back to article Anyone else find it weird that the bloke tasked with probing tech giants for antitrust abuses used to, um, work for the same tech giants?

The man heading up any potentially US government antitrust probes into tech giants like Apple and Google used to work for... Apple and Google. In the revolving-door world that is Washington DC, that conflict may not seem like much but one person isn't having it: Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) this week sent Makan Delrahim a …

  1. Blockchain commentard Silver badge

    Sometimes the poacher turned gamekeeper system works. Probably won't in this case, but sometimes it does work.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

      You mean like when the person Obama appointed to investigate AT&T, used to work for AT&T?

      Or the people Obama appointed to investigate the oil companies, all were former executives of oil companies?

      Or the person Obama appointed to investigate...

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

        Ah, yes. An AC with a bad case of whataboutitis. Typical.

        1. Youngone Silver badge

          Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

          I suspect the A/C is just pointing out that the US system runs on corruption.

          1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

            Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

            I am shocked. Shocked I tell you!

            The standard bearer of Freedom and Democracy(tm) ousted as a corrupt banana republic type oligarchy.

            Do you mean that all this talk about fatcats regulating themselves doesn't work (at least not in the way as the publicly stated intention is concerned).

            Who'd have thunk it?

            1. bpfh Silver badge
              Headmaster

              Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

              It's a case of "don't do as I do, do as I tell you"...

              1. DJO Silver badge

                Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

                No, it's a case of "pay me enough and you can do whatever you want".

                1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

                  Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

                  That would be the United States of Corruption and BriberyTM then?

                  Organised crime is jealous for a reason. Largely because they are labelled as criminals whereas the others are not.

                  1. Just An Engineer

                    Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

                    Organised crime is jealous for a reason. Largely because they are labelled as criminals whereas the politicians and their appointed flunkys are not.

                    TFTFY

                  2. Stoneshop Silver badge

                    Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

                    That would be the United States of Corruption and BriberyTM then?

                    Stars and Stripes of Corruption - Dead Kennedys (1985)

                    So it's not exactly a new phenomenon.

                  3. Louis Schreurs

                    United States of Corruption and BriberyTM

                    Or short;

                    U$A

          2. quxinot Silver badge

            Re: I'm shocked, shocked, that gambling is going on in this establishment!

            To be fair, I cannot think of a government to which that statement does not apply.

    2. LDS Silver badge

      "Sometimes the poacher turned gamekeeper system works"

      Only when there's no longer any incentive to please his former masters, or to return to his old life.

      Here we have people who could easily return to being lobbyists or lawyers, where they could even earn a lot more - legally - exploiting knowledge and networks built when they worked for the government. A big incentive.

      It may be he's now disgusted of his old work - and decided to become an antitrust champion, but you'd need to know him very well personally to be sure of that. Good policies would require him to stay away from the investigation.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Correct. If he didn't have valid industry knowledge they would round rings around him and he would have some nice helpful point contact person assigned to assist him to help him navigate his way around a complex organization. The point contacts true purpose is to manipulate and steer him in whatever way the corporate desires.

      AC because "point contact" was a job I was called on to do several times. It's actually a fun job because as well as manipulating the regulator you also end up manipulating the corporation because the regulator has to come up with "some" findings.

      1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

        Anyone trying to fsck with such investigations should be shut down.

        What do you think happens to you if you're being investigated by internal revenue and you're trying to railroad their investigation?

        Solution is to ensure that companies don't become 'too big to fail' to begin with.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          AC - again.

          The golden rule it that you always answer the question and you never lie. With the exception of irrelevant detail, you also never voluntarily divulge anything not pertinent to the direction you want things to go. Fortunately no one ever asked me "what don't you want me to know", though my response would have been lots and lots of true but irrelevant detail.

          I didn't deal with the Inland Revenue. A colleague of mine did as it was his speciality. He knew the tax regulations about 100 times better than any team HRMC ever assembled so everything was to the letter of the law. He just explained to them how little tax we were paying based on their myriad of rules and our corporate structure that was designed to follow all the rules whilst minimising tax liability. Every big multinational will have people like him.

