My company contracted with a brilliant utility lawyer. I can only guess what her fees were, but they would have been significant. She then became a commissioner for the state regulator, the same regulator that reviews and approves or denies things we want to do. After her term was complete, we again contracted with her until she left for a position at the Department of Energy. The perception might be bad, but were we bribing her? Did we have influence at the DOE? No to both. It's a small world when one gets into niche subjects. The same names come up again and again. I suspect this is common in any industry.
Sure. The more specialized the industry, the smaller the talent pool, the more likely you're going to see these kinds of things happening. I think the question comes though, where do we draw the line? Cronyism is a real issue, with real world happenings, and real consequences. That's part of the reason we as a country value concepts such as free speech and transparency as tools to help fight corruption and also why we have laws against things such as political gifts, bribes, and kickbacks to begin with. I think a good rule of thumb is, the more power or influence a person has, the higher the standards we should hold them to. With that in mind, people criticizing Obama for $400,000 speaking fees sounds more than reasonable. I'm not saying he's right. I'm not saying he's wrong. I am saying that the fact that the issue is catching people's attention does seem appropriate.I suspect this is common in any industry.
I think the question comes though, why do we draw the line so demonstrably further for Democrats? In this case, it's "the more power or influence a person used to have." People really want their heroes to be Superman and their enemies to be Lex Luthor. It's a manichean stupidity that shouldn't be entertained.I think the question comes though, where do we draw the line?
I think a good rule of thumb is, the more power or influence a person has, the higher the standards we should hold them to.
If you consider Jon Stewart et al. to be liberals, which seems to be the case, it's much more rare to see them bang their own walls. They are what I can best call "passive political figures": they don't act on their own (barring, perhaps, Stewart - haven't been keeping much of an eye on the rest), but they still propagate a certain point of view, and due to their popularity, people tend to listen.