When Corruption Fails: Hollywood Has 'Turned Off The Critical Thinking Functions Of Many Democrats'
from the a-scratched-back-isn't-immune-to-backlash dept
The Washington D.C. revolving door that turns policymakers into lobbyists and stocks corporate boardrooms with former lawmakers and advisors has been the accepted norm for so long it takes a supremely audacious act to inspire any sort of outrage.
A long piece for the New Republic written by Noam Scheiber details the large number of former Obama team members moving into the private sector, leveraging their administration connections to start lucrative consulting firms. Nearly anything goes without anyone inside the administration blinking an eye -- provided certain political lines aren't crossed.
[W]hile joining a consulting firm is acceptable, those who do are reluctant to work for clients reviled by liberals: gun makers, tobacco companies, Big Oil, union busters.This is acceptable behavior. Don't be shy about cashing in on your political connections but don't embarrass anyone by courting unacceptable clientele. It's a good piece and worth a read, but there's a really damning statement hidden in the article that Matt Yglesias highlights over at Slate.
The big through-line in Noam Scheiber's piece on former Obama administration officials cashing in is that there are certain sensitivities and levels of mixed feelings. And after all it makes sense. If you're trying to parlay your connections and inside knowledge into financial gain, you can't go do things that anger all your former colleagues. But he does note one exception that I think is important and actually more pernicious than the other examples he explores in more detail:
As Yglesias puts it, former pols and administration insiders have to take care to avoid being caught "defending indefensible positions" while spinning their Washington connections into private sector gold. Those moving from the political world to the entertainment industry, however, find they don't need to be quite as careful.There’s also the entertainment industry, which is “a for-profit corporate space that’s a safe area for Democrats,” says a former White House staffer. “You can go work for Harvey Weinstein and make all this money.” Obama aide Michael Strautmanis recently left to help oversee “corporate citizenship” at Disney, and Jim Gilio, a White House spokesman, now represents talent at a Los Angeles entertainment law firm.
[I]n high-level Democratic Party circles, the entertainment industry is somehow seen as different from other corporate sectors—intrinsically viewed with less suspicion. And that's when your corporate lobbying gets extremely effective and when the policy consequences can get really pernicious.Even with the failure of SOPA last year and the ongoing debacle that is the prosecution of Kim Dotcom, federal agencies are still running errands for Hollywood. ICE still regularly seizes sites and the DOJ continues to pursue extradition for overseas copyright infringers. This cozy relationship ensures that Hollywood's interests continue to be well-represented, even if its favored legislation failed miserably. But this relationship, as long-lasting (and profitable) as it has been for both sides, is doing damage to the credibility of the Democratic Party.
[H]ollywood has really managed to turn off the critical thinking functions of many Democrats, leading to a situation where the backlash against SOPA/PIPA had to be lead by Republicans.All the back scratching in the world doesn't help when everyone's whose back isn't getting scratched rises up against you. A huge opportunity was wasted by Democrats and by the administration itself. When the internet began pushing back, the party headed by the new face of politics (i.e., not another old, white guy) reacted much too slowly, allowing the opposition to seize the victory. Hollywood's symbiotic relationship with Democrats was far too ingrained to result in anything but a delayed reaction. As Yglesias puts it, the corruption's now so deep it's no longer recognized as corruption.
How else do you explain MPAA head Chris Dodd publicly threatening to cut off the flow of money to politicians who voted against SOPA? The corruption was always there, right below the surface, but it took a moment like this, where legislators were forced to decide between pleasing a powerful industry or dropping their support for a politically toxic bill, for it to noisily break the surface. Many politicians chose the option that seemed more likely to preserve their careers, and the MPAA, unused to being ignored, lashed out.
Hollywood may not forgive and forget, but it does know where the power lies and has the money to purchase access. The fallout from the SOPA disaster is that the Democrats' failure to quickly alter course has turned IP legislation into a partisan issue. The entertainment lobby still holds some sway over Republicans. Derek Khanna's swiftly disappearing copyright reform memo (and almost as swiftly-disappearing job) are evidence of that. But there's enough of a wedge present to prevent the smooth passage of any copyright-related legislation.
Hollywood may still be a safe haven for Democrats to earn some post-D.C. money but it's hard to believe the sheen hasn't worn off a bit at this point -- on both sides of the revolving door.
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: hollywood, jim gilio, michael strautmanis
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Feasible?
- Members of the House/Senate that received contribution from players of companies that would directly benefit over a determined bill would be barred from voting;
- All donations would be made to an unified pool that would be split evenly among the candidates;
- Govt would be the only entity financing campaigns.
Those are suggestions, each with its own set of problems. There may be some intersection (ah, the gray areas!) that may occur but the main point is that lobbying has to be restricted or preferably eliminated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Feasible?