      2. steviebuk Silver badge

        Didn't work on the United States vs Microsoft case. One of the DoJ lawyers on that wasn't that technical but still annoyed Bill Gates and won. David Boies was the lawyer but now just reading about him in relation to Harvey Weinstein doesn't sounds like he's a very nice man.

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Linux

          David Boies was the lawyer

          He was also on the wrong side of SCO vs. Novell (and IBM and a fair lot of the rest of the Linux arena).

          The SCO lawyers went from repeatedly shooting their feet to machinegunning their knees with gay abandon after nothing substantial was left in the pedal department, and only lack of funds to buy ammunition stopped them from deploying their groin-pointing Gatling.

        2. Claverhouse Silver badge

          To be fair, Mr. Boies is a solid Democrat and Mr. Weinstein, who is certainly innocent until proved guilty --- and maybe even then, since trial verdicts don't ever establish the truth, but reflect what those in the court thought on the day --- remains one of the Democrats' golden boys, a massive donor, and a dear good friend to the Clintons.

          Not that the two things are necessarily related, the Clintons no doubt have many poor lower-class friends; plus which he could always make Bill and Hillary laugh, regaling them with tales of Hollywood glamour.

    4. Bruce Ordway

      poacher turned gamekeeper

      Sadly, I don't think that there are many tigers who have really changed their stripes.

      If someone really has "turned" I'd be grateful if they would work on my behalf.

      I'm not aware of modern examples but.. I'm sure there are some around. Any names to share?

      From US history, Franklin Roosevelt comes to my mind.

      At least I was taught that his own social class felt betrayed by him.

      Intimate knowledge their systems & practices resulted in his political effectiveness.

      But....I'm sure not everyone was taught this same history.

  2. jake Silver badge

    Anyone surprised?

    Typical Trump Whitehouse. The rich get richer, and the rest of us get shit on.

    Get off your asses and vote, people. Four more years of this bullshit isn't a good idea ...

    1. Chris G Silver badge

      Re: Anyone surprised?

      I'm not sure it matters who is in the Whitehouse, who is Prime minister, Chancellor ir whatever, modern politics and democracy go hand in hand with these kind of appointments. Look at the several individuals who have been working in British government and then gone on to work for the parties they previously worked with.

      1. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: Anyone surprised?

        I agree that this sort of thing is bipartisan, and predates the Trump administration by a lot of decades. The fact that a corrupt practice has a long history behind it, though, in no way means that we should accept it.

      2. jake Silver badge

        Re: Anyone surprised?

        I didn't say it made a difference who was in the Oval Office in the past. What I said was "get off your asses and vote".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anyone surprised?

          Oh, because if we all vote hard enough they'll stop being shitlords? Good luck with that, I guess.

          1. Claverhouse Silver badge

            Re: Anyone surprised?

            Best comment ever.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anyone surprised?

          Don't they do drive-thru voting booths for donkey riders?

        3. Cynic_999 Silver badge

          Re: Anyone surprised?

          Just vote for someone who doesn't want either money or power. Unfortunately that tends to exclude politicians ...

      3. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

        Re: Anyone surprised?

        Not a USian myself, but it seems like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are fairly ok.

        1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

          Re: Anyone surprised?

          Not a USian myself, but it seems like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard are fairly ok.

          Only in comparison with the rest of the more well known, but actually they are just a little less bad. Even so, probably the lesser evil is the least bad of the choices. The real solution begins with a complete replacement of Congress (all members) and mandatory retirement for members of SCOTUS at the age of 70.

          1. DJO Silver badge

            Re: Anyone surprised?

            What would help is (fatally) severing the link between lobbyists and representatives. Allow them to speak in debates but they must abstain on any votes relating to any industry they've received payment from.

            If they screw up once they have to pay as a fine of 2x the lobby fee, screw up again and 10x their fee and a lifetime ban on holding any public office.

