6 ms·

Two Congressional Staffers Who Helped Write SOPA Become Entertainment Lobbyists

298 points by philjackson 15y ago

dmorre 15y ago
this makes me sick.
DevX101 15y ago
You'll never find a politician worth his/her salt taking cash from a company. The way its done is to push through favorable laws for a company with a wink and a nod, and then come back and work for the company as a consultant/lobbyist with a minimum 1 million dollar per year salary. Billy Tauzin did this quite well with PhRMA (lobbying group for pharma companies). He headed up the committee which oversees drug companies and led the push to pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill which was quite favorable to drug companies. The bill among other things allows drug companies to set an arbitrary price for the drug without Medicare having the option to negotiate on prices. As soon as the bill was passed he retired from Congress to lead PhRMA with a $2.5 million USD per year salary. Mission complete.
- DiabloD3 15y ago
  Short of Ron Paul, where do you find politicians, nay, statesmen who don't take cash from companies?
  - Rhapso 15y ago
    You don't. They are human too, tempted by greed or afraid of what happens to them when they are done serving. It goes along with WANTING to be in a political position, if one did not want the money or the power trips then that one is likely also a nutjob of zealous flavor. The flaw with this logic, is that the ideal politician does not want the job, this could make them incorrigible or careless. It also means almost nothing gets done by the incorrigible politicians (which I have to see as a good trait for any government) and poor quality work is done by the careless ones.
    - jameskilton 15y ago
      Or, as Douglas Adams puts it: "He who most wants to lead is the person who should in no way be allowed to do so." and also "To summarize the summary, people are a problem."
  - HotKFreshSwag 15y ago
    There's Buddy Roemer. He's better than pretty much all other candidates including Ron Paul when it comes to campaign reform. No superpacs. 100 dollar donation limit. It's in every citizens interest(regardless of party affiliation) to make money less influential in politics. Buddy Roemer on MSNBC's Morning Joe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMoAMnFczY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMoAMnFczY Then there's Lawrence Lessig. He's not a politician but he's also working to limit systemic political corruption.
  - twoodfin 15y ago
    Considering it's illegal to take campaign contributions from corporations, I don't think you find many serving politicians who are doing so.
    - politician 15y ago
      SuperPACs...
    - beernutz 15y ago
      Not any more it isn't. Freaking supreme court. 8( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
  - rhizome 15y ago
    I'd rather put my efforts into reducing the power of the President and move toward more of a parliamentary democracy in the US, which will increase the number of parties and diminish the power any particular party has, and therefore companies won't have such a lock on legislation.
- _delirium 15y ago
  To attempt to avoid this, Canada has a category of "designated public office holders" whose post-office employment is restricted in various ways for five years, in an attempt to avoid them becoming lobbyists or being paid by lobbyists immediately after leaving office. Sort of like a 5-year noncompete agreement for politicians, perhaps.
  - Newgy 15y ago
    There are some similar provisions in U.S. law, but they are easily circumvented by "consulting" rather than "lobbying." Additionally, the U.S. Constitution does not really permit blanket restrictions on employment for individuals. Among other things, this ties in with the 13th Amendment that bans slavery and indentured servitude. You also have a free speech right to lobby. In fact, the current restrictions are probably unconstitutional. Anyway, these measures are treating a symptom. The real problem is that the federal government is vastly too large in size and scope. Reduce the power and programs run by the federal government, and radically simplify the tax code, and you'll dry up the opportunities for corruption.
    - shadowfiend 15y ago
      Yes, because once all that power exists at the state level instead, the companies will all surrender and stop trying to incentivize officials into giving them a competitive advantage. No, more likely they'll just move to the state level. And it'll probably cost them less at that, since state officials are significantly less visible and will have less power.
      - cookiecaper 15y ago
        >No, more likely they'll just move to the state level. And it'll probably cost them less at that, since state officials are significantly less visible and will have less power. Isn't this also a function of our federalized mindset? This country was designed to function almost exactly inverse to the way it works now -- the more local the representative, the more powerful he should be. It was set up this way to allow more influence from individuals and less influence from outside forces; when you have 3000 or 30,000 constituents, it's a lot easier to pay attention to individuals and to engage in meaningful discussion than when you have 3 million (or more) constituents. If we fixed the system and put power back where it belonged, wouldn't the prominence follow the power? Wouldn't individual state-wide media outlets become more important than national media outlets? Wouldn't our state representatives become visible again as the primary movers and shakers? The federal legislature was intended primarily to deal with international affairs, boring stuff like treaties and tariffs. We should keep that their only sphere of influence. At least then corruption would have to work 50 times over to take effect in every state, whereas now you can buy a handful of corrupt politicians and the whole country is stuck with the results.
- luigi 15y ago
  If anyone's interested in reading more about Tauzin, there's a long read from the Sunlight Foundation here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzin-the-white-house-phrma-deal/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-... Also available as a $0.99 Kindle Single that acts as a small donation to Sunlight: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Billy-Tauzin-House-PhRMA-ebook/dp/B005GNIBWA http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Billy-Tauzin-House-PhRMA-ebook/... Disclosure: I work for the Sunlight Foundation.
- throwaway64 15y ago
