Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

ESA selects new president

Bush administration policy advisor Mike Gallagher picked to succeed Doug Lowenstein as trade group's head.

See it »

The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) devotes many of its resources to influencing various state and federal lawmakers, so it's somewhat fitting that the trade group has turned to a Washington, D.C. insider to be its next president.

The ESA today announced that founding president Doug Lowenstein will be succeeded by Mike Gallagher, former assistant secretary of commerce for communications and chief telecommunications and policy advisor to the Bush administration.

"Mike's outstanding technology, policy, and government relations experience makes him a strong fit for the ESA, where issues like intellectual property, self-regulation, and industry social and economic contributions are at the forefront of the agenda," said Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft's entertainment and devices division, as well as chair of the ESA board of directors.

In a statement, Gallagher called it a "privilege" to represent the industry and said he looked forward "to working with federal and state leaders to foster an environment where the industry and its consumers can thrive."

The ESA praised Gallagher's previous achievements in the field where government and technology overlap, touting his efforts with the department of commerce to champion ultrawideband, broadband over powerlines, and millimeter wavelength networks.

Gallagher starts later this month, leaving behind his position as communications practice chair at Perkins Coie law firm. He has also served on the board of directors for Web hosting company GoDaddy and has been an adjunct fellow with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which describes itself as "a market-oriented think tank that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy."

91 Comments

  • theKSMM

    Posted Jun 3, 2007 6:42 pm GMT

    I'm glad to see that the ESA recognizes their need for a political insider rather than a game industry veteran. Politicians and others of their ilk are more likely to listen to a slick lobbyist than a game-playing nerd. The notion that someone outside our arena can't adequately represent us is unnecessarily self-limiting.

  • jillwarrior

    Posted May 21, 2007 11:05 am GMT

    best comment so far: "If people like brutalbrian would just keep their mouths shut, the collective intelligence of the gaming world would skyrocket, and we wouldn't sound like raving idiots. " by Berserk_Gamer about a posting by a Dim. AMEN Berserk_Gamer AMEN!

  • Berserk_Gamer

    Posted May 19, 2007 10:59 am GMT

    The only job the guy could get? Are you kidding me? He was head of communications for the entire country. He's probably got job offers left and right. Can you say that brutalbrian? I doubt it. He's got a ton of experience, and probably chose the job he wanted the most. Since Bush hasn't let people just know what you do in your personal life like the Democrats seem to want to do, how does anyone on this website have reason to say he has no experience? To the contrary, he has a ton of experience in the communication industry, and since he has contacts with the FCC, the ESA couldn't have hired a better president. Its time for people to stop saying he isn't qualified because he worked for Bush, and let him start to work for the gamers. If you gave him a chance, he could be the best thing that happened to the gaming industry in a long time. If people like brutalbrian would just keep their mouths shut, the collective intelligence of the gaming world would skyrocket, and we wouldn't sound like raving idiots.

  • langfora

    Posted May 18, 2007 11:23 pm GMT

    i don't care that he was working for President Bush i was hoping that he had experience with gaming which it seems he does not. He has an impressive resume but doesn't seem to be the right fit as a gaming advocate. I was hoping that someone well established in the gaming genre would step up...oh well

  • brutalbrian

    Posted May 18, 2007 11:10 pm GMT

    Okay WTF? Since when is hiring someone responsible for Bush's policies a good idea?

    This is probably the only job this guy could get. Video gaming as you know it will soon come to an end.

  • Belaisdead6

    Posted May 18, 2007 10:16 pm GMT

    man the guy just has douche written all over his stupid face

  • brerrabbit23

    Posted May 18, 2007 12:19 pm GMT

    George Bush is a moron. He's spent his entire life falling up. If you don't get that, you're probably struggling with bigger issues than could ever be addressed on a message board, over the internet. Being a conservative doesn't mean supporting failure.

    Mike Gallagher, otoh, is very likely a good lobbyist, regardless of previous affiliations. A good lobbyist is what the role requires. Give him a shot and see what he does. If he really stinks I'm sure he can find a job somewhere alongside Michael Powell, wherever that genius landed.

  • jillwarrior

    Posted May 18, 2007 8:43 am GMT

    amen Berserk_Gamer you are preaching to the choir here. the dims and their johnny stewart propaganda machine are working great here when you see the dims like soniqstylz posting the usual al-stewart-smally franklin BS. the fact is that bush has done more good for america the last 8 years than clinton ever did.

  • Berserk_Gamer

    Posted May 18, 2007 7:59 am GMT

    As myself and other people pointed out before, its pathetic that you all assume that he's bad just because he worked for Bush. Its idiotic, and you're simply showing your immaturity. Why don't you give him a change like the millions of government workers that Bush gave a break to when he came to office? He left most of the government, even though its his RIGHT to clear it out and put his own people in. And even when he does, such as the attorneys, he's called a political operative. In case anyone forgot, those attorneys served at the pleasure of the President, and it is his right to fire whoever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants, just like Clinton did. And soniqstylz, guess what? Chief telecommunications policy does not wiretapping terrorists, which is done by the NSA. As a liberal poster said earlier,and failed to back up his words, do you homework. maddog95376, you're acting like a child for saying that you "wouldn't trust a soul that worked under this administration". Why don't we just throw all those Enron employees in jail as well since they worked for Enron? It makes as much sense as not trusting anyone who worked for Bush. Your logic is about as developed as a freshman in High School. You're just parroting what you're told to say. Why would he try to regulate the game industry? You don't make sense. It's his job to PREVENT it. Not to mention he has connections within the government to make this easier for him. He also has a successful history of the communications industry. Gamespot forgot to mention this, but he used to work for Verizon Wireless, advising them on how to deal with state policies. He has a vast amount of relevant experience, and will do much to help the industry, if only the peanut gallery would just shut up about it already and let him work.

  • Belaisdead6

    Posted May 18, 2007 7:49 am GMT

    Look anarchism has been greatly demonized and equated with terrorism and chaos, but thats just because anarchism opposes the current system. In actuallity anarchism, of which there is not one single variety, is highly organized, based on unions and such. Your right that I'm not going in to heavy detail, but I don't want to write a book on this forum. Anyway I enjoy debating with you all.

  • maddog95376

    Posted May 18, 2007 12:01 am GMT

    This can't be good. I wouldn't trust a soul that worked under this administration. I just hope to the heavens that there is not some underlying agenda that he will try to push behind closed doors to regulate the game industry.

  • Runningflame570

    Posted May 17, 2007 10:14 pm GMT

    Oh ****ing Christ, next thing you know the ESA will be shut down for defrauding companies of millions of dollars.

  • ketsuatama

    Posted May 17, 2007 9:18 pm GMT

    Yeah, but has he ever played any games? Look like an uncoordinated milquetoast to me!

  • quickhhh

    Posted May 17, 2007 8:23 pm GMT

    ...

  • quickhhh

    Posted May 17, 2007 8:20 pm GMT

    ...

  • soniqstylz

    Posted May 17, 2007 6:51 pm GMT

    This canNOT be a good thing.

    Chief telecommunitcations policy? like, wiretapping? Lovely.

    Ah, God bless the dittoheads.

  • Pete5506

    Posted May 17, 2007 6:42 pm GMT

    Well let us hope this works out for them

  • cjnwo4life

    Posted May 17, 2007 5:42 pm GMT

    I hope he is qualified. That is all!

  • spelledarn

    Posted May 17, 2007 5:17 pm GMT

    I think this is a smart move by the ESA. If you're going to employ someone to fight for more liberty for the gaming industry, you need someone with the right experience and the right contacts.

  • Berserk_Gamer

    Posted May 17, 2007 5:15 pm GMT

    Sure is funny how some users levels are too low to post in this topic.... also how those same users are conservative...

