Beta
×

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!

LightSquared CEO Resigns Amid Appearance of Bribery

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the punished-with-huge-severance-package dept.

Wireless Networking 211

New submitter msauve writes "LightSquared, the company who's request to use make use of spectrum in a way likely to interfere with GPS was recently denied, has suffered another setback. CEO Sanjiv Ahuja has now resigned, only a week after a report detailing political contributions and the personal financial interests of Obama and officials in his administration in SkyTerra, the precursor company to LightSquared. Ahuja's one and only contribution to the Democratic Party occurred on the same day he tried to arrange a meeting with Obama administration officials, apparently as part of LightSquared's desire to fast track FCC approval of a change beneficial to the company."

cancel ×

211 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Important to note (4, Interesting)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198387)

He attempt to do what many /.ers say happen all the time, and got busted.

Re:Important to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198481)

His only mistake was forgetting that the FCC has a modicum of integrity.

Re:Important to note (3, Insightful)

Feyshtey (1523799) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199193)

I think you could argue that it was a mistake to break the law to begin with... On the part of the CEO, and Democrat party reps, and the Obama administration....

Re:Important to note (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198483)

He attempt to do what many /.ers say happen all the time, and got busted.

Oh, that's just because he tried to cheap it out. 28K for a Senate Seat, 50K for Obama.

When you're in the big leagues, you've got to drop the big bucks. Remember this kids, you get what you pay for!

Re:Important to note (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198535)

Actually it was only 8K for the Senate seat. The Dems returned $20,000.

Must have been running a special that week.

Re:Important to note (4, Funny)

Kozz (7764) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199037)

Actually it was only 8K for the Senate seat. The Dems returned $20,000.

Must have been running a special that week.

8K should be enough for anybody.

Re:Important to note (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198869)

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Why let evidences and data have an actual impact on any conclusion you come to, right?

Re:Important to note (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198563)

LS raised billions of dollars... yet just defaulted on their first payment to inmarsat last week. Those billions are gone. All of it.
If I were that guy, I'd be getting out of my contract by any means necessary, purchasing a new identity, grabbing my family and running for the hills.
Heck if I took company paper clips home I'd be using that as an ethics violation to get the heck out, alive.

Re:Important to note (1, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198597)

Well this makes a bunch of really funny things going on for Obama. And what 8 or 9 failed solar companies that got massive hand outs and F&F plus an extra gun running program that was started that let guns walk. Obama not better than the last guy, he's much, much worse.

Re:Important to note (4, Informative)

Kythe (4779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198645)

F&F began under Bush. And I'm aware only of one solar company that received a grant, yet later failed (not sure what a business failing has to do with anything, that DOES happen in a market economy). Perhaps you can elaborate?

Re:Important to note (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198709)

Perhaps you can elaborate?

It's Obama's fault!

Further explanations are unnecessary and might complicate things.

Re:Important to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199303)

Just stand up in front of a crowd and shout "Yes we can" repeatedly. Throw a couple of "it's time for change" in there as well. All problems will now go away because it is time for change and yes we can. See? That was easy.

Re:Important to note (2)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199313)

Obama probably has almost nothing to do with this, except that it's under his watch. The people responsible are those bits of dirt and grime that are swept into positions of authority on his very long coat-tails.

This sort of thing can happen with *any* modern President, and while I am not an Obama supporter, this isn't something wrong with him, or even the Democrats as individuals. It's what's wrong with government that is big enough that it has its fingers in everything.

If there is something wrong with Obama and the Democrats, it's that they are trying to add even more services, and hence size, to the government. Granted, the Republicans haven't always been on target with their own actions, either, but at least they are pretending to work for smaller government.

Re:Important to note (2)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199349)

Ah, like that old Bloom County [wikipedia.org] Picayune editor: It's Reagan's Fault!

Re:Important to note (3, Informative)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198715)

To be fair, F&F was not doing anything close to what it did under Holder during the Bush years, and it's not Bush's attorney general lying up and down about what he knew about the program and when.