  I would honestly support some sort of provision where politicans were never allowed to work again, give them an extremely generous pension (even a million dollars a year pales in comparison to the cost of corruption). I think this is the only real effective way to combat the "revolving door" bullshit.
  - gujk 15y ago
    The problem is that a law like you suggest is unenforceable. I It would be more effective to reduce the power of the central federal government.
    - throwaway64 15y ago
      It would be unenforcable in the same way its impossible to stop every crime, but the fact that it is illegal + the fact that they are getting so well paid anyways, it would greatly disincentivise such activities
- yequalsx 15y ago
  The really frustrating thing about Tauzin is that he and his party love to say that government can't do anything right or efficient. Well, government certainly can't do anything right or efficient if laws are written specifically to make it less efficient. There are plenty of examples of Democratic politicians doing the bidding of vested interests for pay so I'm not claiming this is a problem for only one of the parties. I wonder if the system would be less corrupt if the difference in pay/lifestyle from the top 1% to the top 0.1% were much less. That is, if incomes were taxed at a much higher rate. Going from a $200000 salary to a $2.5 million salary and keeping most of it is too much of an incentive for corruption. I suspect that countries with the least amount of corruption have the least amount of income inequality.
- r00fus 15y ago
  > You'll never find a politician worth his/her salt taking cash from a company. I guess that means there are no elected congress-critters who are worth their salt eh? The last two non-corporate-funded ones were Feingold and Grayson who were both defeated in 2010. Our Congress is now fully corrupt.
- rhizome 15y ago
  You'll never find a politician worth his/her salt taking cash from a company. I appreciate the sentiment, but you're using a One True Scotsman fallacy. Try again!
rickdale 15y ago
I thought Obama was going to 'change' washington and more specifically end the bs lobbying that continues to punish the people of the United States. Most lobbyists are going to be scum, but in a place where having job is so cherished, you can't blame them for doing their job.
- antidaily 15y ago
  I'm sorry, did you mean to say "How's that hopey, changey stuff working out?"
- illumin8 15y ago
  How exactly is the President, who is head of the executive branch, going to fix the shenanigans going on in the legislative branch? Remember, the President doesn't make laws, he just enforces them (indirectly, through the Executive branch). The real problem is that asking legislators to pass laws against their own self interest will never work. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure that no President can solve this problem. Blaming Obama because you don't understand high school level US history is pretty sad and doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the average voter will ever solve this problem, either.
  - luriel 15y ago
    Obama could threaten to veto SOPA, but there is little chance of that, specially after he picked as VP a guy we should thank for the DMCA and the PATRIOT Act. (And after appointing a bunch of ex-MPAA/RIAA lawyers to run the DoJ.)
  - hammerdr 15y ago
    The President certainly does have legislative power, some directly appointed and some not. He has the ability to veto bills. His VP--effectively an employee of his branch--has the ability to break ties in the Senate. He is also the leader of his party. The President can direct the party to focus on a particular issue. Granted, this is more "soft" power than "hard" and there is only so much political capital a President can use. But, Obama in particular was elected with a large majority and is dealing with a Congress that has an approval rating of about 12 percent. Futhermore, and more indirect, the President can elect Federal judges (not just Supreme Court justices, but Federal court and appellate court judges) that can "legislate from the bench." Effectively creating or destroying law that would prevent or enable, respectively, lawmakers to be a part of the Revolving Door[1] and to take money from lobbyists. So, yes, most of the blame is on the legislators. But the President does not get a free pass. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nextparadigms 15y ago
This won't end lobbying, but it's a start in the right direction if people call their Congressmen and ask them to vote for it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/saving-our-democracy_b_1137783.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/saving-our-...
chaselee 15y ago
Shockingly unshocking perfectly describes my reaction.
click170 15y ago
I thought Obama already passed a bill that was supposed to prevent lobbyists->industry shenanigans like this when he first came in to office. I remember it being portrayed as the first bill he signed. Am I misremembering things?
- hammerdr 15y ago
  It was an Executive Order that only affected the Executive branch. But, there has been some abuses of an exception clause in the executive order. More information can be found at (the previously linked on this thread) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr...
kyledrake 15y ago
Lauren Pastarnack's Twitter account is @lpastarnack Feel free to express your opinions to her. Remember that the only reason they do these things is because they don't think anybody is paying attention. Let her know you're paying attention.
mathattack 15y ago
Regulatory capture is the natural side effect of regulatory control of industries. Look no further than Barney Frank asking the companies he regulated to hire his SO.
- gujk 15y ago
  A balance of power between multiple branches and levels of government, and aka oversight, can mitigate that. Not perfect, but neither is nonregulation.
  - mathattack 15y ago
    There is no perfect solution, and complain as I do, we still have something good and fixable. In general I prefer less regulation and smaller government so we can let the market handle resource allocation for us. The less pie for the govt to waste, the better we are. I believe regulation is definitely needed where there are externalities: pollution, access to education, basic r and d...
NHQ 15y ago
Add their names and faces to the Public Shaming Website!
Sundog 15y ago
And Chris Dodd quietly retire to become President of the MPAA
dpres 15y ago
Relevant video from article comments: Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10