  • link631

    Posted May 17, 2007 5:09 pm GMT

    wow ok

  • jillwarrior

    Posted May 17, 2007 5:03 pm GMT

    oh this is really funny, first gamespot posts this topic then send the republican posters warnings for defending republicans who are under attack!

  • jillwarrior

    Posted May 17, 2007 5:01 pm GMT

    i could see how this could backfire on the ESA, already the frothing dims who have posted here have been spewing nothing but their usual hate mongering at the mention of the word bush. so it shouldnt be surpriseing if the party that supports baby killing attacks the ESA just because someone who worked for bush is the new boss. i also think its HILLARY-AROUS that all of these posers who post that they believe in all these failed idealogues just because they think it makes them cool. when you want to get real then get american and get republican

  • nofxgamer

    Posted May 17, 2007 4:30 pm GMT

    Lets see, anarchism is associated with chaos...because thats what it is, here is a definition of anarchism:

    1.The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2.Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3.Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: "He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity"

    Courtesy of www.dictionary.com

    Now lets see, hmm that doesn't sound like what you are talking about. Anarchists do not like government at all and the reason it is associated with violence is because a lot of time they take violent action instead of non-violent ways. You have your things mixed up and they do teach this in school...you probably just haven't gotten to that grade yet.

    They teach about communism, socialism and the rest of the -isms and all other forms of government, they do not go into GREAT details of each one, but they do go over it enough to make it understandable what each accurately is.

    Again, what you are talking about isn't socialism either, socialism is when a central government controls the social activities and such, where they set the laws and standards for each thing.

    And seriously, why are we ranting here.

  • Takalth

    Posted May 17, 2007 4:29 pm GMT

    Belaisdead6, if you're going to say it, you need to explain it. Communism=Government controls money and business.
    Socialism=Government permits private ownership of money and businesses but uses heavy taxes, regulations, and benefits programs to try to close the gap between rich and poor.

    Libertarianism=Government should have very little control over our lives and should closely match a strict interpretation of the Constitution.


    Somebody may have invented the term libertarian socialism and attached it to some set of beliefs, but it's like calling asians "white African-Americans." It isn't accurate and the two terms blatantly contradict each other, but they chose it anyway. If they label happened to stick, it's because people didn't consider the meaning of the terms.

  • Belaisdead6

    Posted May 17, 2007 4:00 pm GMT

    anarchist/ socialists/libertarian socialist are very much opposed to communism. The trouble is people confuse anarchism with chaos-because its demonized that way- and socialism with communism just as they mix up libertarian socialism and libertarianism, and I'm not blaming anyone its just not taught in schools.
    So thats my speil.

  • Belaisdead6

    Posted May 17, 2007 3:51 pm GMT

    Look anarchists don't like oppressive governments either but not because they would like to see absolutely free markets. Rather limited government is a corrupting influence. So the idea is to replace electoral government with voluntary self participation, everybody participates. That means no CEO's just workers councils. Now that being a lofty goal I don't mind seeing a reform in the current electoral system to allow for more parties, and wouldn't you all like to see numerous parties of both right and left instead of two guys who are more or less the same?

