Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   The economy is so terrible that political staffers are having a tough time finding a job as a lobbyist after their boss loses an election. Thanks Obama   (politico.com) divider line 37
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

777 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2014 at 9:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-07-23 09:24:21 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-23 09:26:52 AM  
The revolving door between political staffers and lobbyists is spinning a little less faster than previously?

Dysfunctional Congress' lack of legislation is making lobbying firms not hire?

My sad face... let me show it to you... ^_^
 
2014-07-23 09:28:31 AM  
You think it's rough on them, check out the indignities heaped on the ACTUAL GUY who loses the election:

guyism.com
 
2014-07-23 09:31:03 AM  

Trivia Jockey: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1113]


That violin is far too large.
 
2014-07-23 09:34:48 AM  
You laugh now, but when the Strippers' Asses, Rolled-Up-$100-Bills and Cocaine industries all collapse and get a government bailout THEN who'll be laughing??
 
2014-07-23 09:35:22 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Trivia Jockey: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1113]

That violin is far too large.


fc01.deviantart.net
 
2014-07-23 09:38:53 AM  
Strange.  When people fail at running a business we usually pay them obscene amounts of money and let them go ruin other businesses.
 
2014-07-23 09:51:43 AM  
It could also suggest a lack of corruption in this administration.  You don't give sweet "thanks for helping us out" jobs to people who didn't help you out.  It's probably a combination of factors though.
 
2014-07-23 09:53:41 AM  

Mercutio74: It could also suggest a lack of corruption in this administration.  You don't give sweet "thanks for helping us out" jobs to people who didn't help you out.  It's probably a combination of factors though.


It could suggest more corruption, as in "we don't need your tiny little campaign contributions anymore, we're getting sweet ass money directly from the Kochs".
 
2014-07-23 09:55:27 AM  

bdub77: It could suggest more corruption, as in "we don't need your tiny little campaign contributions anymore, we're getting sweet ass money directly from the Kochs".


Staffers don't get campaign contributions.
 
2014-07-23 09:58:47 AM  
Perhaps the industry seeks out current and former staff members of the winners before looking to the losers?
 
2014-07-23 09:58:50 AM  
Boo farking hoo
 
2014-07-23 09:58:50 AM  
I guess it's just that I don't think that the US gov't (both the executive and legislative branches) are necessarily corrupt, it's just that they're so amazingly ineffective they haven't accomplished anything for anyone... either the citizenry or corporations.  Obviously there still is corruption, but the tea party mentality of opposing everything and not letting any legislation get passed has removed the ability of the government to do anything beneficial for the public and limited the ability of the government to do anything for Wall St to a level where it's not worth thanking those staffers.
 
2014-07-23 09:59:53 AM  
Certainly the trickle down from the Koch brothers would reach K Street. Unless the TV ads are getting more expensive or Adelson and others are buying influence donating more over seas..

s22.postimg.org
 
2014-07-23 10:03:59 AM  

Mercutio74: bdub77: It could suggest more corruption, as in "we don't need your tiny little campaign contributions anymore, we're getting sweet ass money directly from the Kochs".

Staffers don't get campaign contributions.


Dude, RTFA - it's not about staffers getting campaign contributions, it's about the K street job market shrinking, so no jobs for staffers. Why is that? For one, obviously no new legislation. No point in lobbying if bills can't get passed.

Second, my point is that a really rich guy doesn't have to go through lobbyists anymore, he can just throw money into a SuperPAC. The lobbying money has dried up some. Again, less money to pay for any staffers lost after an election cycle.
 
2014-07-23 10:05:59 AM  
Subby:
i.chzbgr.com

Those poor, poor House members and Senators who won't be able to immediately get million dollar jobs.
 
2014-07-23 10:09:36 AM  
Have a friend who works for one of the "lobbyist headhunting firms". The morning after Eric Cantor lost they had already gotten calls from most of his high-ranking staffers looking for positions, and the general response was that their clients (lobbying firms looking for people) aren't looking for staffers anymore, they want actual former congressmen and such. It's become so lucrative for congresspeople to leave Congress and become lobbyists that they have all they need. Plus, a lot of corporations and organizations that used to all have their own lobbyists now have banded together into one larger SuperPAC to do their funding, and said SuperPAC just has one lobbying staff - generally larger than each individual organization used to have, but much smaller than the sum of all of their previous staffs.

This lets them purchase former politicians of higher stature, with greater influence, rather than going for former staffers of those same politicians. It also means that they actually as a whole give less money - one "donation" or "promise to run ads" from one of these organizations actually beholdens the recipient to a dozen organizations collectively - which means they can't refuse one or two of them, it's all or none.
 
2014-07-23 10:10:30 AM  

bdub77: Mercutio74: bdub77: It could suggest more corruption, as in "we don't need your tiny little campaign contributions anymore, we're getting sweet ass money directly from the Kochs".