298 points by philjackson 15y ago

this makes me sick.

You'll never find a politician worth his/her salt taking cash from a company. The way its done is to push through favorable laws for a company with a wink and a nod, and then come back and work for the company as a consultant/lobbyist with a minimum 1 million dollar per year salary. Billy Tauzin did this quite well with PhRMA (lobbying group for pharma companies). He headed up the committee which oversees drug companies and led the push to pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill which was quite favorable to drug companies. The bill among other things allows drug companies to set an arbitrary price for the drug without Medicare having the option to negotiate on prices. As soon as the bill was passed he retired from Congress to lead PhRMA with a $2.5 million USD per year salary. Mission complete.

DiabloD3 15y ago
Short of Ron Paul, where do you find politicians, nay, statesmen who don't take cash from companies?
- Rhapso 15y ago
  You don't. They are human too, tempted by greed or afraid of what happens to them when they are done serving. It goes along with WANTING to be in a political position, if one did not want the money or the power trips then that one is likely also a nutjob of zealous flavor. The flaw with this logic, is that the ideal politician does not want the job, this could make them incorrigible or careless. It also means almost nothing gets done by the incorrigible politicians (which I have to see as a good trait for any government) and poor quality work is done by the careless ones.
  - jameskilton 15y ago
    Or, as Douglas Adams puts it: "He who most wants to lead is the person who should in no way be allowed to do so." and also "To summarize the summary, people are a problem."
- HotKFreshSwag 15y ago
  There's Buddy Roemer. He's better than pretty much all other candidates including Ron Paul when it comes to campaign reform. No superpacs. 100 dollar donation limit. It's in every citizens interest(regardless of party affiliation) to make money less influential in politics. Buddy Roemer on MSNBC's Morning Joe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMoAMnFczY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oMoAMnFczY Then there's Lawrence Lessig. He's not a politician but he's also working to limit systemic political corruption.
- twoodfin 15y ago
  Considering it's illegal to take campaign contributions from corporations, I don't think you find many serving politicians who are doing so.
  - politician 15y ago
    SuperPACs...
  - beernutz 15y ago
    Not any more it isn't. Freaking supreme court. 8( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...
- rhizome 15y ago
  I'd rather put my efforts into reducing the power of the President and move toward more of a parliamentary democracy in the US, which will increase the number of parties and diminish the power any particular party has, and therefore companies won't have such a lock on legislation.
_delirium 15y ago
To attempt to avoid this, Canada has a category of "designated public office holders" whose post-office employment is restricted in various ways for five years, in an attempt to avoid them becoming lobbyists or being paid by lobbyists immediately after leaving office. Sort of like a 5-year noncompete agreement for politicians, perhaps.
- Newgy 15y ago
  There are some similar provisions in U.S. law, but they are easily circumvented by "consulting" rather than "lobbying." Additionally, the U.S. Constitution does not really permit blanket restrictions on employment for individuals. Among other things, this ties in with the 13th Amendment that bans slavery and indentured servitude. You also have a free speech right to lobby. In fact, the current restrictions are probably unconstitutional. Anyway, these measures are treating a symptom. The real problem is that the federal government is vastly too large in size and scope. Reduce the power and programs run by the federal government, and radically simplify the tax code, and you'll dry up the opportunities for corruption.
  - shadowfiend 15y ago
