Policymakers

[Commentary] Joe McCarthy loved to savage reporters, singling them out by name at his rallies in the 1950s. The Republican senator from Wisconsin knew the work of each reporter who covered his years-long campaign aimed at rooting out the communists who were supposedly seeded throughout the federal government. Then, moments after leaving the stage, McCarthy would sidle up to a reporter he’d just finished flaying and toss an arm around him: “That was just good fun.” Reporters who’ve covered Donald Trump anytime in the past four decades know that sense of whiplash all too well.

President Trump and McCarthy share a populist, demagogic speaking style and a propensity to say anything to win the moment. The two men are often compared because they both aggressively hit back at their critics and tended to inflate minor slights or partisan rows into threats against the nation. But their similarities go deeper: Both won and cemented support by using, attacking and foiling the news media. Both deployed a crazy quilt of behavior to demand news coverage — and then stomped on those same organizations as disloyal liars conspiring against them. And both enjoyed extended periods of popularity even amid reporting about their erratic behavior and tendency to say things that weren’t true. In the end, McCarthy fell from grace, but journalism alone wasn’t enough to end his destructive crusade. The news reporting about McCarthy’s excesses did over time diminish his popular support, but ultimately that souring of sentiment had to filter up from the public to their elected representatives. It took years, but McCarthy was finally held to account.

[Commentary] There is a long-standing tradition in American politics that when your term of office is over, you retreat quietly into the background and allow a tasteful period of time to pass before you get back into the arena. Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, however, does not appear to have bought into that tradition. Wheeler, apparently unhappy about the efforts of his successor, Ajit Pai, to undo the former chairman's signature regulatory enactment— the imposition of legacy common carrier price regulation on the internet—has continued to advocate for the survival of the regulatory structures he instituted while in office. It is difficult to see how the former chairman's internet policy is likely to make broadband services more available, better, or cheaper.

Whatever the role the FCC has to play in the modern communications market, Wheeler's retrogressive regulatory approach is counterproductive. America appears now to be suffering the consequences of it. If, as the data appear to suggest, Wheeler's signature regulatory contribution has cost the nation billions in network investment, reduced employment by 100,000 telecommunications jobs per year, and slowed improvements in broadband quality, it is incumbent on his successor to press forward with the clean-up hastily. Happily, Chairman Pai appears intent on doing precisely that. The sooner the broadband industry gets to say, “good riddance” to the Wheeler FCC's Title II regulatory regime, the better.

[Ford is Chief Economist of the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies]

When the Federal Communications Commission went looking this year for experts to sit on an advisory committee regarding deployment of high-speed internet, Gary Carter thought he would be a logical choice. Carter works for the city of Santa Monica, California, where he oversees City Net, one of the oldest municipal-run networks in the nation. The network sells high-speed internet to local businesses, and uses the revenue in part to connect low-income neighborhoods. That experience seemed to be a good match for the proposed Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), which FCC Chairman Ajit Pai created. One of the panel’s stated goals is to streamline city and state rules that might accelerate installation of high-speed internet. But one of the unstated goals, members say, is to make it easier for companies to build networks for the next generation wireless technology, called 5G. The advanced network, which promises faster speeds, will require that millions of small cells and towers be erected nationwide on city- and state-owned public property. The assignment seemed to call out for participation from city officials like Carter, since municipal officials approve where and what equipment telecommunications companies can place on public rights of way, poles and buildings. But the FCC didn’t choose Carter — or almost any of the other city or state government officials who applied. Instead the FCC loaded the 30-member panel with corporate executives, trade groups and free-market scholars.

A prisoners' rights group has accused Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai of having a conflict of interest because he used to represent a prison phone company as a lawyer. Under Pai's direction, the FCC dropped its court defense of rules capping the intrastate phone rates charged to prisoners. The decision helped prison phone companies—including Pai's former client, Securus Technologies—continue to charge high prices. Pai "represented Securus as its attorney while employed as a partner with the law firm of Jenner & Block, LLP, immediately preceding his confirmation as FCC Commissioner in May 2012," Human Rights Defense Center Executive Director Paul Wright wrote in a filing with the commission Aug 9.

Pai worked for Jenner & Block for about a year beginning in April 2011. With his decisions at the commission, "he has never stopped representing the interests of his client Securus Technologies," Wright argued. "Based on this conflict, we request that Mr. Pai recuse himself from all decisions involving Securus Technologies in particular and the Inmate Calling Services (ICS) industry in general, and that he disclose any financial interests in same." A spokesperson for Pai's office said that Pai's work was cleared by the FCC's ethics office and pointed out that the recusal requirement in federal government standards lasts only one year.