Staffers don't get campaign contributions.

Dude, RTFA - it's not about staffers getting campaign contributions, it's about the K street job market shrinking, so no jobs for staffers. Why is that? For one, obviously no new legislation. No point in lobbying if bills can't get passed.

Second, my point is that a really rich guy doesn't have to go through lobbyists anymore, he can just throw money into a SuperPAC. The lobbying money has dried up some. Again, less money to pay for any staffers lost after an election cycle.


Ain't no one got time for that!

/I usually do read the article, but didn't this time...
//Oh well.
 
2014-07-23 10:13:10 AM  

bdub77: Mercutio74: It could also suggest a lack of corruption in this administration.  You don't give sweet "thanks for helping us out" jobs to people who didn't help you out.  It's probably a combination of factors though.

It could suggest more corruption, as in "we don't need your tiny little campaign contributions anymore, we're getting sweet ass money directly from the Kochs".


It's a reflection of a lot of things. Advocacy groups can go straight to the people and bypass the legislature. Big money can go straight to the candidate. Mostly I think it's that stature in Washington doesn't mean as much when a tea party first-termer can effectively shut down the government. Some lifer who's retiring doesn't hold the same sway over an upstart who wouldn't listen to him when he was a sitting congressman.
 
2014-07-23 10:18:42 AM  
G. Tarrant:

This lets them purchase former politicians of higher stature, with greater influence, rather than going for former staffers of those same politicians. It also means that they actually as a whole give less money - one "donation" or "promise to run ads" from one of these organizations actually beholdens the recipient to a dozen organizations collectively - which means they can't refuse one or two of them, it's all or none.

This explains a lot of the lockstep mentality in Washington. Much more common among Republicans, but not absent among a subset of Democrats. You either support the whole agenda or you're out in the cold.
 
2014-07-23 10:19:06 AM  

Jaden Smith First of His Name: bdub77: Mercutio74: It could also suggest a lack of corruption in this administration.  You don't give sweet "thanks for helping us out" jobs to people who didn't help you out.  It's probably a combination of factors though.

It could suggest more corruption, as in "we don't need your tiny little campaign contributions anymore, we're getting sweet ass money directly from the Kochs".

It's a reflection of a lot of things. Advocacy groups can go straight to the people and bypass the legislature. Big money can go straight to the candidate. Mostly I think it's that stature in Washington doesn't mean as much when a tea party first-termer can effectively shut down the government. Some lifer who's retiring doesn't hold the same sway over an upstart who wouldn't listen to him when he was a sitting congressman.


Definitely. At least some forms of corruption can move stuff forward. This new kind of corruption is petty and just simply sucks. It's pretty bad when the EU can pass more laws than the US.

The old timers have just said "It looks like it's f*ck this sh*t o'clock" and are moving on. Which makes it worse because you have less people with experience in actually getting work done. You lose some of that generational knowhow.
 
2014-07-23 10:22:47 AM  

LarryDan43: Perhaps the industry seeks out current and former staff members of the winners before looking to the losers?


But that would be bad. You pay for a politician do do the dirty. He does it knowing that even if he only gets one term, he has a high-paying berth waiting for him. You don't follow through, and you will get fewer politicians willing to do the dirty for you.
 
2014-07-23 10:24:33 AM  
The good thing about low lobbyist job opportunities is that we'll get a bumper crop of tell-all books over the next couple of years.

There's a bunch of political nobodies and mid-level staffers out there, frantically typing their memoirs and sending out "I have a great story to tell" messages to every publisher in the country.

Timing is everything. Put the book out in time for this year's elections for a guaranteed best-seller? Wait, and hope nobody beats you to the punch with your Valerie Jarrett tell-all? Drop your Lois Lerner on the market in early April, just in time for tax season?
 
2014-07-23 10:32:09 AM  
"Democrats have long fared worse than Republicans in the K Street job market - with GOP political operatives holding more than 30 of the 50 highest-profile, in-house lobbying jobs in town. For-hire firms and lobbying practices at law firms also have traditionally been dominated more by Republicans."

So, in DC, Republicans are quantifiably crookeder than Democrats. Good to know.
 
2014-07-23 10:33:08 AM  
I should probably amend that, since lobbying isn't illegal. For "crookeder" read "more craven and money-grubbing".
 
2014-07-23 10:53:40 AM  
This is the era of Citizens United.  Who needs lobbyists?
 
2014-07-23 10:53:50 AM  

G. Tarrant: Have a friend who works for one of the "lobbyist headhunting firms". The morning after Eric Cantor lost they had already gotten calls from most of his high-ranking staffers looking for positions, and the general response was that their clients (lobbying firms looking for people) aren't looking for staffers anymore, they want actual former congressmen and such. It's become so lucrative for congresspeople to leave Congress and become lobbyists that they have all they need. Plus, a lot of corporations and organizations that used to all have their own lobbyists now have banded together into one larger SuperPAC to do their funding, and said SuperPAC just has one lobbying staff - generally larger than each individual organization used to have, but much smaller than the sum of all of their previous staffs.

