×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FCC Commissioner Leaves To Become Lobbyist

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the passing-the-smell-test dept.

Businesses 309

An anonymous reader writes "Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the FCC Commissioners, is leaving the FCC to become a lobbyist for Comcast-NBC, just four months after approving their merger deal. She refused to put any significant conditions on the merger, saying that the deal would 'bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms.' Comcast has released an official statement saying that, 'Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

309 comments

Disgusting (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100012)

Maybe before she leaves she can put the stamp of approval on AT&T / T-Mobile as a fallback.

Re:Disgusting (5, Insightful)

saneshark (2143176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100162)

Everything that is wrong with politics and lobbying. Make lobbying illegal, dethrone corporate power.

You can't make talking illegal. (3, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100426)

How can you make lobbying illegal? Politicians need to be able to talk to people to do their job, so you can really ban lobbying. I think what you mean is lobbyists should be arrested because of all the shady, back room stuff they seem to do. I don't think the problem is that there aren't enough laws and regulations, so much as it is that the stakes are so high that no punitive measures are grave enough to discourage people from engaging in these kinds of activities. The only real solution is to not consolidate so much power and authority in one place. That would limit the scope of abuses, and it would reduce the rewards of engaging in this kind of behavior (which should reduce the number of people willing to participate in it).

you can make bribery illegal (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100686)

oh, actually bribery is already illegal.

too bad the 'rule of law' doesnt apply to the friends of the powerful.

Revolving Door (5, Insightful)

elohel (1582481) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100016)

Revolving door. Enough said. Honestly, I'm tired of caring about it. Action will only happen when people begin to truly feel the effects. Logic is lost on the masses.

Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulators (0, Troll)

rlglende (70123) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100022)

According to the people who wrote the US Constitution, consolidated power == tyranny.

Progressives have a lot to answer for.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100100)

>>>Progressives have a lot to answer for.

They don't care. For them this part of the Constitution does not exist. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Of this part: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And State Constitutions?
They don't even read them.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100228)

Horseshit. When states overstep that clause, they get their expectations reset by the other clauses. Too bad for them. Good for the nation.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100244)

Of this part: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Sort of like the "right to privacy" that we are told by the right doesn't exist because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention it?

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (2)

scumdamn (82357) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100154)

Progressives have nothing to answer for this. She failed to use federal government power to block a merger. She didn't use power that she should have.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (1)

ryants (310088) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100282)

She shouldn't have had that power in the first place.

Simply put, the FCC should not exist.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (1)

shadowfaxcrx (1736978) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100418)

OK, I'll bite. How would you solve the inevitable frequency anarchy if the FCC didn't regulate it? Or are you cool with it if I decide to step all over your cell connection with my homebuilt widget that operates on the same frequency at about 2,000 watts?

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (4, Informative)

ryants (310088) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100606)

One idea: Why the FCC should die [cnet.com]

Abolishing the FCC does not mean airwave anarchy. What it means is returning to bottom-up law rather than the top-down process that has characterized telecommunications for the last 80 years.

More details in the link.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100200)

Why do progressive have to answer for a Republican FCC commissioner?

In 2009, Baker joined the FCC as one of two Republicans on the five-person commission.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (0, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100296)

Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

As for the merger, corporations exist because government CREATED them (the incorporation license). Every merger has to be approved or denied by the licensor (the government). In fact the government could revoke the license and terminate a corporation whenever it felt like it.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (4, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100312)

Because Republicans are progressives... all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

Yes, let's ignore the last 50 years of US politics and post such a lame comeback.

Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action.

And a choice quote from Baker:

“I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue [net neutrality] that has no immediate need for us to act,” Baker said.

She is by no means a "progressive".

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100362)

BTW your comeback is about as lame as saying "Democrats are segregationists" which purposefully ignores decades of political shifting that went on within the political parties. Seriously, lame trolling is lame.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (1)

Rewind (138843) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100226)

According to the people who wrote the US Constitution, consolidated power == tyranny.

Progressives have a lot to answer for.

What does this have to do with progressives?

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (3, Funny)

Galactic Dominator (944134) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100350)

Don't you listen to Rush Limbaugh? This is all part of evil plan set in motion by Bill Clinton and carried out by his minions. The Republican former FCC commissioner was a progressive sleeper agent.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100778)

I think he means that progressives desire to consolidate power in the federal government. Of course, where he is confused is that he doesn't seem to think that conservatives desire to do the same.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100232)

Progressives have a lot to answer for.