Re:Important to note (-1)

Kythe (4779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198843)

I'm all for fairness -- I don't know of anyone who thinks F&F, in retrospect, was a bright idea. Some folks who knew about it probably thought it was a bad idea at the time, too. But the idea itself was a screw-up from the get-go (under Bush), and considering a lot of the noise about F&F is coming in the form of conspiracy theories from the NRA, I'm not in total agreement that it somehow makes "Obama much, much worse than the last guy".

Re:Important to note (3, Insightful)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199039)

Ia lot of the noise about F&F is coming in the form of conspiracy theories from the NRA

Mainstream news is almost totally ignoring the debacle, so at least one organization is talking about it.

It's not really a conspiracy theory when gun dealers openly say, "Yeah, we knew that buyer was a drug runner but the ATF agent in our back office told us to sell him the guns anyways."

Re:Important to note (1)

Kythe (4779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199329)

Actually, I'm talking about the "this is all a way to enact gun control!" crap that eternally comes from the NRA.

Re:Important to note (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199141)

A) Holder was running not F&F, nor did he lie 'up and down'.
I don't think you understand how organizations work.

I can not believe you would bring up bush in any conversation regarding Attorney Generals. I know Fox down played all the issues, but you do get news from other sources, right?

Re:Important to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198759)

F&F began under Bush.

I think you mean the F&F handouts began under Bush.

Of course it was Bush's fault! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198799)

Solyndra was considered by the Bush Administration and rejected.

Team Obama picked it up and approved it.

When it collapsed, they said it was Bush's fault. Unsurprising, since everything that goes wrong for them is Bush's fault.

Re:Of course it was Bush's fault! (2)

Kythe (4779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198969)

I'm sorry, but this simplistic view is laughable. After nearly 200,000 documents and several investigations, no evidence that any political pressure was applied to approve the loan has been found.

None.

So no, it wasn't "team Obama" -- it was career feds, doing what they're supposed to do: review loan applications and decide whether to approve or deny.

Some loan recipients go bust. That's the way it is -- which you'd likely admit, if an honest appraisal of the situation were your main goal.

Re:Of course it was Bush's fault! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199305)

you're on slashdot. No evidence IS evidence of wrongdoing.

Re:Of course it was Bush's fault! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198987)

Rejected? Rejected is a bit of a strong word. Try deferred until they met certain conditions like raising further outside capital.

Which they met.

And no, it was not Bush's fault. Nobody is saying that. They are saying that Bush originated the program, and that Solyndra was a fast-track candidate, but fault is distinct from the clarification. When it comes to fault, It was China's. Because China massively subsidized their own solar industry.

However, Solyndra DID build their factory, they DID follow through on what they claimed to do, so you know what? The people who claim it was a fraud and a scam are wrong.

Re:Important to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198895)

SpectraWatt
Uni-Solar
Evergreen Solar

Maybe you should expend your energy on being less ignorant, rather than a pithy internet douchebag.

Re:Important to note (3, Insightful)

tragedy (27079) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199035)

They all failed because they can't compete with China. US solar companies can't compete with Chinese solar companies because the Chinese government backs its renewable tech companies while the US doesn't.

Re:Important to note (2)

j35ter (895427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199249)

They all failed because they can't compete with China. US solar companies can't compete with Chinese solar companies because the Chinese government backs its renewable tech companies while the US doesn't.

Oh, and if a Chinese company goes down the drain for corruption (AKA greedy CEO), there is quite a chance that their board gets a front row seat in an open-air public execution spectacle. Makes them think twice about stealing subsidies!

Re:Important to note (2)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199339)

That only happens if they didn't establish the right connections in government. The ones who get shot are the little guys who stepped on bigger toes.

Names, but no circumstances (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199201)

Let's see, counting Solyndra, you have now come up to 4.