            Draconian? Yes but people who hold any public office should be held to a far higher standard than mere proles.

            1. Louis Schreurs

              Re: Anyone surprised?

              Draconian? Yes but people who hold any public office should be held to a far higher standard than mere proles.

              Enter Trump.

          2. Stoneshop Silver badge
            Devil

            Why choose the lesser evil?

            Even so, probably the lesser evil is the least bad of the choices.

            Vote Chtulhu.

    2. naive

      Re: Anyone surprised?

      There is more to this.

      Anyone knows the tech giants, who control what most people see and which news items they are presented with, are under full control of the leftist fifth column, poisoning the minds of so many with a constant stream of self defying non-sense.

      The considerable economic power they possess, is abused it for political purposes, trying to fix the leftist defeat of 2016 in order to lay the red carpet for whomever will compete with president Trump in 2020.

      This crusade only serves the purpose to cause that liberals stay in power to grant them the special tax exemptions they enjoy for decades.

      President Trump better starts making some miles here, and don't let this get in the hands of Democrats, who have all the incentives to keep these monopolies in existence.

      Until then we will have to live with the unprecedented censorship and digital book burning like it is 1938 by the likes of YouTube and others to "remove non leftist content " and introduce "authorized news media ", i.e. CNN and the George Soros funded Vox Media outlet.

      1. Paul 195

        Re: Anyone surprised?

        @naive

        What a strangely appropriate moniker. The people running Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc probably see themselves as "liberals", but nobody could mistake them for "leftists". They are good old-fashioned capitalist monopolists. And Youtube and Facebook are by now well-known for basically showing people what they think they want to see. YouTube's unpleasant habit of showing more and more extreme material to viewers means that by now I would imagine your feed consists of flat earth videos, Klan rallies, and the occasional cute kitten.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Anyone surprised?

          Sorry. Worked at G. Oppressively leftist. Directors bragging about changing elections in Central America. These people have WAY more money than they need, and being leftist makes them feel better about themselves.

          1. Kabukiwookie Silver badge

            Re: Anyone surprised?

            Directors bragging about changing elections in Central America.

            Is that why most democratically elected governments have been overthrown by right-wing nuts then?

            Oppressively leftist.

            Leftist usually means something different is the US. For European standards the Dem party is quite far to the right.

            1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

              Re: Anyone surprised?

              "Is that why most democratically elected governments have been overthrown by right-wing nuts then?"

              Right-wing nuts like Stalin? Mao? Castro? Maduro?

              But I agree: Islamic State are, effectively, right wing.

              1. Paul 195

                Re: Anyone surprised?

                Spain, Nicaragua, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Uganda... nobody said all coups were right wing. Just the majority of them.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Anyone surprised?

            I see why you call them leftist, "not bigots" is too much typing.

            1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

              Re: Anyone surprised?

              Not religious my self, but if you are a "not bigot", why would you label "Easter" as a problematic search term?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Anyone surprised?

              So anyone who is not a leftist is a bigot? You know, we've not even started arguing yet. Don't you think it's a bit early to concede?

      2. DJO Silver badge

        Re: Anyone surprised?

        Wibble....

        "leftist defeat of 2016"

        A: There are no "left" wing parties in America, the Democrats are what the rest of the world would call "Right Wing", the Republicans are what the rest of the world would call "Insane".

        B: If you mean the Republican "victory" in '16, you do know the Republicans have not won the popular vote for over 40 years, they only get power due to the anti-democratic (in all senses of the phrase) Electoral College.

        1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

          Re: Anyone surprised?

          1980: Ronald Reagan 50.75%

          1984: Ronald Reagan 58.77%

          1988: George H.W. Bush 53.37%

          Liar.

    3. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Anyone surprised?

      "Typical Trump Whitehouse. The rich get richer, and the rest of us get shit on"

      I'm far from being a Trump fan, quite the opposite in fact. But "The rich get richer, and the rest of us get shit on" is pretty much baked into modern democracy / capitalism. It isn't limited to Trump, nor to just the Republicans, or even just the USA.

