Comcast's Biggest Lobbyist Dodges Lobbying Rules By Pretending He's Usually Not Lobbying

from the jack-of-one-trade dept

Tue, Mar 4th 2014 2:01pm — Karl Bode

Comcast's David Cohen is the company's most influential policy and lobbying guru, being described by the Washington Post in late 2012 as a "wonk rock star" in telecom circles. Cohen, whose official title at the company is simply Executive Vice President, has spent the last decade helping Comcast navigate a stream of significant mergers and acquisitions, most notably the company's 2011 acquisition of NBC Universal. In fact, Comcast's NBC acquisition went through largely thanks to a list of merger conditions that were proposed by Cohen himself, including the offering of $10 broadband to homes that qualify for the school lunch program (a program that resulted in protests in Comcast's hometown by folks who claimed the company made it intentionally difficult to actually qualify).

Cohen's a lobbyist in all the ways you'd expect a lobbyist to be, from hob knobbing with regulators and fund raising for President Obama, to penning a litany of awful editorials about bad policy in papers nationwide. Every month or so Cohen can be found busily pretending the U.S. broadband market is competitive, or pretending that the United States' mediocre showing in every meaningful global broadband stat actually means we're leading the world at broadband. Yet despite spending the lion's share of his time lobbying, Cohen doesn't have to follow the disclosure rules for lobbyists -- and hasn't since 2007 -- because he's able to simply pretend he doesn't spend much time lobbying:

"Only employees who spend 20 percent or more of their work on lobbying or related activities have to register in Washington. Comcast says Cohen, an executive vice president, doesn't reach that threshold as he puts in 18-hour days spread across a wide array of responsibilities....by not registering as a lobbyist, Cohen doesn't face limits on travel with lawmakers and doesn't have to file reports on his contributions to campaigns or lawmakers' pet foundations."

By technically not being a lobbyist while being a very obvious lobbyist, Cohen is also allowed to dance around Obama's rules prohibiting lobbyists from having close ties to the administration (rules we've long noted were rather toothless). Comcast's top PR rep Sena Fitzmaurice points out that Comcast is just following the rules, but adds a little flourish in pretending that Cohen's really just quite a gifted fellow who wears many hats:

"There are very clear legal definitions of what is a lobbyist, and we check them for all of our people who make government contacts every quarter and comply accordingly," said Sena Fitzmaurice, Comcast vice president of government communications. Based in Philadelphia, not Washington, Cohen is responsible for government affairs, legal issues, communications, community investment, corporate real estate, and diversity, among other duties, Fitzmaurice said."David has a quite broad portfolio."

Yes, golly, David really is a jack of all trades, and also helps prune the rose bushes, clean the cat's box, and occasionally can be found down in the motor pool giving tips on catalytic converters! Cohen's a walking, breathing example of the uselessness of current lobbying rules. The current rules allow you to self-report your time spent with nobody anywhere in government bothering to confirm if you're telling the truth or not. Cohen is almost certainly logging sixty-hour-plus work weeks pushing for Comcast's attempted takeover of Time Warner Cable but worry not -- the majority of that time is actually spent making copies, providing moral support to sad cable install technicians, and baking delicious cupcakes.

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: congress, david cohen, lobbying
Companies: comcast

21 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 4 Mar 2014 @ 1:46pm

Brilliant
If the rules only apply to lobbyists, just say you're not a lobbyist, problem solved! /s

The fact that such a laughably obvious strategy apparently works shows just how pathetically weak the rules are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baron von Robber, 4 Mar 2014 @ 2:16pm

And technically,
I'm not a commentor. Nope, not commenting. Don't look.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Namel3ss (profile), 4 Mar 2014 @ 2:41pm

There should be a drone with this guy's name on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2014 @ 2:50pm

Technically the robot used the gun and not me. So I'm totally not guilty the robot is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alien Rebel (profile), 4 Mar 2014 @ 3:37pm

Details Matter
"Soylent Green is People!!!"

-That's Horrible!!!

"But it's LOBBYISTS!!"

-Damn, why didn't you say so? In that case, smashing idea!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

bob, 4 Mar 2014 @ 3:56pm

BFD, half of the non-profit research organizations do the same thing
All of the people you lovingly quote from places like the EFF are also doing much the same thing as lobbying. They're trying to influence public policy. Why do you only focus on the enemies of Google?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alien Rebel (profile), 4 Mar 2014 @ 3:59pm

More Post-Apocalypse Fun
Some pics on HuffPo nicely complement any discussion of D.C. lobbyists. Sculptural art by Issac Cardal

"The sprawling installation mocks the collapse of capitalism, envisioning what would happen to the skyscrapers and men with briefcases once the financial system disappears.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2014 @ 5:32pm

Re: BFD, half of the non-profit research organizations do the same thing
How about because the people at the EFF follow the law, where as, your pay masters don't.

