Newly retired Democratic Senator Chris Dodd has now announced what he’ll be doing for a post-Senate career: lobbying for Hollywood.
So, I must admit I underestimated Senator Dodd when I wrote this post on “The Crystal Ball For Chris Dodd: Will it be a big bank, a hedge fund, or a lobbying gig?” I and a lot of others guessed the former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee would get his fat post-Senate paycheck from the financial sector.
Turns out that Dodd’s got principles: He’s going to Hollywood for his lobbying gig, not Manhattan.
Salon’s Glenn Greenwald’s has harsh words about Dodd’s move and what it says about the culture of Washington. And he’s right. As Greenwald notes, Dodd lied, or at least flip-flopped on the question of what he would do in retirement:
In March of last year, he told The Hartford Courant that “he will not lobby, but, like [former Senators Chuck] Hagel and [Sam] Nunn, he may teach.” In an August article headlined “Dodd forswears a lobbying career,” The Connecticut Mirror quoted him as saying: “No lobbying, no lobbying.” That vow earned this praise from Public Citizen’s Craig Holman: “That’s excellent on Senator Dodd’s part.”
It would have been excellent, wouldn’t it have?
The Hill’s Gautham Nagesh notes Dodd’s hypocrisy in the third paragraph of his news story:
But heading Hollywood’s lobbying arm could be problematic for the former senator, who accepted the kind of job he pledged not to take.“No lobbying, no lobbying,” Dodd told the Connecticut Mirror last August, when asked about his plans after leaving office.
Contrast that to the Hartford Courant’s burying of the no-lobbying pledge in the tenth graph, quickly followed by a credulous acceptance of Dodd’s insistence that he’s not going to be lobbyist. Dude, the MPAA is a lobby. You head it. You’re a lobbyist.
Greenwald explains what Dodd will be doing for his $1.2 million a year and why he was chosen:
Dodd is barred from formally working himself as a lobbyist for two years after leaving the Senate, but the core purpose of his new job is to oversee lobbying activities and to convert his influence and inside knowledge of Washington into favorable legislation and desired regulatory action (or inaction) for the MPAA. Dodd is replacing another long-time DC official paid to peddle his influence: Dan Glickman — the former 9-term Democratic Congressman from Kansas and Clinton administration Agriculture Secretary. Leaving no doubt about what the MPAA seeks in this position — a politician willing to sell his connections to the highest bidder — the association chose Dodd only after it was unsuccessful in recruiting former Sen. Bob Kerrey.
But at least Dodd didn’t go directly into the financial industry he oversaw. That would have looked downright corrupt.
What's the difference, really, other than that the studios provide a more or less tangible finished product?
Has the mainstream news said anything about ACTA yet?
#1 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 08:55 PM
Oh, fer crissakes. The gig is perfectly legal and there is nothing whatever morally corrupt or illegal about taking that kind of position. Greenwald just loves to whip that moral outrage pony day in and day out. What, are these old pols supposed to wither away taking cha-cha lessons and painting landscapes? Kee-rist.
So the guy changed his mind, or the job offer changed his mind. Let's hold everyone to what they plan to do in retirement. Come on, @Ryan, say it right now: no writing, no writing.
At least he hasn't yet put on a cowboy hat and took millions and millions of dollars from billionaires to form a faux "grassroots" organization whipping the yahoos into a anti-regulation frenzies.
You journos can twist anything to look like some kind of mortal sin. Yet the really bad stuff totally goes over your head.
#2 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 10:18 PM
James,
The point is that Dodd took all the good publicity for saying he was rejecting the much despised lobbying route in retirement. Now he's going to do it, but - surprise, surprise - no public mention of this from him.
#3 Posted by John, CJR on Sat 5 Mar 2011 at 03:32 PM
@John,
I got the point. Then *I* made the point that it's a silly, inconsequential gotcha that Chittum twists into somehow being shady and morally abhorrent, which it is not. The man changed his mind, or found the offer attractive. So what?
Then I made the point that if you want to look at all the possible corruption and shady dealing in washington dc, this one is pretty damned far down on the list. Hollywood. The MPAA.
The man was chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Ryan said "I and a lot of others guessed the former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee would get his fat post-Senate paycheck from the financial sector." Well, he didn't do that, okay? And if he did, it would be perfectly legal. I mean, with all the unseemly back-scratching going on between pols and shadowy non-profits fronting for industry and financial interests, and you have to nitpick on this? Sheesh.
#4 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 5 Mar 2011 at 11:57 PM
hey, James, I gave him credit for not selling out to Wall Street, which I'd wrongly predicted he'd do.
But the man a few months ago did tell everybody he wouldn't go lobbyist. Then he turned around and went lobbyist. And so he contributes to the structural problems in Washington--the soft corruption--cashing in on his connections to give an already powerful interest that extra edge.
And almost all of them do it.
#5 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Mon 7 Mar 2011 at 12:57 AM
@Ryan, I gave you credit for giving him credit.
I guess you and I differ on how evil it is for someone to change his mind about a job offer. I've done it myself.
Hell, I've "cashed in" on my connections, too, when I wanted to change jobs. Of course, my connections aren't as powerful as Dodd's connections but whatever.
And using your life skills and past influence to advance a client's interests is not inherently corrupt. It just isn't. When you paint a broad brush with these sweeping condemnations, you effectively let the really, truly corrupt ones off the hook.
That's the problem with Greenwald's MO. Eventually, your audience gets exhausted and starts to roll their eyes, tunes out. Then when you have something legitimate to yell about, nobody's listening any more.
#6 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 7 Mar 2011 at 07:26 AM
Dodd provided Wall Street with the best regulation money could buy. Now he is going show business on us. What a steaming pile of human garbage.
#7 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Tue 8 Mar 2011 at 06:38 PM