You're missing that this person is trying to satisfy the letter of the law, instead of the intent.

Basically, if your reaction to such an invitation is to ask legal "how can I go to this rad absolutely not work related party without giving the impression of impropriety?" instead of telling the other person "this is unacceptable and you know it".. you're not out for the publics best interest.

I work in a regulatory environment (much lower level) and have turned down stuff (cheap stuff, like a reception where I might get comped a drink).

Out of sheer politeness, I sometimes respond with a "those stuffed shirts say I can't". It's a handy non-confrontational excuse that can't really be argued against, and doesn't make you sound like a prig.

Did you then continue to casually extend a dinner invitation? I get it, people don't want to seem like cold assholes. But I think we should be very wary of a regulatory environment where high-level executives give heartfelt apologies intermixed with personal stories and backup plans instead of clearly rejecting such obviously inappropiate offers.

If you're a decent regulator, it's your job to be a cold. That's basically the whole point. You don't need to be an asshole, but you should damn well insist on deference and distance.

By way of analogy, can you imagine a judge dispensing with formalities and telling the people facing him in court "Relax! Call me Jim." Obviously not. Because when it comes to the law, conspicuously arms-lengths relationships are essential.

Honestly, a few of those folks were in grad school with me far before they were on the "other side" (actually this is true of "both" other sides). We thrash each other in meetings and can perfectly drop work over dinner.

That's the problem, it's a small world, and blurry lines, when you get to highly technical corners of it.

Agreed. Being a stone-cold robot is counterproductive in high-level communications.

The problematic part is being robotic. Being stone-cold is another matter entirely.

The problem with trying to satisfy the intent of the law is that you may run afoul of the letter of the law. And since high-powered corporate and government officials don't often get a pass for obeying the intent of the law if they break the letter of the law, they're essentially forced to worry primarily about the letter.

As an individual you have no obligation to even attempt to satisfy the intent of a law (and it's foolish to do so), both for the reason you state and for a more basic reason. Laws don't have intent. People have intent. For a bill to become law 539 people have to sign on to it, and they all have different understandings and agendas.

What you have quoted above is a proper response for someone without any business experience.

Otherwise politely turning down an offer by quoting the layers vs trying to accuse a potential business lead of impropriety is how it happens in the real world.

Um, we're talking about regulators (i.e. law enforcement) and the people they regulate. If the former sees the latter as "a potential business lead" thing have already gotten way, way off track.

Maybe Comcast is in the running for new council? That doesn't seem way off track to me.

That's EXACTLY the problem. If there's one set of people on planet Earth who Comcast should absolutely, positively NEVER be allowed to hire it's the people who are currently overseeing them.

Frankly, it should go without saying that anyone making this jump has been bribed. Accepting a job from a former subject of regulation should result in jail time for both the hire, and the people responsible for hiring them.

Consider Meredith Attwell Baker, the former FCC commissioner who approved the NBC / Comcast a few months before taking a high-level (and insanely well paid) job as a lobbyist for the combined company she (legally) helped create.

Again, she should be in jail for that, and so should the people with the nerve to hire her. Instead, they're all making millions while trust in our government is rightfully hitting rock bottom.

I strongly dislike language as crass and degrading as "corporate whore". At the same time, I struggle to find a more apt description of what happened here. It's indefensibly despicable and anyone who says otherwise is simply flagging themselves as a part of the problem.

http://my.firedoglake.com/marinara/tag/merger/

TIL Comcast isn't in it for the public interest.

I'm not missing that at all. The fact that we expect corporations to further their own interests over those of the public (and that people who are cunning enough to get into powerful government positions often come from industry) is exactly why the law is lettered that way in the first place.

If you think you get to a position anywhere close to where these guys are by being a jeopardizing valuable relationships in the name of doing-things-in-the-spirit-of-selfless-public-service, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'm looking to sell. Good price, too, shoot me a PM.

What's the point of a comment like this? It just undermines the value/integrity of your earlier one.

You're also missing that the executives personal interest dont per-se align with those of their parent. So its quite possible for an individual to undermine both the public and his employer with a single go.

Various rogue executives illustrate this point without much recourse to google. But say nick leeson at baring kind of jumps out, and then the scale of what was seen in the past 5-7 years makes that look like childs play.

You might also find this "of intellectual interest"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7538921

...Or, not.

But the issues are far deeper--extending for many years and at many levels--more than just a single example taken out of context.

________

Edit: item?id={7538921}

WRT Executives interests not necessarily aligning with their parent - absolutely true. And yeah, I probably should have been less abrasive.

Can you double-check your link? I tried following it but it just links to this thread.

So what if Comcast's CEO Katryn Zachem really believes the merger is not just in hers, but also in the public's interest and tries to skirt the letter of the law in order to make things better for everybody?

Well, the obvious answer being that she's a fool and needs to actually listen to people other than the people in her current network.

Besides that though, what if she really is?

I don't think the intent of the law is to prohibit all personal relationships between people in those roles. I think the CEO could reasonably believe that attending the party is fine under the intent of the law, but is concerned whether it violates the letter of the law.

Oh man - why can't he have used your phrasing. Would have been viral in an instant :-)