Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

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

  
  

  Why isn't this illegal?

  It seems like this should be illegal. Like career politicians.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  gorehound (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• This comment has been flagged by the community. Click to show the comment.
   

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 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

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  :Lobo Santo (profile), Apr 17th, 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"

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Lowestofthekeys (profile), Apr 17th, 2012 @ 9:50am

  
  

  Re:

  Here's a good meme visualization for your kind of AC troll, sir!
  
  http://i41.tinypic.com/efrms1.png

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  PaulT (profile), Apr 17th, 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...

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  MrWilson, Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2012 @ 9:38am

  
  

  But this, however is just fine:
  
  http://www.cnbc.com/id/46501576/Susan_Molinari_Named_Google_s_Lobbyist_in_Washington

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  A Dan (profile), Apr 17th, 2012 @ 9:43am

  
  

  Re:

  How do you figure? Lobbying sucks, regardless of who's doing it. It's institutionalized bribery.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Jeremy Lyman (profile), Apr 17th, 2012 @ 10:09am

  
  

  Re: Re:

  Or extortion?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  A Dan (profile), Apr 26th, 2012 @ 1:59pm

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  Exactly.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2012 @ 9:44am

  
  

  Re:

  Google is a little outnumbered, it seems.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  rubberpants, Apr 17th, 2012 @ 10:08am

  
  

  Re:

  No, it isn't.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  TheStupidOne, Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  PaulT (profile), Apr 17th, 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!".

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Jon B. (profile), Apr 17th, 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...

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Ben (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2012 @ 12:29pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  You dope. She's been a DC lobbyist with her own firm for years.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  silverscarcat (profile), Apr 17th, 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.)

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2012 @ 12:33pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  Agreed. At least the Republicans admit they love big business, if not in so many words.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  lexieliberty (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The eejit (profile), Apr 17th, 2012 @ 10:22am

  
  

  Re: It's time!

  I wonder what would happen if we killed all the lawyers....would straightforward laws be passed?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  silverscarcat (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 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?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The eejit (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Nigel, Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  TheStupidOne, Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  TheStupidOne, Apr 17th, 2012 @ 10:33am

  
  

  Re: The Fix

  Also that jury should be people the politician was supposed to be representing.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Jefferson (profile), Apr 17th, 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?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  BentFranklin (profile), Apr 17th, 2012 @ 11:12am

  
  

  Re: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em

  Got $10-20 million?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), Apr 17th, 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!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  TtfnJohn (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  corwin155 (profile), Apr 17th, 2012 @ 11:07am

  
  

  corporations are the next fascists

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Baldaur Regis (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Michael Barclay (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 18th, 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...

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Thomas (profile), Apr 17th, 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.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 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!

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 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?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2012 @ 10:37pm

  
  

  Re: Re:

  There is always a moron, drunk on the techdirt koolaid, willing to pop this piece of stupidity up.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 18th, 2012 @ 8:19am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re:

  Yeah, that being this one.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2012 @ 3:09pm

  
  

  You could make this link between almost any other industry, however.
  
  Law firms, Sports celebrities, Vietnam vets, Military, etc etc etc.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment