[ejain]

I don't know Wheeler, but don't understand why having been a lobbyist (or aspiring to be one again) would make him more "friendly" to that industry: The tougher he is on them, the more they should eventually be willing to pay him to switch sides again, right?

[wpietri]

I think that assumes such a high level of venality that I wouldn't bet on it.

The people I consider most dangerous to the public in regulatory positions aren't the ones who actively aim to undermine. They're they ones who just have such a strong sympathy with the regulated that they can't conceive of other ways to look at it.

Good regulation requires both deep respect and deep skepticism. Think, for example, of people who make sure restaurant kitchens are safe for the public. They have to respect the purpose of restaurants and the people who run them; otherwise they'll be ineffectively fussy or crabby. But their whole job is to never let those people slide. So as much as they understand and empathize with how hard and expensive it is run a restaurant, they still have to be willing to take the consumer's side say, "Yes, it's expensive, but you still have to throw out that $2k of meat." And mean it.

[rudolf0]

If he did so, he'd seem more like a greedy opportunist rather than someone genuinely interested in pushing the industry's goals.

[oldmanjay]

It's good to require purity from people. It teaches them to lie to everyone so they can meet an unmeetable standard.

See also: all modern politics.

[krenoten]

I don't think that's perceived as a negative in that particular line of work.