You're still 4 short.

Oh wait, Uni-Solar's PARENT company is the one that filed for bankruptcy, not just the Uni-Solar unit. Maybe the whole company had problems, but the unit itself could have been fine. Evergreen got subsidies from the State of Massachusetts, not the Feds. I'd look up SpectraWatt, but I think two out of three is enough disputation to demand that you share more facts to justify your claims.

Re:Important to note (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198957)

Sadly F&F was nothing under Bush, and Solyndra was just the tip of a VERY stinky iceberg, one of the Kennedy kids got millions in tax free handouts for a "green' company that had never made a single dime. I'd google it for you but I'm just about to head out the door "Solyndra tip of iceberg" in any search engine will find the info for you. Summary 19 out of the 20 companies that got huge handouts were significant donors to the elect Obama fund. I'm a democrat and hated Bush but Obama is trying his damnedest to be worse than Bush in EVERY single way, worse on human rights, worse on jack booted crap, worse on bribery, hell i can't think of a single thing the man did better and that's just fricking sad. if you want to see what changed read this [nothingchanged.org] . Frankly I'm voting green rather than waste my vote on such a lousy POTUS. don't worry he'll still win simply nobody is gonna vote for mittens.

Re:Important to note (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199319)

How you vote is up to you. But just so you know, the Green Party espouses core values of Marxism. Essentially, it's a hybrid Communist party. No joke. Read it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism [wikipedia.org]

Last I remember, Cynthia McKinney joined the Green Party. That women has a foul rap like you wouldn't believe. Corrupt and intimidating to the core against journalists. I can't find the video, but there was one floating on YouTube for awhile with her telling the press that "you are not going to report this, you hear?" or some such.

Perhaps you know all this. But just in case you don't. The Green Party is far worse that either the Democratic or Republican party.

Re:Important to note (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199347)

hell i can't think of a single thing the man did better and that's just fricking sad.

Finding Osama Bin Laden for one. Oh, you were speaking in hyperbole.

Re:Important to note (1)

john82 (68332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199229)

Kind of hard to keep up with your eyes clamped shut and your hands over your ears.

Politicians are dirty, period. It's not like Republicans have a monopoly on corruption.

Re:Important to note (2)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198721)

This was a clumsy and failed bribe that doesn't really reflect on Obama. Also I think the gun-running program started under Bush Jr. (and then ATF used their own program to argue for gun control by claiming that legal gun owners in the US were providing guns to Mexican drug cartels), though <strike>Bush III</strike> Obama did continue it.

Re:Important to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199095)

There were three individual Presidents with the surname of Bush elected before Obama?

Re:Important to note (2)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199175)

Yes but apparently they may have been on strike.

Re:Important to note (5, Interesting)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198817)

The only thing 'funny' about it is that LightSquared's CEO didn't anything for his 'donation'. No private audience with Obama and no fast-track approval for the company's idiotic plan.

The Democratic Party took the donation and treated it as a donation while the administration killed the company, which is exactly what should have happened. For once, the system worked as intended.

Re:Important to note (5, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198729)

He wasn't doing it right.

First off, at that level, he needs to start bri *ahem* making campaign donations to everybody, not just to the President. Senators, congressmen, judges, even the ones running the party all need their cut. And he needs to be doing it over multiple election years.

A few thousand dollars doesn't cut it anymore these days--at least not at the Federal level. To play in that game, he needs a warchest of at least half a million.

Additionally, he needed a lobbying firm to do the dirty work on his behalf. If it was a lobbying firm who did the brib *ahem* gift-giving instead, he would be shielded from all this by plausible deniability and would have kept his job. He could've just fired the lobbying firm and re-hired them under a different company name *ahem* I mean find another one.

Re:Important to note (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199153)

You're argument is about as sound as arguments claiming Bigfoot is real.

