govt reg exposure

[GoodTaste]

Josh Marshall@joshtpm
2h
My biggest worry about the Post at the moment is that Bezos will just say f*ck this and dump it on some private equity types. Obvs it’s not an attractive business purchase at the moment. And there aren’t that many civic-minded billionaires without a lot of govt reg exposure.
(Source: Twitter. the Post refers to the Washington Post and the author is talking about the current US presidential election)

Of course Tweeter is a source of bad English. But I want to know the meaning of "govt reg exposure" (which appears to stand for "government registration exposure").

What does it mean? I made a wild guess that due to the influence of big money, any billionaire who supports a political candidate with big money, esp. in general election, should be registered in official records of the government to ensure the transparency and fairness; and these records are available to voters of both political sides - this is what is called 'govt reg exposure". I am not very sure.

 

[emsr2d2]

Josh Marshall@joshtpm
2h
My biggest worry about the Post at the moment is that Bezos will just say f*ck this and dump it on some private equity types. Obvs it’s not an attractive business purchase at the moment. And there aren’t that many civic-minded billionaires without a lot of govt reg exposure.
(Source: Twitter)

Of course Tweeter Twitter is not always a source of bad good English no full stop here but I want to know the meaning of "govt reg exposure" (which appears to stand for "government registration exposure").

What does it mean? I made a wild guess that due to the influence of big money, any billionaire who supports a political candidate, especially in a general election, should be registered in official government records of the government to ensure the transparency and fairness, and these records are should be available to voters of both political sides - this is what is called 'govt reg exposure". I am not very sure.

I'll leave it to one of our American users to explain it (I have no idea what it means) but, in the meantime, please note my corrections above.

 

[Tarheel]

Government regulation exposure.

How sure am I? About 95%.

 

[PeterCW]

Government regulation exposure.

How sure am I? About 95%.

I read it as "regulatory" but close enough

 

[Tarheel]

I read it as "regulatory" but close enough

Um, it's the other way around.

BTW, "regs" is short for "regulations".

 

[SoothingDave]

Agree that he means "regulatory." The idea seeming to be that a billionaire wouldn't want to get involved in publishing a newspaper and possibly upsetting the government who regulates his businesses.

 

[SoothingDave]

And considering the amount of regulatory harassment Elon Musk receives from the various agencies, this is a very real concern.

 

[GoodTaste]

And considering the amount of regulatory harassment Elon Musk receives from the various agencies, this is a very real concern.

From your explanation, I understand that the exposure (in "And there aren’t that many civic-minded billionaires without a lot of govt reg exposure.") was made by the billionaires themselves about regulatory harassment they received (such exposure upset regulators because they don't want their regulations come to light). Am I on the right track?

 

[SoothingDave]

No. The billionaires are "exposed" to the regulation of government. Government can change regulations or enforce them selectively in order to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

 

[GoodTaste]

Agree that he means "regulatory." The idea seeming to be that a billionaire wouldn't want to get involved in publishing a newspaper and possibly upsetting the government who regulates his businesses.

In your opinion above, you appeared to say that the exposure was made by billionaires when they get involved in publishing a newspaper, because such exposure (publishing a newspaper) likely upsets regulators. Here, billionaires actively exposed something. This is the reason I made the post #8.

No. The billionaires are "exposed" to the regulation of government. Government can change regulations or enforce them selectively in order to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

OK now billionaires are passively exposed to something regulatory.

So I think I've got an active vs passive picture from you. I don't know how to properly understand you.

 

[Tarheel]

It's not that they are billionaires. That's beside the point. It's the industry they are in. Some are more heavily regulated than others.

 

[SoothingDave]

Forget about publishing newspapers for a moment.

Now think of billionaires who have very many businesses. These businesses are regulated by the government.

The businesses are "exposed" to government regulation. Don't think about "expose" as "to release some damaging information." Think of "exposed" as "not having any protection." Open. Vulnerable. Like if you're caught outside in a thunderstorm and you have nowhere to seek shelter. You are exposed.

Does that make more sense?

Now, if you were one of those billionaires, would you want to publish a newspaper, possibly advancing stories and political news that people in the government may not like? When those very same people can then attack your businesses?