If I were a betting man, I would absolutely bet that he works in the telecom industry after his stint at the FCC. He might not work as a lobbyist, but there are a lot more jobs than that open for a person with his knowledge and contacts.

Sure, and why shouldn't he?

Because accepting a job at a firm immediately after shifting government rules in its favour is corruption. Its absurd to claim that the government work was impartial when so many regulators end up taking advantage of the revolving door between government and industry.

Ok, so you lose your job due to your commission expiring, or you get replaced by a new administration.

but you cant be a lobbyist

so what do you work for? other goverment jobs, or back to the private sector.

what if we had a google exec become some internet government position, then went back to google? would there be this public outcry?

Of course there would be a public outcry if during his government appointment he worked to weaken or dismiss regulation that impacts Google directly. It’s the textbook definition of conflict of interest.

It's only corruption if there is some sort of quid pro quo.

If I were telecom lawyer, I'd rather Title II to be honest. Creates more work.

There's nothing inherently wrong with working at a telco after his tenure. What's wrong is he is making decisions at the expense of the American people to secure that position.

Now you're confusing me.

He'll probably just issue waivers for that, similar to the ones he issued earlier this year to allow lobbyists and corporate lawyers to work in his Administration. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/336195-two-...

> The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is reportedly set to release copies of roughly two dozen ethics waivers for federal officials next week, showing which officials are focusing on issues that they worked on in their private sector jobs.

> The waivers are in addition to the ones the Trump administration released this week, The Wall Street Journal reports. The White House released those ethics pledge waivers Wednesday, exempting at least a dozen White House officials.

I remember hearing that the no-lobbying executive order was loopholed pretty badly. Does it actually apply here?

Depends how cynical you are. He could technically lobby 'other parts' of the government according to this article but it does not specify, only reiterates you can't lobby your former agency for 5 years.

Serving 5 years in a government position when you could be an exec at a Telecom company is a gigantic opportunity cost so the point here is that he's not getting paid off, unless fraudulently, which can't be completely ruled out.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-we...

You don't have to be that cynical, they waive the requirements whenever they feel like it. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-trump-administrat...

Would the FTC count as "other parts of the government"?

I seem to recall one of the arguments of Pai is that the FCC shouldn't be responsible for regulation of the internet, it should fall under the FTC.

So as head of the FCC he can effectively strip it of all power, the governance shifting to the FTC. Once his commission is up he takes a job at Verizon/At&T/etc, lobbying the FTC.

Or, as burkaman noted, they will just issue a waiver.

And how many waivers were given out for that? I'm sorry, but nothing in this administration has given me any reason to believe this will actually be followed up on.