Is The Supreme Court Just Completely Out Of Touch On Digital Copyright Issues?

Revolving Door Between The MPAA And The Federal Government

from the how-you-get-laws-passed dept

Tue, Apr 17th 2012 9:23am — Mike Masnick

Via Parker Higgins we learn of a graphical representation of the revolving door between the MPAA and the federal government from geke.us, purveyor of useful visuals to explain economic truths:

Not all of these are current, of course. Dan Glickman left well before Chris Dodd showed up, for example Still, it does give you an idea of why the MPAA always seemed to get its way with the government.

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: chris dodd, dan glickman, graphic, revolving door
Companies: mpaa

45 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

TriZz (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:02am

Why isn't this illegal?
It seems like this should be illegal. Like career politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:30am
  
  Re: Why isn't this illegal?
  it was going to be illegal, but instead of passing laws that banned it, we passed laws that made it effectively mandatory.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: Why isn't this illegal?
  And we will continue to spiral downwards as a Nation because of Big Money & the Corruption.Legal Corruption is what "Corporations are People" & Money Lobbying Mean.
  At this point I am waiting for the Revolution.Two big Parties and both are Corrupt.
  You can't even Vote these Fuckers out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:34am

What a shocker! A lobbying organization hires former politicians and staffers? There's got to be an evil conspiracy here somewhere. Your paranoid ravings get crazier every day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:48am
  
  Re: ___
  Yes, nothing says "honest, legit, and above board" like a six figure salary for doing nothing after having helped slip in "one little law"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  Here's a good meme visualization for your kind of AC troll, sir!
  
  http://i41.tinypic.com/efrms1.png
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  "Your paranoid ravings get crazier every day"
  
  Aren't you the one who raves daily about a conspiracy between Mike and Google? At least one assertion has *some* proof, and it ain't yours...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:44am
  
  Re:
  "What a shocker! A lobbying organization hires former politicians and staffers?"
  
  No, this isn't shocking, but it should be. That's the problem. There's nothing at all surprising about the openness of this form of corruption.
  
  "There's got to be an evil conspiracy here somewhere."
  
  There is no conspiracy. It's right out in the open. Parts of the government and large corporations are actively involved in influence peddling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:36am

Naturally...
One of the government positions in the chart is "Dep Chieff of Staff". I find this sort of thing perpetually disappointing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:38am

But this, however is just fine:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46501576/Susan_Molinari_Named_Google_s_Lobbyist_in_Washington
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  How do you figure? Lobbying sucks, regardless of who's doing it. It's institutionalized bribery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeremy Lyman (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    Or extortion?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Dan (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 1:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Exactly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:44am
  
  Re:
  Google is a little outnumbered, it seems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  No, it isn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheStupidOne, 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:16am
  
  Re:
  Well ... It makes absolute sense for anyone attempting to influence politicians to hire a politician to do so. They know the in and outs of DC, they understand the politics behind the scene, and they will almost certainly do a better job than I would. However what the above graphic doesn't tell is the apparent reasons that these people went to work in the MPAA. The members of congress fight hard for unpopular legislation that helps the MPAA and then gets a cushy job with them. Congressional staffers sneak language into legislation with the same results. (I didn't read your article, so perhaps Google and Susan Molinari aren't clean either)
  
  Hiring former politicians isn't necessarily a problem, hiring a former politician as a reward for behavior that is detrimental to their constituents or the nation at large is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:24am
  
  Re:
  It might well be. What's her history? Did she participate in suspiciously one-sided deals to benefit Google's interests at the expense of others or take bribes or other deals to help kill competition and/or tilt the market in their favour? Did she recently fight tooth and nail to protect the organisation's interests in Washington, only to land in a cushy lobbying position mere months later?
  
  If so, then this is also bad and we thank you for bringing it to our attention. If not, then it's yet another strawman attempt at misdirection. In that case, please try to understand the actual objection, I know it's difficult for you. It might also help to address objections with something other that "but Google!".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon B. (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:36am
  
  Re:
  Lobbying, sending a spokesperson to deliver a message to elected officials, is one thing. Having the corporation write the laws is another. I don't think Google is doing the latter yet. I've heard more about Google fighting bad laws than I have about Google helping write them. Of course, it may just be a matter of time...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 11:31am
  
  Re:
  Molinari was a House representative from 1990 to 1997.
  So after 15 years she shouldn't be allowed to lobby? What time limit do you propose? The examples from the graphic are much quicker turnaround. I suspect Dodd was still receiving his paycheck from the Senate when he accepted his position with the MPAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 12:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You dope. She's been a DC lobbyist with her own firm for years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re:
  Of course it's okay!
  
  She' a Republican.
  
  (Note, I am as disgusted with both sides of the isle, I just poke fun at Democrats more.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 12:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Agreed. At least the Republicans admit they love big business, if not in so many words.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  Molinari has been out of congress for more than 14 years, unlike Dodd who went to the mpaa right after retiring from the senate, also dodd said he would not become a lobbyist.
  