This lets them purchase former politicians of higher stature, with greater influence, rather than going for former staffers of those same politicians. It also means that they actually as a whole give less money - one "donation" or "promise to run ads" from one of these organizations actually beholdens the recipient to a dozen organizations collectively - which means they can't refuse one or two of them, it's all or none.


This reminds me of a movie my husband was telling me just the other day...about The Game, and how if you sign up to do one task for money, you have to keep doing tasks for money or lose everything.  The money gets bigger each time, but the things they need you to do become more and more isolating, destructive, and criminal.

Too lazy to google it.
 
2014-07-23 11:04:35 AM  

DeaH: LarryDan43: Perhaps the industry seeks out current and former staff members of the winners before looking to the losers?

But that would be bad. You pay for a politician do do the dirty. He does it knowing that even if he only gets one term, he has a high-paying berth waiting for him. You don't follow through, and you will get fewer politicians willing to do the dirty for you.


Not really - they don't do it and you fund their primary opponent. They lose either way. If they want to keep their job and cushy benefits they listen to you.

If you can take their job NOW they don't really have time to give a shiat about whether they might have a job at some undetermined point in the future.
 
2014-07-23 11:09:45 AM  
"It could also suggest a lack of corruption in this administration."


Sides are splitting!
 
2014-07-23 11:25:11 AM  

BunkoSquad: You think it's rough on them, check out the indignities heaped on the ACTUAL GUY who loses the election:

[guyism.com image 320x425]


Wow, he looks like he's setting up for a game of hide the bodies.
 
2014-07-23 11:25:30 AM  
Citizens United opened the way for much lower prices for Congressman.

As the old story goes, "We've determined she's a whore, your honor, we're now just haggling over the price." Heaven forbid that lobbyist will have to lay off some Congressmen.
 
2014-07-23 11:26:21 AM  

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: "It could also suggest a lack of corruption in this administration."


Sides are splitting!



That would indicate you should probably get bigger slacks.
 
2014-07-23 11:34:21 AM  

BitwiseShift: Citizens United opened the way for much lower prices for Congressman.

As the old story goes, "We've determined she's a whore, your honor, we're now just haggling over the price." Heaven forbid that lobbyist will have to lay off some Congressmen.



It also completely shifted the focus.  Previously, congressmen would meet regularly with lobbyists regarding laws the lobbyists wanted passed or amended.  Now, congressmen are constantly doing fundraisers and meeting with campaign donors just to raise money for the next election cycle.

Neither are good.  But it's especially troubling that the focus of our politics nowadays seems to be entirely on the elections horse race, rather than where candidates stand on substantive issues, and what laws they do or do not support.
 
2014-07-23 12:15:54 PM  

BitwiseShift: Citizens United opened the way for much lower prices for Congressman.

As the old story goes, "We've determined she's a whore, your honor, we're now just haggling over the price." Heaven forbid that lobbyist will have to lay off some Congressmen.


And the people that think term limits would in any way mitigate these problems? They don't realize that would do little except drive the price down and speed up the revolving door.
 
2014-07-23 12:27:44 PM  
Why hire a lobbyist if the Republicans won't let congress do anything?

I'd be a waste of money.

Many of these poor staffers helped create this situation. Their tears are delicious.
 
2014-07-23 12:43:12 PM  

Deneb81: DeaH: LarryDan43: Perhaps the industry seeks out current and former staff members of the winners before looking to the losers?

But that would be bad. You pay for a politician do do the dirty. He does it knowing that even if he only gets one term, he has a high-paying berth waiting for him. You don't follow through, and you will get fewer politicians willing to do the dirty for you.

Not really - they don't do it and you fund their primary opponent. They lose either way. If they want to keep their job and cushy benefits they listen to you.

If you can take their job NOW they don't really have time to give a shiat about whether they might have a job at some undetermined point in the future.


But then their primary opponent has no motivation to do what you want if you don't come through for the guy who loses. Why would he do something that would piss off his voters just to benefit you if you don't provide him a safety net? Either way, lack of back-end dream job means you are screwed.
 
2014-07-23 01:00:21 PM  

aaronx: Why hire a lobbyist if the Republicans won't let congress do anything?

I'd be a waste of money.

Many of these poor staffers helped create this situation. Their tears are delicious.


I work for an interest that has a lobbyist...it sounds like he's been struggling to justify his retainer.  It's also worth nothing that even when laws do get passed, very few, if anything enjoys direct earmarks, so being able to demonstrate direct results has also gotten harder.
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report