Re:Important to note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199251)

You are grammar not so good

This site is increasingly populated by retards - fucking waste of time

Re:Important to note (2)

NicknameAvailable (2581237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199173)

He attempt to do what many /.ers say happen all the time, and got busted.

Actually he got busted because he was trying to bribe his way around a technological limitation that has no known solution and would completely disable the American military - and he's not being tried for treason. I'd hardly say he got busted.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198397)

I would consider this to be a first for briber/contribution/lining the pockets of politicians. If only all instances of this were well documented enough to make face of what is happening in our country. Politicians being bought out by the big companies.

Re:Wow (4, Informative)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198463)

Actually... this keeps happening when people try to buy Obama. He got burned by his dealings with Rezzko and has been really strict about reporting and clean hands accounting since.

-GiH

Re:Wow (2)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198737)

I agree this happens in politics all the time. The differences are that the purchase of influence is extraordinarily well documented in these cases, and the people buying influence from Obama don't seem to know how to run a business at a profit.

Re:Wow (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199181)

How much politics have you been involved with? How many government agencies?
I have never seen this happen. Most investigation into these matter find nothing, and when they do people are punished.

But you keep living in your bubble of ignorance... just keep it to yourself.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198747)

To bad one can't say the same about mittens Romney

I knew it was too good to be true. (0)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198407)

Not the technology part; that works. I just mean I knew they'd somehow keep it from ever reaching the consumer. It would simply have given high-speed network access to too many people way too cheaply.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198427)

Well, of course, apart from the fact that it would smashed neighboring frequencies and would probably have never worked properly, of course.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (0)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198467)

You know, really depressing thing I've found is that there appears to be no proof of this allegation. The accusation enough seems to have been sufficient to stop anyone from even trying to prove it.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (5, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198543)

You know, really depressing thing I've found is that there appears to be no proof of this allegation. The accusation enough seems to have been sufficient to stop anyone from even trying to prove it.

Because there isn't anything to prove, it's basic physics. But to appease shills like you, they did do that test [businessweek.com] .

That link is dead. (0)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198623)

Did you check it? It gives me a full-screen businessweek ad followed by a 404. Now which one of us is a shill?

Re:That link is dead. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198793)

I can't believe you're serious. If you put the electrons that have been used to technically decimate the Lightsquared proposal together in a row you could probably make a wire that stretched to Alpha Centuri.

I'm not even going to make a LMGTFY link. You'll have to do it yourself.

Re:That link is dead. (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199263)

So you make a statement, but refuse to back it up with any facts? Yeah, well done, asshole.

Re:That link is dead. (2)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199271)

Wikipedia talks about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LightSquared [wikipedia.org]

IT does look like they were working through the issues; which mostly involved GPS.

Now, maybe they couldn't completely do it, so he tried to bribe people.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198609)

You know, really depressing thing I've found is that there appears to be no proof of this allegation. The accusation enough seems to have been sufficient to stop anyone from even trying to prove it.

If you're getting paid to astroturf, I hope its in cash because LS already stiffed Inmarsat for $50M last week. Its gone, all of it.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (5, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198631)

You've obviously not been looking hard enough. The Ars Technica [arstechnica.com] article sums up the science behind it pretty well (basically, they did a test run of the terrestrial base-stations and it interfered with ~75% of GPS devises, after LightSquared reduced the stations power to try to fix the problem). There is a ton of proof that they actually interfere with GPS signals, namely, actual experiments.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199239)

"intermodulation distortion"

GPS receivers are built too cheap

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199297)

The tests (that actually happened) showed that 75% of consumer GPS devices received harmful interference when within 100 meters of the base station, and that's what's sufficient. LightSquared tried to argue that "harmful interference doesn't mean total failure! The test should have been whether or not the devices failed completely, not whether their accuracy was degraded! This test was obviously rigged against us OMG!" Only, too bad.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198435)

You are a complete idiot if you equate 'makes most GPS devices useless' with 'works'.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198489)

Hmm.. When you put it like that, I'm surprised the Iranian government hasn't already implemented this technology.