As long as the citizenry believe that one party or the other are too blame then the citizens are just useful idiots. Conservatives like to consolidate power too, it's just you probably happen to agree with their reasons for doing it so it's ok. It's those lousy progressives. Also, in this particular instance it was the lack of using that consolidated power that is the problem.

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (3, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100286)

The funny thing is that this person is a conservative Republican with such choice quotes as:

“I’m afraid we are endangering a really important agenda. . . by pushing forward with a partisan, big-government regulatory issue [net neutrality] that has no immediate need for us to act,” Baker said.

Yep, that sounds very much like a progressive to me. Oh wait...

Re:Money buys power -- regulatees capture regulato (4, Informative)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100370)

Let me ask you something: in the absence of the FCC, what would have been different? There would not even have been a review of the merger. Conservatives seem to forget the reasons why regulation exists in the first place. I think they should spend some time talking to thee grandparents working in coal mining towns, complete with script and company housing. Fun times.

Oh, this does not smell of corruption AT ALL. (1)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100026)

So, how many of her corrupt little lackeys are going with her?

The federal revolving door (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100028)

Get a high level position in Congress, White House, any agency and get guaranteed a super high paying lobbyist job. How terrible public service is!

Re:The federal revolving door (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100144)

Not all high ranking officials get that...those who gave a very nice favor(s) to a company, or have demonstrated they will be quite willing to ask for favors contrary to the best interests of the country they supposedly served.

Corruption (5, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100030)

Corruption just seems to be getting more and more visible and obvious, and nobody with the power to stop it gives a damn.

Re:Corruption (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100234)

No kidding. The fact that the DoJ isn't as we speak executing a search warrant on her offices, her home and of the corporate headquarters of Comcast-NBC as her and the CEO and board of director's legal teams are being instructed not to leave the country indicates just how pathetic the justice system has become, and just how willing the big players are to flaunt it.

Re:Corruption (4, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100356)

It shouldn't have to come to that. It's shocking that this is allowed; it should be in the contract when you sign up to work for a public body like the FCC that you can't then work for any company whose business you were involved in for at least x years.

Re:Corruption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100608)

It speaks more to the failings of our societal system as a whole. When money is the ultimate power in the world, is it any surprise that laws will eventually submit to money?

And why not flaunt it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100740)

The revolution will now most certainly not be televised. Keep whining on /. and waiting for a Jesus.

Re:Corruption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100764)

And the fact that there aren't riots over corruption on the streets of Washington right now over a corruption so blatant and in the spotlight, indicates how pathetic the population has become, and just how effective the combination of tiring fast-food (bread... something far more powerful than bread actually) and opinion-making "news" (circuses) is.

Re:Corruption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100278)

The cynic in me want's to believe that we're seeing more and more corruption, but maybe this is just the start of something new. We may be seeing more of it because of a new level of transparency. The optimist in me hopes that because we're on the new side of this trend, maybe we haven't seen the start of the new fight against corruption. I wish the optimist side had a stronger base to stand on though.

Fair enough. (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100036)

Care to share any and all correspondence between you and Comcast/NBC during the merger review, Ms. Baker? Not that I'm suggesting you would ever trade your vote for a cushy job, just to put any unfortunate rumors to rest, you see...

Yeah, somehow I don't think that is going to happen.

Now where did I leave my pitchfork and torch?

Re:Fair enough. (1)

f8l_0e (775982) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100096)

Let me know if you can't find them. I'll pick you up a set at the hardware store on the way to the mob rally point.

Re:Fair enough. (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100198)

I don't think the Comcast/NBC merger is that big of a deal. A cable company acquired a 4th place network and a few channels with sinking ratings. I think it will have as little impact as when UPN/WB bankrupted themselves & created CW, or when Sirius XM merged. Little impact will be noticed.

I do however think Comcast needs to be sued under the Sherman Antitrust Act, forced into regulation, and price fixed just like the electricity and water monopolies. They are a utility and should be treated as such.

Re:Fair enough. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100204)

Please. Just because you're corrupt doesn't make you stupid.

No one would put a quid-pro-quo with a federal regulator in writing. They wouldn't even make it explicit in a face-to-face or phone conversation. They'd just make it clear (in person or via unrecorded phone) that they just might have an opportunity down the road for someone to help with public relations in Washington, and gosh it's hard to find good people these days!