  Molinari was not a direct lobbyist, instead running a consulting firm that showed you how to lobby congress.
  
  There are many such firms on K street, just walk down it and see all the different firms, lobbyist and consulting.
  
  Dodd is the larger of the two whores here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
lexieliberty (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 9:46am

It's time!
For a real revolution. Any legislation that is passed is a lie effectively, it is always vague therefore it can't be forceable against the government. We are not going to fix jackshit by telling politicians and lobbyists what to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:22am
  
  Re: It's time!
  I wonder what would happen if we killed all the lawyers....would straightforward laws be passed?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - silverscarcat (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re: It's time!
    Now, now...
    
    We don't kill ALL the lawyers... We need prosecutors to go after real criminals, like murderers, rapists, Chris Dodd, Cary Sherman, Bank of America, Wells Fargo...
    
    We need lawyers to defend innocent people who get accused, like a falsely accused rapist or murderer, those elderly grandmothers, the dead, the puppy, that fax machine, and the girl that could barely walk from the MPAA and RIAA
    
    The other lawyers, however, are fair game.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 12:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's time!
      By other lawyers, you mean the ones who get paid tens of thousands of dollars to get a rich rapist/murderer off despite overwhelming evidence while the innocent guy who can't afford a lawyer gets sent to prison on almost no evidence?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 12:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It's time!
      Well, if the laws werre clear and concise, we wouldn't need legal experts now, would we?
      
      "This is what you can do"
      "This is what you can't do"
      
      IOt allows for some rather unorthodox rulesd-lawyering, but at least you'd know where the line was.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nigel (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:10am

The Mightly Glickman
My thought was what ever happened to that dolt.

http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/about/dan-glickman

lol... that is just rich..

N.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheStupidOne, 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:31am

The Fix
2 things that should be done to fix this (apparent) problem of corruption in Congress:

First: Outlaw campaign donations to incumbent candidates. Fund the campaigns with federal tax dollars. Pay for that by eliminating subsidies for industries that only have them because of their fantastic lobbying efforts and raising taxes on individuals and organizations that have unusually low tax rates.

Second: Have an automatic ethics review of any politician that gets hired by a private company for a salary greater than what they were making in congress. Create criminal punishments for violations of the ethics rules (I won't define those here), and have charges brought by the ethics review group and a jury trial to determine guilt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheStupidOne, 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:33am
  
  Re: The Fix
  Also that jury should be people the politician was supposed to be representing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jefferson (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:44am

if you can't beat 'em, join 'em
Why don't we hire 10-20 former congressmen / women and former senators to fight for our cause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BentFranklin (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 11:12am
  
  Re: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em
  Got $10-20 million?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 11:17am
  
  Re: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em
  What, you reckon a kick-starter project to raise, ooo say around 30 or 40 million to "hire" some on behalf of the public would work? Who knows... but last time I looked the public supposedly already hired them once!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 11:00am

Instaclone?
Is it that former politicians, a mutation that really doesn't exist in the wild, and MPAA execs get together and breed. Then in a remarkably short gestation and maturation process give birth to, all intents and purposes, an identical copy of the former politician though lacking, perhaps, the morals and ethics which the former politician occasionally displayed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
corwin155 (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 11:07am

corporations are the next fascists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 11:30am

Let's not forget...
...our old pal Jack Valenti, who went straight from the Johnson White House to the MPAA. He's the guy with the famous "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Barclay (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 12:17pm

They forgot Don Verrilli
They forgot Don Verrilli, who filed the original complaint for Viacom against YouTube, and who is now U.S. Solicitor General.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Apr 2012 @ 2:12am
  
  Re: They forgot Don Verrilli
  They forgot Don Verrilli, who filed the original complaint for Viacom against YouTube, and who is now U.S. Solicitor General.
  
  I don't think he ever technically was employed by the MPAA. He merely represented them as a lawyer...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 17 Apr 2012 @ 1:40pm

The MPAA and others..
know full well how to use bribery to get what they want. They simply promise employment to key people to make sure things happen, then when the key people leave the government they get cushy jobs at huge salaries. This might not fit some people's definition of bribery, but the intent is bribery plain and simple. We have a government that is owned by businesses and the rich and money talks and gets results in Congress, the White House, the federal courts and the SCOTUS as well. It's part of the culture that we have come to accept and expect and people aren't willing to do anything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 1:53pm

Yes, I think that congress and the movie industry should be damned to hire people with no experience. Why hire people who know the system and understand how to get things done, when you can hire perfectly ignorant people who are going to spend time twiddling their thumbs and going in circles?

/sarc

Mike, you need to join the real world!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 6:16pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, we need more people who already know how to bribe the system. What's the use of power if you don't give it to people who know the best way to abuse it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 10:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    There is always a moron, drunk on the techdirt koolaid, willing to pop this piece of stupidity up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2012 @ 8:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, that being this one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2012 @ 3:09pm

You could make this link between almost any other industry, however.

Law firms, Sports celebrities, Vietnam vets, Military, etc etc etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]