As for TRACKING when this happens, little more than observation will work, or perhaps a clause should be put in govt politician contracts similar to a non-compete where they can't work with an entity that is lobbying the government in any way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Feasible?
I don't know why not, it already exists for government employees (not working directly for the politicians.) If you are in some fields, mainly working with contracts or selection positions, you are forbidden from taking a job for 3 years at a company you directly worked with. (18 USC 207)
What is funny is that the only government employees not affected by 18 USC 207 are those who work for the politicians that write the rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feasible?
Indeed.
"Members of the House/Senate that received contribution from players of companies that would directly benefit over a determined bill would be barred from voting"
Contribute to everyone who wants to vote for the bill you DON'T like. They'll be unable to vote.
This would be way worse than anything we have now.
"All donations would be made to an unified pool that would be split evenly among the candidates"
Even with the limited public financing we have now, you get "candidates" that only do it to see how much money they can launder out of the system. Hire a relative as campaign manager and pay him a large salary, etc. I think you'd also see a large drop-off in donations if half the money was going to candidates that you did not support. (You'd be lucky if it was only half - if there's a third candidate, then 2/3 of your money would go to someone you did not plan to vote for.)
"Govt would be the only entity financing campaigns."
Are you going to ban someone from spending their own money on their campaign? If not, you've opened up a big loophole. If you are going to ban it, that's a huge free speech issue. This would also be expensive. And no matter how you finance the campaigns themselves, you still have the issue of third party groups running ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feasible?
Thousands of people are employed directly by IP industries, such as checkout baggers in supermarkets. Any IP legislation benefits a huge portion of the country and a massive number of industries, so your copyright bill would benefit Wal*Mart, so if you are paid by Wal*Mart you can't vote on a copyright bill.
There would only be 5 people left to vote on any copyright/IP etc issues because of how many industries are directly supported by IP.
Or so the IP guys would have you believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feasible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hollywood makes them look good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood makes them look good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood makes them look good
And, yet, he won.
Romney was the one humiliated both at the debates and at the voting booth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hollywood makes them look good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hollywood makes them look good
Except the entertainment industry owners (like Rupert Murdoch) are Republicans (or Republican-supporters), who can't sway Democrats (except the weak-willed ones) with money.
OTOH, they have all the Republicans in their pockets since money is their primary God...
Entertainment industry creatives (actors/directors/writers) are Democrats who vocally-support Democratic candidates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood makes them look good
They refused to hold the President accountable for ANYTHING.
It's always - A noun, a verb and Republicans fault!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hollywood makes them look good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
So I'd say YOUR critical thinking ability is turned off: you don't see that the danger in constant and unavoidable mass "commercial" surveillance is FAR greater than Hollywood gouging IF you choose to watch.
Google is changing from its start-up phase. -- It's now even saying you don't own what you bought! Chew on this, fanboys:
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/04/google-glass-resales/?utm_source=feedburner&u tm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GearFactor+%28Wired%3A+Blog+-+Gadget+Lab%29
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
Including the ones you shill for, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
use bing or some other engine for search,
hotmail/yahoo! mail/opera mail/reagan.com ect if you don't like gmail.
Add *.google.com to your blocklist for whatever you use for that
BAM, no more google
You can even use replicant or other unofficial ROM if you want android without google involved thanks to the google's own chioce to develop it under an open model. same goes for for chrome's derivitives
Plus, f-droid/amazon app store ect for non google androidOS app store
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
And as for wanting to get ads on your own site I don't really know but I doubt there's nothing else out there to cash in on that market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
And as for wanting to get ads on your own site I don't really know but I doubt there's nothing else out there to cash in on that market
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
*World's most widely used search engine, allows the average person to find pretty much anything they want in seconds
*Google Maps: more or less the entire planet mapped in excruciating detail, even including street level view.
Facebook: A system of communication that allows what was it? 500 million people at last count? to communicate easily with each other, for free.
Yeah...these two companies haven't produced ANYTHING at all *eye roll*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
Without doubt the stupidest, wrongest, most intellectually challenged statement I think I've ever heard. So much wrong in one sentence, it boggles the mind...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Would all be well if Google, Facebook, and other internet grifters
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Finance industry Dem's immune as well
Jon Corzine, Dem love-child, will NOT be punished for being a corrupt money manager.
What's the word: Hypocrisy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
The challenge faced by Republicans is that while they talk a "small-govt" game, substantial streaks of "moral majority" pseudo-theocratic or autocratic, and often mysoginistic or xenophobic nonsense slip through and are extremely off-putting.
Personal freedoms (such as gay marriage, not victim-blaming in rape cases, anti-evolution, etc...) weigh more with me than an intelligent approach to copyright.
