Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 19 2016, @01:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the !progressive dept.

Democracy Now! reports via AlterNet

Ken Salazar is a former U.S. Senator from Colorado who now works at WilmerHale, one of the most influential lobbying firms in Washington. Some groups have criticized Salazar's selection due to his vocal support of fracking, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Keystone XL pipeline.

In addition to Ken Salazar, other leaders of the transition team include former Obama National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and Maggie Williams, the director of Harvard's Institute of Politics.

[...] WilmerHale [represents] corporate clients across the board--Cigna, for instance. Cigna is a healthcare giant that is fighting for a merger with Anthem. WilmerHale represents them, Delta Airlines, Verizon, investment firms, a mining company. So, WilmerHale is a major law and lobbying firm.

Ken Salazar is not a registered lobbyist at WilmerHale; he is a partner there. Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton had published a year ago an op-ed deriding the revolving door where lawmakers leave office and become lobbyists or help special interests. And she had specifically said that she was concerned about lawmakers who go into that line of work, public policy work, for corporate clients, but do not register as a lobbyist, which seems to fit the description of Ken Salazar.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Friday August 19 2016, @06:10PM

    by Francis (5544) on Friday August 19 2016, @06:10PM (#390199)

    First off, whether or not I agree with the speech, having only one POV being expressed is a very dangerous thing. You seem to be OK with that only POV being the one from moneyed interests, but I'm not. Why do you hate freedom?

    As for the previous state of affairs, 3 TV stations and usually at least 2 different papers. For most major cities there were even dozens of minor neighborhood papers. They still exist to a point, but there's nothing stopping a company from buying up media in the same market and consolidating it into something that's then consolidated with media across the country.

    Lastly, the first amendment means that they can't play favorites. It doesn't mean that they can't set ground rules over the speech. Libel and defamation are both illegal, but by your argument that would be a violation of the first amendment. Same goes for fraud. Nobody gets to engage in those practices because they're damaging to the republic. Same goes for moneyed interests buying up all the advertising space to post their agenda.

    Ultimately, the first amendment is about ensuring that people have the ability to communicate on a largely even playing field. Allowing for people to shout over all the other views is extremely damaging to the ability of the people to control their government. Being rich should not come with bonus opportunities to express yourself beyond what people normally have. And certainly not by laundering the money through corporations.

  • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Sunday August 21 2016, @04:47AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Sunday August 21 2016, @04:47AM (#390893)

    First off, whether or not I agree with the speech, having only one POV being expressed is a very dangerous thing. You seem to be OK with that only POV being the one from moneyed interests, but I'm not.

    Not at all. I grew up in a world where my viewpoint wasn't heard on the mainstream media. Then in the 1990s I found Limbaugh out on the crappy AM band nobody cared about and around the turn of the century we got FNC on our cable. It was something entirely different from what I thought possible, something in the ballpark with what I though being talked about openly. But the Internet also came around that time and almost instantly showed the potential up upend the monopoly on the media the Progressives had. The difference is I simply welcome the additional voices, you want to shut them up.

    Citizens United was a case of essentially crowdfunded journalism, people banding together to fund what the 'media' should have been doing had they actually been in the journalism business. You want that sort of thing to be illegal. I on the other hand don't care how many fauxumenteries Micheal Moore farts out so long as we can play the game too. You can't stand the idea of ideas you disagree with getting exposure.

    You blither on mindlessly about corporate influence but say not a damned word about Comcast == NBC == Democrat Party, Disney Corp == ABC == Democrat Party, Viacom == CBS == Democrat Party, Carlos Slim == NYT == Socialist, Jeff Bezos == WaPo == Democrat Party, The US Government == PBS/NPR == Democrat Party, etc. The labor unions pour billions into the Democrat Party but a bunch of people form a corporate entity to push a counter narrative and you want them in jail.

    Lastly, the first amendment means that they can't play favorites.

    But that is the last thing you guys want. You want government approved corporate 'journalists' to be the only ones who can speak.

    Being rich should not come with bonus opportunities to express yourself beyond what people normally have.

    I'll remember that when some rich celebutard is dominating the airwaves with idiocy. Somehow I doubt you want to silence Katy Perry when she is blithering mindlessly about how great Hillary is instead of shutting up and singing. So you just don't like rich people who disagree with you.