Re:FCC Passes Strict Net Neutrality Regulations on 3-2 Vote
by TheHypnotist on Thursday February 26, 2015 @03:34PM
(#9115280)
John Oliver did a nice piece on judges getting elected in the U.S. as opposed to getting appointed. Basically, what you said. Judge's elections turn into politics as usual (money, political ideology, various other unrelated banter) as opposed to, you know, law.
While in theory it seems like a good idea, in practice it's not and all of a sudden you have judge's (or in the case at hand, FCC officials) with "interests" other than the law (communications).
Politicians spend much of their time getting re-elected, and they have to focus a great deal on whatever the electorate's current opinion is. That is excellent for things that should respond relatively quickly, and terrible for things that should move deliberately or be countercyclical.
It would be way more scary to me to have the FCC commissioners out fundraising from industry all the time like our elected officials do. Right now they're appointed on staggered 5-year terms, which is intentionally longer than the election cycle of the President who appoints them. No more than 3 can be members of the same political party, and none can have a financial interest in any regulated business. It's not perfect, but I think it's a great example of how to minimize the ills of direct election while still having it be (indirectly) accountable to the people.