    Yes, because once all that power exists at the state level instead, the companies will all surrender and stop trying to incentivize officials into giving them a competitive advantage. No, more likely they'll just move to the state level. And it'll probably cost them less at that, since state officials are significantly less visible and will have less power.
    - cookiecaper 15y ago
      >No, more likely they'll just move to the state level. And it'll probably cost them less at that, since state officials are significantly less visible and will have less power. Isn't this also a function of our federalized mindset? This country was designed to function almost exactly inverse to the way it works now -- the more local the representative, the more powerful he should be. It was set up this way to allow more influence from individuals and less influence from outside forces; when you have 3000 or 30,000 constituents, it's a lot easier to pay attention to individuals and to engage in meaningful discussion than when you have 3 million (or more) constituents. If we fixed the system and put power back where it belonged, wouldn't the prominence follow the power? Wouldn't individual state-wide media outlets become more important than national media outlets? Wouldn't our state representatives become visible again as the primary movers and shakers? The federal legislature was intended primarily to deal with international affairs, boring stuff like treaties and tariffs. We should keep that their only sphere of influence. At least then corruption would have to work 50 times over to take effect in every state, whereas now you can buy a handful of corrupt politicians and the whole country is stuck with the results.
luigi 15y ago
If anyone's interested in reading more about Tauzin, there's a long read from the Sunlight Foundation here: http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzin-the-white-house-phrma-deal/ http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-... Also available as a $0.99 Kindle Single that acts as a small donation to Sunlight: http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Billy-Tauzin-House-PhRMA-ebook/dp/B005GNIBWA http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Billy-Tauzin-House-PhRMA-ebook/... Disclosure: I work for the Sunlight Foundation.
throwaway64 15y ago
I would honestly support some sort of provision where politicans were never allowed to work again, give them an extremely generous pension (even a million dollars a year pales in comparison to the cost of corruption). I think this is the only real effective way to combat the "revolving door" bullshit.
- gujk 15y ago
  The problem is that a law like you suggest is unenforceable. I It would be more effective to reduce the power of the central federal government.
  - throwaway64 15y ago
    It would be unenforcable in the same way its impossible to stop every crime, but the fact that it is illegal + the fact that they are getting so well paid anyways, it would greatly disincentivise such activities
yequalsx 15y ago
The really frustrating thing about Tauzin is that he and his party love to say that government can't do anything right or efficient. Well, government certainly can't do anything right or efficient if laws are written specifically to make it less efficient. There are plenty of examples of Democratic politicians doing the bidding of vested interests for pay so I'm not claiming this is a problem for only one of the parties. I wonder if the system would be less corrupt if the difference in pay/lifestyle from the top 1% to the top 0.1% were much less. That is, if incomes were taxed at a much higher rate. Going from a $200000 salary to a $2.5 million salary and keeping most of it is too much of an incentive for corruption. I suspect that countries with the least amount of corruption have the least amount of income inequality.
r00fus 15y ago
> You'll never find a politician worth his/her salt taking cash from a company. I guess that means there are no elected congress-critters who are worth their salt eh? The last two non-corporate-funded ones were Feingold and Grayson who were both defeated in 2010. Our Congress is now fully corrupt.
rhizome 15y ago
You'll never find a politician worth his/her salt taking cash from a company. I appreciate the sentiment, but you're using a One True Scotsman fallacy. Try again!