      The Reagan / Thatcher years, while necessary to break an excessively socialist model (especially in UK), pushed things too far the other way, and they've only been accelerating that way ever since.

    4. chivo243 Silver badge
      Meh

      Re: Anyone surprised?

      The gubbermints are all too large now. I fear the end of days is upon us. Vote somebody else in, when they get a whiff of the power, corruption reigns supreme.

      I think anybody who wants to be Prez or PM should automatically be removed from the race.

      1. Stoneshop Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Anyone surprised?

        I think anybody who wants to be Prez or PM should automatically be removed from the race.

        The major problem - one of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

        To summarize: it is a well known fact, that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.

  3. adnim Silver badge

    He knows ya know,

    he knows ya know, he knows ya know,

    He's got experience, he's got experience, he knows, you know

    But he's got problems, problems, problems

    Light switch, deciet forever, crawling from a corp to corp

    Singing psychedelic praises for the good that the lies has wrought

    You've got venom in your stomach, from all the lies you're fed

    You shouldn't have listened to the Jobs at the confession

    When he offered to give you head

    He knows, you know, he knows, you know

    H e knows, you know, but he's got problems

    Fast geed, corporate fever, swarming through a fractured mind

    Chilling truths they freeze emotion, it's best to keep them blind

    You've got Google in you stomach, you've got Apple in your head

    When your conscience whispered, the vein lines stiffened

    You walked off with the bread

    He knows, you know, he knows, you know, he knows, you know

    He's got experience, he's got experience, he knows, you know

    But he's got problems, problems, problems

    etc.

    A good choice for the position maybe? Depends how easy he can be manipulated or his honesty buried.

  4. sanmigueelbeer Silver badge
    Happy

    Nothing wrong with this.

    After all, FCC Chairman Pai was from Verizon.

    1. ratfox Silver badge

      To be fair, his predecessor Wheeler was actually pretty tough, even though he used to lobby for the industry. He even introduced Net Neutrality rules!

      1. DCFusor Silver badge

        Came here to say the same thing. I wasn't a fan of the guy who appointed him, and as I recall most of the denizens of tech boards and commentators were scared to death of what he might do.

        But then he turned out a hero.

        Exception that proved the rule? I don't have a clue about that or this new guy. I'd just say that there isn't 100% correlation between the revolving door and corruption.

        Sometimes people have a change of heart and so on - and it's EXTREMELY valuable to have such a person now in charge of regulating those who they used to work for - especially if they know what skeletons are on those closets.

        1. Paul

          huh? I think you missed the sarcasm flag.

          Pai has been a disaster as far as consumer rights are concerned.

  5. JohnFen Silver badge

    The fix is in

    It will be interesting to see if he recuses himself. I doubt he will, although he clearly and obviously should.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: The fix is in

      Depends. Despite the snarky tone of the article and my utter lack of knowledge about who this guy is, the evidence for him to recuse himself appears to be that he got well paid for some lobbying work over 12 years ago. It all depends on how he really feels now and what relevant contacts he has retained since then.

      1. sabroni Silver badge

        Re: The fix is in

        It's got nothing to do with how he feels or acts. The law states he should recuse himself if a reasonable person might have suspicion of a conflict of interest.

        You could argue that everyone who is suspicous in unreasonable, but that's still nothing to do with him or what he feels.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    At this point, how is it not obvious?

    Everybody wants to break the world into two or three or whatever political teams, depending on what country you're in. In reality, there are only two groups: People who realize that they're all full of shit, and the suckers who actually buy into it.

    1. DCFusor Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: At this point, how is it not obvious?

      You got it, AC.

    2. scepticat

      Re: At this point, how is it not obvious?

      The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!

  7. Drew 11

    The good news is he knows where the bodies are buried.

    The bad news is, he knows how to bury bodies.

    1. Stoneshop Silver badge
      Pirate

      The good news is he knows where the bodies are buried.