If she had any sense, SHE'D release all the correspondence. It will clearly show nothing, and there's no better cloak than the appearance of openness.

Most bureaucrats are bought and sold (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100046)

They either come from Corporations (which means they are biased in favor of their former boss) or they know that the job will eventually lead from government to a cushy corporate position, if they just brown nose enough (hand down the right decisions).

I still think the FCC's decision to allow Internet Devices to broadcast over top existing TV channels demonstrates they care more about pleasing their once-or-future bosses (Microsoft, Google, Apple, ATT, etc), even if it means blocking consumers ability to watch free TV.

FCC == corporate tool.

Kettle, pot, black (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100048)

This just screams of conflict of interest, and big time pay off...

Weird Statement (4, Insightful)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100050)

Odd for a lobbyist to say something like "bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms", which confirms they believe there is a potential for abuses. A statement like that practically begs for someone to ask what these benefits are exactly, that she was able to even make such a statement.

Re:Weird Statement (1)

starfishsystems (834319) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100150)

Yeah, though I tend to notice the "potential harms" bit. At least it's mentioned, which is a gesture approximating honesty.

Re:Weird Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100218)

She said this when the wasn't yet a lobyist.

Re:Weird Statement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100256)

Also, note that the benefits are stated as fact while the harm... meh... probably won't happen.

Just Wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100054)

I thought there was a law against this.... Don't you have to wait two or so years before you can do this???
That is how the banking industry about brought the U.S down

Re:Just Wrong (5, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100262)

I thought there was a law against this.... Don't you have to wait two or so years before you can do this???

Congress refuses to pass a law. The Obama administration, on the other hand, issued an executive order the very first day banning lobbying by former members of the administration to executive branch employees. So because the legislative body is corrupt, she can lobby Congress. The executive is slightly less corrupt, so she theoretically can't talk to former co-workers or anyone in the executive branch (including the FCC) about law and policy changes without that member of the executive being fired. That's about as close to honest as we've been able to come in recent decades.

This is SO wrong.. (4, Insightful)

yossie (93792) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100056)

If by 'Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills.' they mean that she accepts bribes, er, a job offer from the people she JUST granted a favor to, then, YES.

What a coincidence (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100066)

I quit my job as a geological surveyor for Exxon bought a plot of desert land with absolutely no significance what so ever and then out of coincidence am rounding up investors for a business that's just so happened to be named Black Gold LLC. Nope no conflict of interest ever existed here.

Government is corrupt... (1)

TamCaP (900777) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100074)

Government is corrupt like crazy (see also all the D- Reps from places like Alaska or Louisiana protesting abolition of tax-breaks for big oil...). No news, really. They should actually have titles like Comcast Commissioner (FCC), or Rapiscan Secretary of Homeland Security (looking at you, Chertoff). At least it would make the situation clearer. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Government is corrupt... (1, Funny)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100114)

"Government is corrupt like crazy"
no, not really. Over all it's pretty good. excellent compared to most, if not all, other governments on the planet.
It is complex, so people like you peek into a keyhole and then complain about things that don't 'make sense. Completely ignoring the fact that you only have a tiny view that's only bit's of other things,.

Re:Government is corrupt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100320)

Er... I'd agree with you, but I think a merger of this kind requires more than a "keyhole peek" to see. And for this to happen so shortly after, I have to say that it is one of the most obvious cases of conflict of interest I ever seen.
Yes, she should be allowed to make her own career decisions, but there's just no way to justify this.

Now I'm half expecting Comcast-NBC's new logo to be a well stretched middle finger, reminding us all of how they did this right in front of our noses.

Re:Government is corrupt... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100336)

>>>excellent compared to most, if not all, other governments on the planet.

I really, really hate this argument. Just because our pile of manure has whipped cream on it, while the other governments are just plain manure, doesn't mean we have to call it "excellent".

If we compare our government today, to what it was in 1900, it's clear that we've gone downhill. In fact..... I'd say we fell off a cliff. Why should stop comparing ourselves to the other corrupt governments of the present, and instead try to return to the government we used to have. Small, efficient, and non-intrusive (i.e. not stopping people and forcing them to random searches or X-rays).

Let's start enforcing the Tenth Amendment for a change. Congress shall exercise no power it was never granted to do. (Those powers are reserved to the Local State government, which is directly accountable to the people.)

