4 ms·

You have a law that states: --- (that) any official in a position within a government body, whether elected or appointed, which regulates a particular industr

by phlux 15y ago

You have a law that states: --- (that) any official in a position within a government body, whether elected or appointed, which regulates a particular industry, area of industry, or the laws and compliance of said industry, may not take a position within any company that benefited directly from any regulatory or oversight decision of the oversight body within the last 5 years on any case where the stated company or organizations competitive status with respect to monopolies, anti-trust, or anti-competitive business environment was considered. --- This would mean that anyone who was in a position of oversight for a given industry and who had to consider, directly, regulations which may or may not benefit a particular company may not accept a position with that company for at least 5 years after their departure from that official position.

iuguy 15y ago
Then all you do is increase the cost by about 5 years worth of pay and we're back to square one. Admittedly, it'll handle lobbying at the local level for construction jobs for example, but it won't stop the oil lobby in Alaska.
btilly 15y ago
The immediate reaction to this proposal will be the argument from every corner that you have just barred anyone with industry knowledge or expertise from being willing to take any government regulation position. Thereby guaranteeing incompetent regulation. (Insert long list of examples where unknowledgeable regulators have proven incompetent to regulate.) You can be sure that this argument will be accompanied by large donations to lobbyists, and by outrage among all government regulators who were expecting to wind up in the industry that they regulate (and that they frequently came from).
- phlux 15y ago
  How then are conflicts of interest handled within any given law firm. This is effectively the same thing. Let them bitch about it - we need to solve this problem.
  - btilly 15y ago
    You think that law firms do a good job of handling conflicts of interest? Really? Let me give you an important example. David Bois won his anti-trust case against Microsoft, and then proposed a penalty that was a slap on the wrist. He turned around, and then was handed an endless stream of revenue from the SCO case. There is evidence that said legal proceeding was funded behind the scenes by Microsoft. Coincidence? I think not. As for the argument that I said you would face, I didn't make it up. That is the bog standard argument that is always trotted out to support the standard practice of having regulators come from, and then return to, the industries that they regulate. In practice people really do get swayed by the argument that a person who knows the industry is at an advantage in understanding it well enough to get involved in regulation. Either that or they pretend to be while accepting donations, but it works out to the same thing in the end.
- onedognight 15y ago
  This is addressed by the above suggestion. It lets them take a job with ABC or Time Warner, just not Comcast/NBC.
  - btilly 15y ago
    Sorry, no. The FCC has been pushing a relaxation of media ownership rules that benefits the whole industry and has the active support of both ABC and Time Warner. (Active up to and including the level of buying newspaper ads to sway people towards their position that the FCC should be allowed to do this.) That fact would bar people in the FCC from working in the entire industry if the proposed anti-corruption rule were in place. If you look farther, I am sure that more specific rulings in favor of ABC and Time Warner can be found. Let's see. For instance see http://seekingalpha.com/article/119975-time-warner-cable-fcc-approves-split-from-parent-company http://seekingalpha.com/article/119975-time-warner-cable-fcc... in favor of Time Warner.

by phlux 15y ago

iuguy 15y ago

Then all you do is increase the cost by about 5 years worth of pay and we're back to square one. Admittedly, it'll handle lobbying at the local level for construction jobs for example, but it won't stop the oil lobby in Alaska.

btilly 15y ago

The immediate reaction to this proposal will be the argument from every corner that you have just barred anyone with industry knowledge or expertise from being willing to take any government regulation position. Thereby guaranteeing incompetent regulation. (Insert long list of examples where unknowledgeable regulators have proven incompetent to regulate.) You can be sure that this argument will be accompanied by large donations to lobbyists, and by outrage among all government regulators who were expecting to wind up in the industry that they regulate (and that they frequently came from).

phlux 15y ago
How then are conflicts of interest handled within any given law firm. This is effectively the same thing. Let them bitch about it - we need to solve this problem.
- btilly 15y ago
  You think that law firms do a good job of handling conflicts of interest? Really? Let me give you an important example. David Bois won his anti-trust case against Microsoft, and then proposed a penalty that was a slap on the wrist. He turned around, and then was handed an endless stream of revenue from the SCO case. There is evidence that said legal proceeding was funded behind the scenes by Microsoft. Coincidence? I think not. As for the argument that I said you would face, I didn't make it up. That is the bog standard argument that is always trotted out to support the standard practice of having regulators come from, and then return to, the industries that they regulate. In practice people really do get swayed by the argument that a person who knows the industry is at an advantage in understanding it well enough to get involved in regulation. Either that or they pretend to be while accepting donations, but it works out to the same thing in the end.
onedognight 15y ago
This is addressed by the above suggestion. It lets them take a job with ABC or Time Warner, just not Comcast/NBC.
- btilly 15y ago
  Sorry, no. The FCC has been pushing a relaxation of media ownership rules that benefits the whole industry and has the active support of both ABC and Time Warner. (Active up to and including the level of buying newspaper ads to sway people towards their position that the FCC should be allowed to do this.) That fact would bar people in the FCC from working in the entire industry if the proposed anti-corruption rule were in place. If you look farther, I am sure that more specific rulings in favor of ABC and Time Warner can be found. Let's see. For instance see http://seekingalpha.com/article/119975-time-warner-cable-fcc-approves-split-from-parent-company http://seekingalpha.com/article/119975-time-warner-cable-fcc... in favor of Time Warner.