As a media correspondent for The Times, I cover the intersection of journalism and politics, a juncture that has seen its share of pileups in 2017. The president labeled the mainstream media “the enemy of the American people.” The White House briefing turned into a daily grudge match over the nature of transparency and truth. Alarms are sounding about an erosion of press freedoms once thought sacrosanct in a democracy. The White House press secretary plays a central role in that debate.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who at 34 is among the youngest people to hold the title, must manage the message of her administration and liaise with dozens of reporters, while also acting as a frequent vessel of President Donald Trump’s anti-media ire. “I’ve grown up with the press, in the press,” she told me, referring to her upbringing as the daughter of Mike Huckabee, the Republican former governor of Arkansas and a two-time presidential candidate. “I’ve never seen the level of hostility that this press corps has to the president.”

[Commentary] Many tech execs that I know hate and do not trust our government, but are starting to come to the conclusion that a president, senator and congressmen and congresswomen need to have a greater grasp of how technology will shape our world and country, and be tech-savvy enough to keep America moving forward now. I am told behind the scenes that some very high-powered, forward-thinking tech execs who really understand how technology is going to drive so many major things tied to America’s growth and world position are starting to contemplate running for office in many states around America. Their goal would be to gain a stronger position of influence when it comes to the role government must play in guiding how technology is applied and integrated into all of our business and personal lives fairly and equally.

I have no clue whether Zuckerberg will or will not eventually move into politics, but I am willing to bet that as more and more tech execs understand the magnitude of what has to be called the great tech revolution of this century, we will see some of them trying to find a greater way to influence our current politicians, and we’ll even see some begin to run for office in order to influence our government from within as much as possible.

[Tim Bajarin is the president of Creative Strategies Inc.]

Even if members of Congress truly want to translate their current pique at institutional dysfunction into genuine deliberation, into a process of “regular order” where committees develop legislation, where would they begin? They’d need to build back a whole lot of lost capacity. Consider some responses from a new survey of senior staff from the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) titled “State of the Congress: Staff Perspectives on Institutional Capacity in the House and the Senate.”

Below are the percentages of senior staff who said they were “very satisfied” with their chamber’s performance in the following benchmarks:
“The chamber’s human resource support and infrastructure is adequate to support staffers’ official duties (e.g., training, professional development, benefits, etc.)”: 5%
“Members have adequate time and resources to understand, consider, and deliberate policy and legislation”: 6%
“The technological infrastructure is adequate to support Members’ official duties”: 6%
“The chamber has adequate capacity and support (staff, research, capability, infrastructure, etc.) to perform its role in democracy”: 11%

Congress has been de-investing in its institutional capacity for decades, and congressional staff earn absurdly low salaries, leading to high turnover and consistent staff inexperience.

When President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to form teams to dismantle government regulations, the Transportation Department turned to people with deep industry ties. The lack of transparency has concerned several top Democratic members of Congress who serve on committees that oversee regulatory matters.

In a letter to the White House on Aug 7, they called on the administration to release the names of all regulatory team members as well as documents relating to their potential conflicts of interest. The congressmen cited a recent investigation by ProPublica and The New York Times revealing that members of the deregulation teams have included lawyers who represented businesses in cases against government regulators, staff members of political dark money groups and employees of industry-funded organizations opposed to environmental rules. Since the publication of that investigation in July, the news organizations have identified more than a dozen other appointees through interviews, public records and reader tips — including the three appointees to the deregulation team at the Transportation Department. In all, there are now 85 known current and former team members, including 34 with potential conflicts. At least two of the appointees may be positioned to profit if certain regulations are undone and at least four were registered to lobby the agencies they now work for.

Kayleigh McEnany, who recently departed CNN as a contributor, will be the next spokesperson for the Republican National Committee. McEnany frequently defended President Donald Trump during her tenure at CNN. She began as a paid contributor in 2016. The 29-year-old Georgetown and Harvard Law School graduate began her career in television as a producer for former Gov Mike Huckabee's (R-AR) Fox News program. On Aug 6, McEnany debuted a Trump TV segment that she labeled the “real news", which was shown on Trump's Facebook page.

Rep Anna Eshoo (D-CA) will deliver the keynote speech at the INCOMPAS Show Oct. 15-17 in San Francisco (CA). Rep Eshoo represents Silicon Valley and INCOMPAS members comprise some major edge players, including Facebook, Amazon, Google, and Netflix, as well as competitive carriers.

“In her role on the Communications and Technology Subcommittee [she is the former ranking member], Rep. Eshoo has established herself as one of the foremost leaders on technology and telecommunications, advocating for laws that protect consumers and promote competition,” said INCOMPAS CEO Chip Pickering in a statement. “We are honored to welcome Rep. Eshoo to The INCOMPAS Show and hear her insights on many of the issues of importance to our audience – from Open internet and broadband deployment to the need for additional wireless spectrum.