The Republican party doesn't need to change its message it needs to change its DNA. It cannot equivocate about issues such as those mentioned above, and cannot try to sneak through religion or "morality" (often immoral) under the cloak of libertarianism.
As such, this will, by and large, continue because, while offputting, the other is worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
That was ONE GUY. And in case you failed to notice, pretty much the entire party told him how wrong he was. There are plenty of Republicans who believe in evolution, too (although I'm not sure how that's a personal freedom as opposed to a scientific theory.)
There's more to a person than the D or R behind their name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
Plenty??? Why not ALL???
Why is that important? Well let's see. Would you vote for anyone who questioned the theory of GRAVITY or ATOMS or any other thoroughly established scientific theory. On the opposition side we always hear, but but but it's only a theory... In science a theory is a hypothesis with soooo much evidence that to not accept it as fact is insane.
How can we expect people that don't accept scientific fact to fix IP issues or any other complex issues?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
Dems can't figure out which "version" of the truth to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
“NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted…”
UCIrvine: Ocean Plankton Sponge Up Nearly Twice The Carbon Currently Assumed
”Models of carbon dioxide in the world’s oceans need to be revised, according to new work by UC Irvine and other scientists published online Sunday in Nature Geoscience. Trillions of plankton near the surface of warm waters are far more carbon-rich than has long been thought, they found. Global marine temperature fluctuations could mean that tiny Prochlorococcus and other microbes digest double the carbon previously calculated. Carbon dioxide is the leading driver of disruptive climate change.”
So many flaws, yet you’re still a “useful idiot”. Do some homework on your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
“The New York Times has lifted the lid on how Al Gore stands to benefit to the tune of billions of dollars if the carbon tax proposals he is pushing come to fruition in the United States, while documenting how he has already lined his pockets on the back of exaggerated fearmongering about global warming.”
“…the NY Times‘ John M. Broder does reveal how one of the companies Gore invested in, Silver Spring Networks, recently received a contract worth $560 million dollars from the Energy Department to install “smart meters” in people’s homes that record (and critics fear could eventually regulate) energy usage.”
“The Times report notes how Gore ‘has a stake in the world’s pre-eminent carbon credit trading market.’”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
In re-reading, my evolution thing was unclear, so allow me to clarify: if someone wants to believe/preach ID, garden of eden, we all sprang from Zeus' head, the Raelian origin of life, or whatever other nonsense on their own time, go for it.
In a science classroom, it is an affront to knowledge and personal freedoms to impose some religious or pseudo-religious nonsense, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence, and lack of any actual scientific debate about the merits of evolution as a fundamental theory. When "teaching the controversy" involves first creating a controversy, it's imposing religion and pseudo science and very much about control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
Let's test this, shall we?
What has the Republican party done for us in the past 40 years? They gave us a great austerity program that required removing tax brackets for the top 1% and less money in government revenue. They were influential in proposing tax cuts for the rich which allowed banksters to begin to make bad investments and pay them off. Now, their feudal mentality has allowed the US to falter on trying to invest in the nation.
But don't think that I enjoy the Democrats any more than the next person. They've had great budgets that would work to help the country get back on its feet but the President doesn't look to the Democrats for advice. Further, the corruption from Hollywood alienates the youth vote who is more than willing to move to other parties while the conservative vote is still stuck with Republicans.
For example, the most disturbing thing I'm reading about is how we've ignored extrajudicial and paramilitary killings that have occurred in greater numbers since Obama has been in office.
But let's get back to Republicans...
You have four major strains of conservative that is a part of the Republican party as one big force.
The multicultural conservatives are the ones that love law and order against minorities.
The Second would be the social conservatives. Your evangelicals are the ones that cause problems in terms of science like Akin and Ohio or Virginia where they look to eliminate rights instead of protect them.
Libertarians are the closest in ideology to the Democratic party but their fiscal conservatism serves as a large detriment. Fiscal conservatism implies austerity for the masses instead of recognizing that people need the government to spend money in times of crisis. Maybe if we taxed corporations more, we wouldn't need to take away popular public services which are sure to cause a revolt.
Neocons have the war mongering down pat but we've seen how their foreign policy is BS by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which went poorly and merely privatized the military.
If people actually paid attention to which one felt strongly about what issue and WHY these people are formed together with a tenuous bond on conservatism, you could lern which ones want which policies and get the nation moving again.
Sadly, with these conservatives in positions of power, they can do a lot of damage in ensuring that the US loses its place as one of the best nations for innovation with its feudal outlook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
There's more to a person than the D or R behind their name."
Not when they try to push divine design on gullible school children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Democrats protected by the political stupidity of Republican Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]