want the competition for a band they are promoting. The newly signed band now can't play their music to get rent money. If they do try and buy rights back, it'll cost them the price of a house even when the label has no intention of ever publishing a thing. That's just one tactic.
And don't forget, most of the labels got started on "stolen musi". Just trace the roots of Led Zepplin, Beetles, Rolling Stones ... Disney started with public domain stories, paradoies of popular culture. There is NOTHING NEW.
One tool that is available to raise public awareness is the HATRED of the puke put out for public consumption. 200 channels with nothing on? That's nothing compared to what they would like to do with the internet.
Afterall, they killed radio with "pay for play".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The simple solution would be to create a .NotRIAA TLD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hardly a surprise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hardly a surprise
Why do I owe generations from a piece of work? And often were not even paying the original creator's, but people who bought rights (property) for it.
This has put a real quash on independent film-making. A brand name appearing in the background, identifiable or not, means a re-shoot or being held hostage for rights from whatever brand. Music isn't as easily controlled as film.
How do archiologists judge a society? Often by it's culture. They want the public as consumers and not creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Substitute "effectively" for "technically" and you are 100% right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But this is how the democratic process is supposed to work!!! ACTA protests silence the democratic process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ex-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]