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198655)

Hmm.. When you put it like that, I'm surprised the Iranian government hasn't already implemented this technology.

How do you know?

http://www.qsl.net/n9zia/wireless/gps_jam-pics.html [qsl.net]

Re:I knew it was too good to be true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198525)

Because high speed network access is more important than life or safety. If they had actually acquired approriate spectrum for land based towers..this wouldn't have been an issue. Instead they wanted to use spectrum intended for space operations for land purposes.

Call me crazy... (1)

Kythe (4779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198439)

...but I have my doubts that a "report" by The Daily Caller had much to do with anything (regardless of its accuracy). Lightsquared's problems seem to run a little deeper than that.

Implications for the administration? (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198455)

It's an election year so they're probably happy to accept any money they can get, but I wonder if anyone within the administration or the DNC itself is going to get some smackdown for this incident.

Re:Implications for the administration? (1)

willaien (2494962) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198501)

Keep in mind that the intended effect (fast track approval) didn't happen.

Re:Implications for the administration? (0)

Kythe (4779) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198561)

Exactly. Moreover, despite the implications of the report in The Daily Caller (which has right-wing leanings), there doesn't seem to be much "there", there.

Re:Implications for the administration? (1)

maple_shaft (1046302) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198981)

Exactly. Moreover, despite the implications of the report in The Daily Caller (which has right-wing leanings), there doesn't seem to be much "there", there.

Exactly. This whole non-story just reeks of another right-wing think tank attempt to paint the picture of a corrupt administration that sneakily gets away with things all the time. And just in time for the 2012 election cycle as their golden boy Mitt is close to clinching the Republican nomination.

Look for this to be plastered all over the conservative rags and Faux news for the next several months. The sad thing is that the people will just eat it up because they want so badly to believe that Obama is a corrupt president.

Re:Implications for the administration? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198745)

They did get conditional approval and lots of praise from the FCC, though. The problem was using bandwidth for terrestrial stations that close to the GPS spectrum was always a bad idea. The spectrum was always intended to be used for satellite transmissions: the FCC themselves designated it for that. For them to offer conditional approval later shows someone was pushing for Lightsquared to succeed. Not even that could get past the fact that their system interferes with most GPS systems, though, and it would be nearly impossible to fix that problem.

Re:Implications for the administration? (5, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199017)

For them to offer conditional approval later shows someone was pushing for Lightsquared to succeed.

They appear to be crooks and what they're doing was a dumb idea from a tech standpoint ... but... from personal experience the FCC will license almost anyone to do almost anything on a conditional experimental non-interfering basis. I know this goes against /. group think about the govt, but at least WRT to temporary conditional experimental licenses the FCC has always been very libertarian, perhaps the most so of all the fedgov, maybe more than all the rest of the fedgov put together.

The way its supposed to work, for a real world example, is 20 ham radio guys who know what they're doing, get a temporary experimental license to F around near the now unused traditional 500 KHz marine radio band, mostly trying to figure out how they can do it without interfering with any remaining primary users (if any?). Then the experiment ends and everyone goes away, more or less happy. Someday, maybe Very Soon the data those guys gathered will get the hams a 500 KHz allocation ... or maybe not. What LS did instead of basically a big lab experiment, was get their standard off the shelf FCC response of "go out there, F around, and for gods sake don't break anything and stop the moment I tell you to" permission slip that anyone else can get for the asking, and then used it to raise Billions of dollars and make campaign contributions and then started crying unfair when it turns out it didn't work out.

Its not like the FCC was "pushing" just for LS, they pretty much rubber stamp any non-totally stupid experimental request. LS is just crying because the experiment failed and they owe Billions and though thousands in campaign contributions would fix it. Millions in bribes might have. But thousands? Not gonna work.

Re:Implications for the administration? (4, Informative)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198871)

"the intended effect (fast track approval) didn't happen."