Are you really that stupid that you could not figure that out for yourself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BeeAitch (profile), 4 Mar 2014 @ 6:22pm

Re: Details Matter
Delicious!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2014 @ 6:24pm

Re: Re:
bob just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2014 @ 6:42pm

If you trade money/favors/material possessions for laws/bills/favors/regulation you are a lobbyist. I don't care if you spend 20 hours or 20 seconds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bought and paid Google shill, 4 Mar 2014 @ 6:55pm

Re: BFD, half of the non-profit research organizations do the same thing
Why do you always pose EFF and techdirt authors as Google puppets?

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140221/09525626310/comcast-paying-minority-rights-groups -to-parrot-merger-support.shtml#c592 (Mike responding to you about a week ago, bold emphasis mine)
"How much does Google pay the EFF to fight for "net neutrality"?

Not much it seems. First off, EFF and Google have different positions on net neutrality, so if they're paying, they're not getting their money's worth.

Second, it's simply untrue that Google is dumping tons of money into EFF. As EFF has disclosed, it received $10,000 from Google directly, and about $200,000 in "employee matches" meaning that Google will match what its employees choose to donate to.

That was in 2010, when EFF's income was about 3.6 million. So, even if we include all of Google's matching (which again, is not by the choice of Google), we're talking... about 5%.

Meanwhile, EFF has come down hard against Google on multiple other issues, mostly focused on privacy.

Third, some people point to the $1 million that Google did eventually give EFF, but that wasn't by choice, but was the result of a *lawsuit* concerning a Google privacy violation, in which the judge ordered Google to give money to a bunch of privacy groups *WHO OPPOSED* Google's practices, including EFF.

Fourth, Google has basically gone totally silent on net neutrality over the past four years anyway. They -- much to the annoyance of many of us -- have backed away from their strong support for neutrality as the company has become more powerful and also started running a network of its own. Many of us are uncomfortable with this.

Fifth, this is totally different than what was being discussed in the article in the first place. This is about Comcast paying groups whose issues are totally unrelated to Comcast's to speak out in support. EFF was formed around internet legal and policy issues -- and, as far as I can tell, has never changed its position on net neutrality.

So, yeah, as per usual, you don't know wtf you're talking about. Stop arguing against demons that don't exist. They just make you look ignorant and nutty."

Here's more Google puppetry (link only for brevity's sake)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140110/12395525837/ford-vp-claims-company-is-tracking-every ones-driving-habits-then-denies-it.shtml#c243
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zip, 4 Mar 2014 @ 9:45pm

I would think that if MPAA head (and former career politician) Chris Dodd is not technically a lobbyist, then Comcast's David Cohen is probably not either.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/14490613193/chris-dodd-breaking-promise-not-to-become-lobb yist-just-weeks-after-leaving-senate-joining-mpaa-as-top-lobbyist.shtml
[ link to this | view in thread ]
zip, 4 Mar 2014 @ 9:48pm

Re:
I'd like to know why that is not considered criminal bribery?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Mar 2014 @ 11:55pm

Re: Re:
Because considering it bribery would be UN-AMERICAN, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 5 Mar 2014 @ 12:41am

Re: Re:
Because money, lots of it.

There's also the fact that those that should be cracking down on this... are also involved in it, quite enjoying those revolving doors and the perks they bring, and therefor not likely to want to rock the boat and put at risk the possibility for a lucrative 'retirement' for themselves down the road.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy Lyman (profile), 5 Mar 2014 @ 4:45am

Re: Re:
Because bribery creates a bond between two parties. They're both in trouble if it comes to light. We need to make it legal to accept bribes, and illegal to give them. That way you can take someone's cash and then turn around and call the cops.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bt Garner (profile), 5 Mar 2014 @ 5:49am

Thanks! Now when I call Comcast Customer Support and get "David" on the line, I know exactly who I am talking to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 5 Mar 2014 @ 9:15pm

Re: Re: Re:
We need to make it legal to accept bribes, and illegal to give them. That way you can take someone's cash and then turn around and call the cops.

Even better would be the other way around: bribe a politician, then turn him in to the FBI. Or maybe whoever reports the crime first gets immunity. Then bribers would never be sure they wouldn't be turned in, and neither would the politicians, making it too risky to do for most people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 9 Mar 2014 @ 6:04pm

Follow him to see if he really is doing 18 hour days. If he isn't then the under 20% number he claims is just fiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard Bennett (profile), 10 Mar 2014 @ 3:43pm

By the same token, Masnick and Bode aren't really shills for the anti-copyright interests, they just look like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]