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.