rickdale 15y ago

I thought Obama was going to 'change' washington and more specifically end the bs lobbying that continues to punish the people of the United States. Most lobbyists are going to be scum, but in a place where having job is so cherished, you can't blame them for doing their job.

antidaily 15y ago
I'm sorry, did you mean to say "How's that hopey, changey stuff working out?"
illumin8 15y ago
How exactly is the President, who is head of the executive branch, going to fix the shenanigans going on in the legislative branch? Remember, the President doesn't make laws, he just enforces them (indirectly, through the Executive branch). The real problem is that asking legislators to pass laws against their own self interest will never work. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm pretty sure that no President can solve this problem. Blaming Obama because you don't understand high school level US history is pretty sad and doesn't give me a lot of confidence that the average voter will ever solve this problem, either.
- luriel 15y ago
  Obama could threaten to veto SOPA, but there is little chance of that, specially after he picked as VP a guy we should thank for the DMCA and the PATRIOT Act. (And after appointing a bunch of ex-MPAA/RIAA lawyers to run the DoJ.)
- hammerdr 15y ago
  The President certainly does have legislative power, some directly appointed and some not. He has the ability to veto bills. His VP--effectively an employee of his branch--has the ability to break ties in the Senate. He is also the leader of his party. The President can direct the party to focus on a particular issue. Granted, this is more "soft" power than "hard" and there is only so much political capital a President can use. But, Obama in particular was elected with a large majority and is dealing with a Congress that has an approval rating of about 12 percent. Futhermore, and more indirect, the President can elect Federal judges (not just Supreme Court justices, but Federal court and appellate court judges) that can "legislate from the bench." Effectively creating or destroying law that would prevent or enable, respectively, lawmakers to be a part of the Revolving Door[1] and to take money from lobbyists. So, yes, most of the blame is on the legislators. But the President does not get a free pass. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

nextparadigms 15y ago

This won't end lobbying, but it's a start in the right direction if people call their Congressmen and ask them to vote for it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/saving-our-democracy_b_1137783.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/saving-our-...

chaselee 15y ago

Shockingly unshocking perfectly describes my reaction.

click170 15y ago

I thought Obama already passed a bill that was supposed to prevent lobbyists->industry shenanigans like this when he first came in to office. I remember it being portrayed as the first bill he signed. Am I misremembering things?

hammerdr 15y ago
It was an Executive Order that only affected the Executive branch. But, there has been some abuses of an exception clause in the executive order. More information can be found at (the previously linked on this thread) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/240/tougher-rules-against-revolving-door-for-lobbyists/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr...

kyledrake 15y ago

Lauren Pastarnack's Twitter account is @lpastarnack Feel free to express your opinions to her. Remember that the only reason they do these things is because they don't think anybody is paying attention. Let her know you're paying attention.

mathattack 15y ago

Regulatory capture is the natural side effect of regulatory control of industries. Look no further than Barney Frank asking the companies he regulated to hire his SO.

gujk 15y ago
A balance of power between multiple branches and levels of government, and aka oversight, can mitigate that. Not perfect, but neither is nonregulation.
- mathattack 15y ago
  There is no perfect solution, and complain as I do, we still have something good and fixable. In general I prefer less regulation and smaller government so we can let the market handle resource allocation for us. The less pie for the govt to waste, the better we are. I believe regulation is definitely needed where there are externalities: pollution, access to education, basic r and d...

NHQ 15y ago

Add their names and faces to the Public Shaming Website!

Sundog 15y ago

And Chris Dodd quietly retire to become President of the MPAA

dpres 15y ago

Relevant video from article comments: Jack Abramoff: The lobbyist's playbook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10