Actually, it did, in a way. The fast track process was started, the filing was accepted in one day (a process which normally takes months). The normally required 30 day comment period was reduced by the FCC to an effective 5 1/2 days (it was 10 days, but across a long US holiday weekend). Granted, the actual approval didn't end up happening, but not because the FCC didn't try to help them out. It was an alert CTIA [ctia.org] which filed an extension request, and alerted GPS users of the potential issues.

Re:Implications for the administration? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198557)

the 2012 election is going to cost north of $500 million per campaign. figure $20,000 - $50,000 max per donor when you figure the dinners and the individual contribution.

one less $50,000 check from a pissed off hedge fund manager in a sea of donations isn't going to swing it to the republicans. there are hundreds of funds headquartered in DNC heavy areas that will still go for obama

Obama a pedophile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198703)

Isn't it great how you can inssinuate something unfounded simply by introducing a question mark?

I read the article and it doesn't seem to me that there's much "there" there. The home page of the site also suggests the Daily Caller runs rather right of center. For example there is a bit by Clarence Thomas's wife with conservative former Ohio politician Ken Blackwell profiled as a "leader". Mrs. Thomas has been involved with tea party groups and Mr. Blackwell is someone I would personally describe as something of a partisan hack.

Re:Implications for the administration? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199253)

What implications? The implication that they don't do special favors in exchange for the donations? Kinda like that F.O.P. sticker on your bumper isn't actually a get out of jail free card?

Nothing new (2)

jone_stone (124040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198493)

There's absolutely nothing new about this situation. It's a fact of modern political life that if you want face time with a politician you have to donate to their campaign. Planet Money did an interesting podcast about the concept of political fundraisers in Washington that really sheds light on the problem: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/11/01/141913370/the-tuesday-podcast-inside-washingtons-money-machine [npr.org]

WAIT!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198495)

Wait!! Are you trying to tell me that a company making political campaign donations in an effort to encourage politicians to view their business interests favourably is considered bribery? Wow, someone might want to tell, you know, EVERY MAJOR COMPANY IN THE WESTERN WORLD!! Jesus, this is happening every day, all day, everywhere.

Grammar fail (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198503)

"...the company who's request...."

[facepalm] Um yeah... "who's" is not the droid you're looking for.

The Chicago Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198523)

When the people in the White House do things the Chicago Way in Washington it is a felony.

Re:The Chicago Way (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198743)

When the people in the White House do things the Chicago Way in Washington it is a felony.

You do know the whole point of this "drama" is he did it perfectly legally?

Well there is some weirdness with the non-legally-required job data they gather where he listed his former employer, but since its optional data, no one did anything illegal.

You might have the quaint idea that illegal = immoral = unethical but that hasn't been the American way, ever, although its traditionally been how we look inaccurately at the past. Kind of like how we traditionally believe the founding fathers were hyperreligious; you know like Jefferson with the ironic "in god we trust" on his coin...

Re:The Chicago Way (1)

Cruorin (1453909) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199093)

"In God We Trust" didn't appear on US currency until lincoln, for religious reasons. It was then required on all currency in the '50s because communists were godless bastards we had to oppose in all things.

Re:The Chicago Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199135)

When the people in the White House do things the Chicago Way in Washington it is a felony.

You do know the whole point of this "drama" is he did it perfectly legally?

Well there is some weirdness with the non-legally-required job data they gather where he listed his former employer, but since its optional data, no one did anything illegal.

You might have the quaint idea that illegal = immoral = unethical but that hasn't been the American way, ever, although its traditionally been how we look inaccurately at the past. Kind of like how we traditionally believe the founding fathers were hyperreligious; you know like Jefferson with the ironic "in god we trust" on his coin...

politics in drama my friend

regards
arun
www.eklipsemart.com

English? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198529)

the company who's request to use make use of spectrum

Not sure what the fuss is about (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198559)

I am not sure why everybody is getting hissy-puffy about this.