      Well, knowing where the bodies are buried means you can dig away from them, then show that you're digging and not finding anything.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You know if you don’t have someone that has worked in the industry you’ll end up with someone who knows nothing about the industry.

    Maybe have a nice supporting team with core skills needed as well as this person.

    It’s why you hire hackers to investigate security issues etc

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Do I really have to point it out? "Someone that has worked in the industry" is not the same as "someone who has lobbied for the industry". The first set is significantly larger, maybe pick someone from there?

  9. T. F. M. Reader Silver badge

    Cooler heads called for

    There may be a reason for the gentleman to recuse himself from investigating Google and Apple. I wrote "may" because I think it is customary to take into consideration whether or not there actually is a conflict of interest. For instance, he worked for Apple and Google in 2006-2007. It's 2019 now, last time I checked. That's quite a "cooling period". Nevertheless, I completely agree that the question should be raised, and quite possibly he would do well to announce that he won't take any active part in investigating Google and Apple even if just to keep the appearance of propriety.

    Having said that, I have clicked on the link and read the speech he made in Israel, and I don't see anything improper there. It is hardly a "blueprint of attack" as The Reg alleges. It is very general and discusses some historical cases. I saw nothing there that would cause me to think, "Oh, hell, now Google and Apple will be much better prepared - there was no way they would be aware of this were it not for this speech!"

    On top of that, the whole premise that an antitrust investigation is a kind of military campaign where the D-Day plans must be kept absolutely secret from the enemy is, I believe, false. We are talking about a government department enforcing the law and official regulations. It is incumbent on the government to make the regulations and the associated criteria as clear and transparent and widely known as possible. So I would actually expect the government to tell the public - and any company that is a potential target of a regulatory check - what is going to happen. Keeping that information vague or under a veil in order to increase the chances that an investigation would find something is no way to govern. Among other things, it is also a conflict of interest, given that the people running such an investigation stand to get a lot of positive publicity if they are actually seen as successful guardians of public interest against evil corporations that are not supposed to do evil.

    So I found the rather sarcastic "No, he won't do that" tone of the article quite unwarranted, even as the point about the Assistant AG recusing himself is valid.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: I found the rather sarcastic "No, he won't do that" tone of the article quite unwarranted

      You're on the wrong site.

    2. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: Cooler heads called for

      "I think it is customary to take into consideration whether or not there actually is a conflict of interest."

      No, the customary (and required) line is if there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. Whether there actually is or not isn't the important bit.

      This is because it's important to the public to be able to have some measure of trust.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: appearance of *potential* conflict of interest

        "the customary (and required) line is if there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. Whether there actually is or not isn't the important bit."

        There are well known UK companies wishing to do big corporate business in (or in relation to) the US. Some of them have been required to atone for their prior sins by forcing their workers to take and pass US-originated "ethics training".

        I've been through this process now with three different UK companies, I think the phrase used in the usual training is more like

        "if there is an appearance of a *potential* conflict of interest".

        Further reading:

        https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/Resources/Analyzing+Potential+Conflicts+of+Interest

        http://www.ala.org/tools/ethics/conflictsofinterestqa

        I.e. not only must the people be squeaky clean, they must do their best to keep away from things which may be misnterpreted as not quite in line with US policy.

        Now obviously rules like this are only for the little people, same as taxes are only for the little people.

        https://www.navexglobal.com/en-gb/products/training/

        When's Guy Fawkes day this year in the UK?

        Is there a US equivalent?

        France has one quite soon doesn't it?

    3. scepticat

      Re: Cooler heads called for

      Funny, that's exactly the way the FDA works! They create vacuously verbose regulations, wait for you to submit how you will comply with those regulations, and then tell you what is not in compliance. They will not, however, tell you how to be in compliance. After all, that's what former FDA inspectors turned consultants are for.

  10. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge
    Coat

    I am sure everything is perfectly above board

    After all, the powers that be would never put anyone incompetent or corrupt in such an important position, would they?