Re:Government is corrupt... (4, Informative)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100480)

If we compare our government today, to what it was in 1900, it's clear that we've gone downhill.

You're right, if you look at the decade between 1900 and 1910. However, before that you had the Whiskey Ring and Tammany Hall, after that, you had the Newport Sex Scandal and Teapot Dome. The US government has never been completely free of corruption and harking back to some mythical "Golden Age" does no one any good. The only reason why things look worse now is that the dollar amounts have increased - but that's inflation for you...

Re:Government is corrupt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100148)

They should actually have titles like Comcast Commissioner (FCC)

That is remarkably similar to the way people were named in Jennifer Government [wikipedia.org]. In that dystopia, your last name was the name of the company you worked for; so, John Nike, Hayley McDonalds, etc. Someone named Jennifer employed by the Government would be "Jennifer Government". The unemployed do not have last names.

Very good book.

Not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100104)

Federal regulator does a good turn for a big corporation who "just happens" to throw a plum job that regulator's way just long enough later to claim it's not quid-pro-quo with a straight face. Par for the course.

I guess it might be news if she left public service to work somewhere OTHER THAN for a company she did a favor for. ..

Translation (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100106)

Translation: Meredith's dedication to serving us during her tenure as FCC Commissioner, and her willingness to betray every principle, ethical or moral, makes her a perfect fit for our corporate atmosphere, much as a piece of shit makes a perfect fit for a septic tank. We look forward to long years of benefiting from her betrayal of the American people.

Only for high officials (5, Insightful)

boristdog (133725) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100116)

When my father retired from NASA, he had to wait two years before he could work for anyone who did any business with NASA.

Apparently this sort of thing doesn't apply to political appointees.

LBJ much?

Re:Only for high officials (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100210)

When my father retired from NASA, he had to wait two years before he could work for anyone who did any business with NASA. Apparently this sort of thing doesn't apply to political appointees.

Executive order number 2, from Obama's first day on the job, bans lobbying for 2 years by former members of the administration. So no, there is no law, but there is an order in place that gets anyone in the executive branch meeting with her to discuss changes to laws or policies fired.

Re:Only for high officials (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100276)

So, no lobbying the White House, but Congress is fair game.

Tells you a lot about Congress.

Re:Only for high officials (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100604)

In other words that XO is completely ineffective, since lawmakers don't work in the executive office, and she's free to Lobby congressmembers all she desires. Starting immediately.

Re:Only for high officials (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100496)

Its not for government employees either, at least not from DARPA or AFRL. Lots of revolving door corruption there. I'm not sure about NASA.

Non-compete (4, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100118)

It's a sad testimonial to the lopsided state of our nation's political system when we need non-compete clauses for elected and appointed officials to prevent them from leaping to the Dark Side immediately after their terms end.

Re:Non-compete (1)

PetiePooo (606423) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100190)

... we need non-compete clauses for elected and appointed officials ...

I was hoping someone would bring this up. Thank you, macraig.

Re:Non-compete (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100292)

A requirement that meetings between lawmakers and lobbyists be recorded and available under FOIA would make such things moot.

Re:Non-compete (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100380)

No, it wouldn't. Even if it occurred only as a synergistic (/sarcasm) accident, it's still highly unethical.

Re:Non-compete (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100406)

Frankly we need to adopt some new criteria that prevent these pre-meditated unethical people from ever getting into elected or appointed positions in the first place. If not the equivalent of Minority Report tech, then at least a battery of old-fashioned lie detector tests....

Re:Non-compete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100258)

And they'll be every bit as effective as non-compete agreements in the private sector. i.e. not at all.

If you think this is corrupt, look at the Olympics (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100120)

The kickbacks for IOC chairs and board members are in the billions.

But, yeah, this is pretty darned corrupt. Figures.

Hint: Corporations are not, and never will be, People.

Re:If you think this is corrupt, look at the Olymp (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100308)

really, the IOC chairs all became billionaires over night?

Re:If you think this is corrupt, look at the Olymp (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100374)

more their families, their relatives companies, their relatives foundations, the construction firms their brother-in-law owns ...

Pretty much, though.

3...2...1.... (3, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100124)

The next sound you hear will be bunch of grandstanding Senators investigating her. Give it a week, 10 days tops.

This is plain and simple fraud.

"Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington bring Comcast and NBCUniversal the perfect combination of skills." - means we bought the bitch a long time ago, we just are now taking possession.

Re:3...2...1.... (4, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100300)

They owned her before she was appointed. It was how she was selected to be appointed. She's not leaving anything. This is a promotion in the same de facto organization.

The sad truth is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100156)

...you would all do the same if you could, and you know it.

Oh get it over with. (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100164)

Can we just accept the fact that they're all corrupt, and simply require that politicians publish their price, and who's pocket they're in so that the general public can try to buy a few?!

Someone at Comcast-NBC liked it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100260)

... so they put a ring on it.

Back to Basics (3, Insightful)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100346)

Shouldn't lobbying be Illegal ?

Re:Back to Basics (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100744)

How do you define lobbying? If you're talking about something to do with money and gifts, it's already illegal, but hard to enforce.
In the ordinary definition of the word, lobbying is "petitioning the government for a redress of grievances".

My press release (3, Interesting)

Morris Thorpe (762715) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100388)

For Immediate release

Comcast-NBC announced today that Meredith Attwell Baker is joining the company as a lobbyist.

In our previous professional dealings, the company has found Attwell Baker to be wide open to hard and long discussions. Though faced with difficult positions, Attwell Baker was always flexible and willing to prod new and unexplored avenues. The drippings of our mutual efforts leave a permanent mark on the fabric of America and its citizens.

Comcast-NBC will introduce Attwell Baker Thursday morning. Just as soon as she cleans her chin.

That isn't rain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100432)

No courtesy of calling it rain, etc.

P.J. O'Rourke said... (2)

Dr. Sp0ng (24354) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100458)

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought and sold are legislators."

What's really funny is that the people who want the government involved in everything are the same who act outraged when the inevitable corruption follows.

somewhat agree hwoever (1)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100758)

do you think there should be no regulation? there is a reason the FDA was created; people were dying from bad products being sold.
in China there's no FDA - instead they take the guy pointing out the baby-milk scandal and put him in prison for several years.
(Zhao Lianhai).

Re:somewhat agree hwoever (1)

Dr. Sp0ng (24354) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100824)

As opposed to the cancer patients that are dying because they're denied access to experimental treatments? The FDA cuts both ways, and it's not at all clear to me that it's a net win, especially when you consider where health care could be if it were allowed to flourish like the computer industry.

Re:P.J. O'Rourke said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100802)

So you're saying government regulation is the problem here? The solution, I guess, is to not regulate anything because our regulators can become corrupt. So the solution to abuse of corporate power is to let corporations do whatever they want?

What's really funny is that people like you just hate it when the government acts as a middle-man in the process of corporations exploiting the population. You'd much prefer us to be screwed directly by corporations without any delay.

Wonderful (1)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 2 years ago | (#36100592)

Two giant media corporations merging, more homogeneity on the airwaves, and the former head of the FCC is now working for them. And no one anywhere sees a potential flaw in this? When did the USA turn into the USSR?

Corrupt? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100638)

Meredith's executive branch and business experience along with her exceptional relationships in Washington

Simple. Start a witch-hunt against these "relationships" in "Washington" that continue to deal with her after this news broke. Make sure that everyone that does as much as returns a phone call from Meredith gets thoroughly investigated in the press. Without these shady behind closed doors "relationships" she is of null value.

Pull yourselves together people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100646)

Let me get this straight. A president can get impeached over a blow job... but buddy-buddy underhandedness between corporations and the government goes on regularly and nothing gets done about it? What's crazier is that the American public knows all about it and just watches on like it's a TV show. It's not as if the biggest problems (like Goldman Sachs' personal branch of government) are hidden under a rug still.

How this continues to go on without mass protests against both the major parties defies belief. Sorry to be blunt, but the American public (because the government ain't doing anything) is overdue for getting its shit together if something is to be done about it.

Again, overblown slashdot commentary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36100792)

By law, government officials are prohibited from personally lobbying their former agencies, depending upon the circumstances, for at least a year or two. Believe or not (considering the conspiracy theories rampant on slashdot, I guess "not"), this is something that is taken very seriously.

Oh, by the way, where do you think a former FCC Commissioner will land after they leave government employment? A milk cooperative? Manager of a McDonalds?

FYI -- as 1 of the 2 Republicans (as opposed to the 3 Democrats), her power was greatly diminished.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...