  • Berserk_Gamer

    Posted May 17, 2007 3:42 pm GMT

    Zauster, how about you do your own homework before you tell others to? The_AI is right. Ever heard of the Kyoto treaty? It wants to dictate how we live. Who's behind it? Oh yeah, the Democrats. Have you heard of Affirmative Action, where the government tells you who to hire and how many from each racial group, ect, to hire? Democrats again! Have you ever even had to pay taxes (this one might be tough because it requires a job, gasp!)? How nice of the government to tell you that they have a right to the money you earned to spend it on the betterment of society... again, there's Democrats. Who wants to tell you if you can protect your family or not? Democrats (In case you can't figure this one out, its gun control. Its a proven fact that it doesn't work. (Again, in 1996 there was a shooting in Australia, so they banned guns. What happened in the next two years? Armed robbery rose by 73%, unarmed robbery by 28%, kidnapping by 38%, assault by 17% and manslaughter by 29%)) Big Brother wants you to put your kids in worthless car seats... Repub.. OH! Wrong! Democrats AGAIN! In my state, Washington, 10 out of 14 sponsors of a bill that required car seats for kids as tall as 4'9" (as a side note, what if you're short and older? That would be humiliating for a kid. What a stupid idea) were Democrats! Of course, they don't mention that car seats are "at best, nominally helpful" (Freakonomics, 138 (Hey, I actually did some fact checking! What a first!)). The next time you open your mouth and tell others to do their homework, you better have done your own first. You can't just say "hhmm do your homework before spouting your conservative views", and then provide nothing to back it up. Them's fighting words! You better be able to back what you say up.

    Back to the topic, why are people even worried? When was the last time Bush tried to control your life (Don't even think of saying the PATRIOT Act either, because that doesn't control your life. It applies to surveillance of people who, I don't know, call a number that we know is an Al-Qiada number, or a name we got on a laptop we captured in Afghanistan)? Barring even that ridiculous belief, as nofxgamer said, there's no reason the ESA would hire a new president that was against gaming. It doesn't make sense. Just because he came from the Bush administration doesn't mean he's evil, let alone conservative. Remember when Bush took office? He actually left most of Clinton's government staffers there, something that had never been done before, because he wanted to be nice to the Democrats. What did it get him? Oh not much, he's just called the new Satan by the Democrats. It's pathetic. Everyone's acting like a freaking 8 year old. Give they guy a chance before going all zombie on us with "BU$$$H!!!!11!!1 Evil!!!!!"

  • nofxgamer

    Posted May 17, 2007 3:18 pm GMT

    I love it, this is a gaming website and all I see is political debate...and not good debate either. It seems like half of you are 12 year olds just spreading nonsense.

    I actually don't see this as a bad thing, ok yeah this guy is associated with Bush, but honestly...not all of them are evil.

    Look at it, this isn't part of the government, the ESA has a board of directors who choose these people and the board is comprised of people who make the video game industry (i.e. Microsoft).

    Do you think the BOD would appoint someone who is not going to work on the game side, you think they would employ someone to censor and restrict games which makes their business drop?

    I doubt it, doesn't make a logical move, on top of that, did you even read the article? Look what the guy has done in the past and who he has worked for, I highly doubt this will be a step back for videogames but a step forward and mostly due to this guy having worked in this field before.

  • wwonka666

    Posted May 17, 2007 2:58 pm GMT

    masterswanny To Belaisdead6- Libertarians don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do ever. They basicly want the government to have as little power as possible. Socialism is where the government is in charge of everything, ie health care, economic distribution, and other social programs. They are kind of opposite so how are you both?

    >>>

    The Future is now, socialism is upon us can marshall law be far behind?

  • Belaisdead6

    Posted May 17, 2007 2:55 pm GMT

    Theres more than one definition of libertarianism masterswanny. I suppose libertarian socialism, anarchist, socialist, its all the same.

  • RaiKageRyu

    Posted May 17, 2007 2:30 pm GMT

    Ugh....... bad news?

  • Takalth

    Posted May 17, 2007 2:25 pm GMT

    Many people here seem to be mis-using the word libertarian(masterswanny got it right, though). Perhaps you're confusing libertarian with liberal. Libertarians want MASSIVE cuts in government influence, taxes, and other such. Libertarian and socialist are basically opposite, and their views are sufficiently different from the two main parties and most politicians that a libertarian moderate is also a contradiction.

  • MadGamer132

    Posted May 17, 2007 2:24 pm GMT

    hey it doesn't who they chooses, i hope for the best. please.