If political contributions are not intended to sway the people in charge, or to be in charge, what are they for?

Why would a public company, whose goal is to maximize shareholder value, would give money to politicians if not in hopes of getting some sort of favorable treatment? And if they do it, why would you blame them? I would be upset if a company I have invested money into were to give money to people without hope of getting anything back in return.

The supreme court said it was OK, so it must be OK.

Maybe it's OK as long as you do not do it in a too obvious way?

Re:Not sure what the fuss is about (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199309)

I would be upset if a company I have invested money into were to give money to people without hope of getting anything back in return.

That describes quite a few CEOs, golden parachutes and all.

Why Bother resigning? (4, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198571)

Seriously? Chris Dodd basically dick-smacked the entire concept of "bribing government is bad" into non-existence, but they force this guy out?

I guess that "contribution" wasn't big enough.

Re:Why Bother resigning? (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198855)

The entire concept of what consitutes bribery is very hypocritical. It seems to be who you're connections are and how much money you have. It was the famous Jewish mobster Meyer Lansky that once said, "Money talks and bullshit walks!"

Re:Why Bother resigning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199085)

true bro

Am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198673)

Does it bother anyone else that the logo for LightSquared is a cube?

Would have worked on Bush, not Obama (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198717)

If a Republican was President, there would not have been any problem bribing your way into an arrangement that damages the country.

Look at Enron, Halliburton, Boeing, BP, Exxon.

They all bribed Republicans and got their way.

Now with a Democratic President, sleazy corporations have shifted to bribing corrupt politicians who seek to defeat the President electorally.

Large scale bribes to super-pacs are specifically designed to unseat un-bribeable politicians.

That's why Republican Supreme Court Justices invented the SuperPac in a 5-4 partisan decision.

Republicans thrive on corruption.

Re:Would have worked on Bush, not Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198963)

Politicians thrive on corruption.

There, I fixed that for you.

Disgusting in context with Chris Dodd (3, Informative)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198725)

This is enough to get someone to resign on the appearance of Bribery but Chris Dodd's blatant admission of buying representation is not? double standard continues for elected officials.

Really quite simple ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199029)

assumed its was like India (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198761)

Its corrupt in the USA, but not that corrupt.

Re:assumed its was like India (1)

jshark (623406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199109)

you haven't been here long, have you?

What's the story here? (1)

mrquagmire (2326560) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198851)

What's the story here? It is completely legal in this great country of ours for companies to bribe, err I mean donate money to political figures. Remember, corporations are "people" and money is "free speech." And it's also business as usual for cronies, err I mean politicians, to give preferential treatment to their buddies.

So what's different about this deal that warranted an article describing something that happens every day here?

So Ahuja Got Fired (2)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39198863)

He didn't get fired for trying to bribe the administration. He got fired for not being successful at it.

Re:So Ahuja Got Fired (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39199219)

He did not get fired. He resigned. He did not try to bribe the administration. He did bribe the administration.

I have no problems with politicians being bribed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198913)

It's when they act on those bribes I have a problem.

Really.

There are two options here that are absolutely fine:

1) They were going to do that anyway. The problem is the perception of influence here.

2) They weren't going to do that and they take the bribe and still don't to it. What's the briber going to do? Tell everyone that the politician is dishonest 'cos they took a bribe and didn't do what they demanded? I don't see anyone really bothered about that, except other bribers won't try in the future.

this is unpossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39198935)

you mean a corporation involved with the federal government is somehow corrupt?!

unpossible.

stop being surprised.

Now he can become a politician (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199113)

Maybe I'm a bit biased against all politicians, but the way I see it, if allegations are true, he's now passed all requirements to become a politician in any country.

Less government power is the answer (2)

Kohath (38547) | more than 2 years ago | (#39199151)

The way to have less corruption is for government to have less power over people. Why bribe someone who can't help (or hurt) you? Smaller government is the answer.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?