    Yes, thank you nurse, I have had my medication this morning, and am feeling totally calm and reasonable, so I don't think I will need my special coat with the extra long sleeves today

  11. Roland6 Silver badge

    "You reported an estimated $100,000 in income from Google in 2007"

    Given what it is claimed he was doing and his status in the US political arena, this doesn't seem very much. The lack of information and phrasing of the attack seems to imply that earnings from Google in other years was significantly lower or non-existent.

    So this does seem like a continuation of the modern obsession with digging over politicians pasts and making a mountain range out of a single mole hill...

    1. BigSLitleP Silver badge

      Re: "You reported an estimated $100,000 in income from Google in 2007"

      "You reported an estimated $100,000 " insinuates "but who knows how much you actually made / make"

  12. Zippy´s Sausage Factory
    Devil

    I wondered where the comment along the lines of "but people paid less before Standard Oil was broken up" came from. Given the modern focus on "consumer harm" as the focus of antitrust, I think someone might be plotting something...

  13. TheSmokingArgus

    STATE Supremacists Salivating at Thought of Re-Consolidation of Media

    This is of course how the Corporatist Regulatory STATE functions. The entire deplatforming/censorship crisis proven to be being waged by old-media FCC licensed dinosaurs such as Comcast through their new-media proxy shill Vox or NBC's Axios against unlicensed, individual content creators is precisely designed to result in the creation of a new federal "Internet Speech Equity Bureau" or similar thereto.

    Precisely a textbook example of the Hegelian Dialectic.

    Thus once passed you can guarantee Zuckerberg, Schmidt, Dorsey et al, or their lawyers/lobbyists will receive appointments to the new STATE Supremacist bureaucracy.

    Thereafter, you will see a bevy of regulations similar to the ruse of GDPR, "Adult Content Identity verification" and pre-filtering copyright capital equipment outlays, which then raises barriers to entry as only the old-media hacks have the phony monopoly fiat to endure such an expenditure.

    Thus if you think consolidation to six mega-corporations being in control of 95% plus of everything read, seen, or heard is due to anything other than the licensure schemes from last century, then you are not well-read unto history.

    Marx spelled it out pretty clearly the path authoritarians seek to control communication:

    Plank 6.) Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. - Communist Manifesto 1848

    So downvote away Marxists, the Remnant see your spots leopard, we are more than happy to willfully nullify any & all attempts at packaging up the internet to hand back over to the oligarchs. And well we don't plan on surrendering either Free Speech or Private Firearms to bitter unable to compete, failed post-modernists.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: STATE Supremacists Salivating at Thought of Re-Consolidation of Media

      It's not just the corporates in tech who have their own interests at heart. Consider farming... who owns a large chuck of American farms? It's not small time farmers.

  14. disgruntled yank Silver badge

    well,

    FDR appointed Joseph Kennedy as head of the SEC, apparently on the assumption that Kennedy knew exactly how the underhanded stuff got done. But on the other hand, Kennedy had his own sources of income, and wasn't going to go off and work for J.P. Morgan. (Work with him, perhaps, but not work for him.)

  15. Claverhouse Silver badge

    Mrs. Warren seems to propose different things at random merely to keep her name in the papers.

  16. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Take the king's shilling, do the king's bidding.

    It does apply and not just here in this instance. Pai comes to mind as he's much in the El Reg news. Every member of Congress and most state legislators. They all take the shillings in the form of "campaign contributions". This has been going on for a long time even back to the early days of this country.

    For those not believing, go back and read history about such things as the bribes paid to the Secretary of the Army by suppliers of crap supplies, tainted food, etc. It was going on even during the Revolution. Yes, corrupt CongressCritters were available to the highest bidders back then.

    1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: Take the king's shilling, do the king's bidding.

      corrupt CongressCritters

      I think that is overly redundant, I never met a CongressCritter which wasn't corrupt.

      1. Claptrap314 Silver badge

        Re: Take the king's shilling, do the king's bidding.

        They actually do exist. A True Believer that doesn't consider themselves anointed is a great candidate.

  17. cd11
    Alien

    Only in America.....

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019