Former 'Representative From Disney' Howard Berman Makes It Official: Starts Lobbying For Hollywood
from the hollywood-howard-gets-his-payday dept
For years, Hollywood's biggest player in Congress when it came to copyright policy was Rep. Howard Berman. He was often referred to as the Representative from Disney for his willingness to always push for more expansive copyright policies. While he was sometimes called the Rep from Hollywood, I believe his actual district was "adjacent to" Hollywood, though it "included parts of" Hollywood as well. Either way, in 2012, thanks to redistricting, Berman went up against another longterm LA Representative, Brad Sherman, and lost. Berman quickly became a lobbyist, and now it's come out that he's officially lobbying for the MPAA on "issues related to intellectual property protection" because of course he is. Not much else to say about this other than it's yet another example of the revolving door and the nature of back-scratching that happens in DC.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, howard berman, lobbying, revolving door
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, what do you expect?
Those are the values the society was made from, and being sort of a republic with sort of democratic procedures, the values that the voters adore become amplified in the values of their representatives.
This is what you have learnt to admire and respect. As long as a billionaire earns more respect than a college professor and a successful arms trader has higher social standing than a conscientious objector having served a prison term for his convictions, this is what you'll get.
If you want this to change, stop adulating big money. Stop respecting those who got a good price for selling their conscience. As long as their choice to join government-controlled organized crime organizations does not lead to social ostracism, there is no reason for them to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you get hired by another company, it is likely because you have developed an expertise while in your former job. You have a skill set that is valuable to your new company. It's really not very different. And remember that the game is played on both sides of the issue. Guess who work's for FCC chief, Tom Wheeler? Masnick's friend Gigi Sohn, the former Executive Director of Public Knowledge. Interesting that she appears to be on board with tiered service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But of course, you don't care. Cocksucking copyright seems to be how you get your meal ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Politicians shouldn't (be allowed to) run for office so that they can become more familiar with how to game the system effectively giving them the knowledge to disproportionately influence politics. That's not fair to yhe people that government are supposed to govern.A politician willing to use his knowledge that he gained in office to then betray the American people by trying to help an industry interest get disproportionate representation is probably a politician that should never have been elected in the first place. This should not be permitted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is partly why he should not be allowed to work for the MPAA as a lobbyist.
"You have a skill set that is valuable to your new company. It's really not very different"
It's very different. A skill gained in the public sector should not be used to help a company you were regulating better game the system. This should not be permitted. When a politician leaves office they should be forced to make an honest living. It is dishonest to get elected so that you can use what you learned in office to become a lobbyist and game the system. If you honestly can't see the difference then you are mentally retarded. However I think it's more of a case of you being morally lacking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Talk about teaching someone to swim by throwing them in the deep end, I mean, it's not like they'd have any experience in 'honest' anything, how are they supposed to know how to 'make an honest living'? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The main reason that the revolving door should not be allowed to continue is because it creates a potential conflict of interest between politicians and the industry interests they were allowed to regulate. This potential conflict of interest maybe abused by industry interests wanting to game the system. That should not be permitted. That those politicians have additionally acquired the skill set and connections to better game the system as an added bonus is not reason the revolving door favor should be allowed to continue but it's even more reason the revolving door problem needs to be fixed.
and for the shills to not see the difference between a skill gained in a private sector job being used by someone who moved from one job to another and a skill gained in a public sector job being used to betray the public that the politician is supposed to represent while in office for personal gain is disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Members of Congress are not really "regulating" anyone. What you are talking about is like the head of the USDA's meat inspection program going to work for the Beef Council.
Members write and vote on laws. Between the House and Senate, there are over 500 people voting on an issue. Its not a cozy as you suggest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, so we are just electing them for no reason then? We should just get rid of all Congress members since they don't regulate anyone or anything.
"Its not a cozy as you suggest."
You sure could have fooled me.
What kinda dumb response is this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So how is this relevant? Oh, wait, don't tell me. This is another one of your Public Knowledge is secretly working for and being funded by Google conspiracy theories right?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a difference between valuing freedom within the private sector and being critical of potential conflicts of interest between government employees and industry. Someone working for the private sector is implied to do so to maximize their own personal profits and further their own interests. Someone working for the government should do so to serve the public interest. When their personal interests conflict with the public interest that is something that should be very carefully looked at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That may be true of a bureaucrat, but not a member of Congress. They are there to represent the interests of their constituents- not the broader public interest. That's why you will never see nor should expect Rep. Griffith to be an advocate for cap-and-trade or other climate change measures. His constituents are in cal country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starts? Isn't that what he's been doing all along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]