  • masterswanny

    Posted May 17, 2007 2:13 pm GMT

    To Belaisdead6- Libertarians don't want the government to tell them what they can and can't do ever. They basicly want the government to have as little power as possible. Socialism is where the government is in charge of everything, ie health care, economic distribution, and other social programs. They are kind of opposite so how are you both?

  • Merl57

    Posted May 17, 2007 2:04 pm GMT

    well he worked for bush. I don't know what that will do.

  • comthitnuong

    Posted May 17, 2007 1:58 pm GMT

    I hope he does some good stuff like Doug.

  • lsmiley

    Posted May 17, 2007 1:55 pm GMT

    I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt right now, however the Bush Admin. does not have a good track record within any Dept. Anyone who stands up for this administration to the very end must be suspect. Anyway, as long as I don't hear any ridiculous ideologies spouted out by this guy, I'll be fine.

  • Zauster

    Posted May 17, 2007 1:50 pm GMT

    wow The_Al your not really too keen on politics are you? the dems want to control everything? hhmm do your homework before spouting your conservative views. Also people always want to censor something and videogames just happen to be front and center, its part of life but luckily we have a thing called the first amendment to help with that. so next time do your homework about what you call yourself and your views

  • The_AI

    Posted May 17, 2007 1:41 pm GMT

    The Democrats want to control everything. They want the government to do everything...

    "The government which governs best governs least," the wise words of Henry David Thoreau... The government needs to stay out of video games. Hillary Clinton and Lieberman don't care about gamers. They only care about a minority group that wants to censor games. CENSORSHIP INDUCES BLINDNESS!! There is Jack, who is conservative, but Jack is an idiot. Idiots are not confined to any political party.

    Again, it's generally Liberals who want to censor games. And before you say I'm ultra conservative, I actually consider myself to be a Moderate Libertarian Conservative... or something like that.

  • tubarao1

    Posted May 17, 2007 1:39 pm GMT

    bush is a a**! like this guy!

  • Belaisdead6

    Posted May 17, 2007 1:37 pm GMT

    When I say I'm a Libertarian socialist it does not mean plain libertarianism, its more one par with anarchism/socialism just to defferentiate. Well, at least you'd like to see more parties. Imagine six, seven, or eight people in a presidential debate, that would be awesome.

  • Takalth

    Posted May 17, 2007 1:29 pm GMT

    If you want the government out of video games, start voting Libertarian. You're not going to get what you want with Democrats or Republicans. No, they won't win the next couple elections, but at the very least, if the two big parties start losing votes to one of the smaller ones, they may start thinking about adopting some of those policies instead of following the same trend of "more government control over our lives" that they have since Roosevelt. If they don't, then maybe the third party will start to gain momentum and actually become a threat.

  • zon7171

    Posted May 17, 2007 1:19 pm GMT

    Wow some people need to calm down...I really doubt this will change anything, being from the Bush administration doesn't mean you stink.

  • YukoAsho

    Posted May 17, 2007 12:51 pm GMT

    lettuceman44 - You have to remember that the average age of the Gamespot user is probably MUCH younger than the average gamer. People with level heads like us are t he old ladies and gentlemen of gaming.

  • Belaisdead6

    Posted May 17, 2007 12:45 pm GMT

    And if you say liberals own the media as in neoliberals your right.

  • makemeweak

    Posted May 17, 2007 12:45 pm GMT

    Why would it matter if he was involved with the Bush administration? Bush never pushed any anti-gaming rights legislation.

    And GunGriffin, you're wrong. Oklahoma (my locale) voted in a Democrat governor and legislature, and they are trying to push unconstitutional anti-gaming rights laws here.

  • Belaisdead6

    Posted May 17, 2007 12:37 pm GMT

    Hey I'm not a spineless democrat! I'm a libertarian socialist!

  • jillwarrior

    Posted May 17, 2007 12:34 pm GMT

    amen natdaddy! the dims are so anti freedom. they just have folks brainwashed since the libs own the media

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!