Skip Navigation
Politics @beehaw.org memfree @beehaw.org

[Stay Tuned]Two billionaire Harris donors hope she will fire FTC Chair Lina Khan

www.reuters.com /world/us/two-billionaire-harris-donors-hope-she-will-fire-ftc-chair-lina-khan-2024-07-26/

Khan has been at the forefront of the Biden administration's push to use U.S. antitrust law to boost competition and address high prices and low wages. Khan, who oversaw the FTC's ban on noncompete agreements, has drawn the ire of corporate groups, but won fans including Donald Trump's running mate, JD Vance, for her skepticism towards big business.

Now, big money Democratic donors this week publicly said Khan should not be part of a potential Harris administration.

Prominent Democratic senators have spoken out in support of Khan, including senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Warren said on Friday that Khan should continue her work, calling it "a big reason the economy is growing strong as we saw with yesterday's GDP data."

-- or as Matt Stoller puts it in his 'BIG' (regarding one of the two, Hoffman):

Ok, so it’s pretty stunning for an oligarch like Hoffman, with a net worth of a couple billion dollars, to publicly make such a demand. So why is he doing it? One reason is that there’s a lot of money involved. As the Lever reported, Hoffman is on the board of Microsoft, which is right now being sued and investigated by the FTC. It’s a pretty good gig, if you get to fire the law enforcer investigating your misdeeds.

and thinks it likely that:

he’s going to supply the financing for Harris’ campaign if she does what she’s told.

In other words, democracy really is on the ballot, but not in the way people imagine. An oligarch has explicitly and openly taken over policy because it conflicts with his small faction’s control of American society. And so far, most political leaders are silent.

The only upside here is that Hoffman is being very public, aggressive, and explicit about his demands. And he’s going to corner Harris until she kisses the ring, or refuses to do so. From his perspective, he’s not donating $10 million, he’s making a purchase. Or so he thinks. Now it’s up to Harris to make the choice.

3
3 comments

  • Here's hoping Harris uses the weight of the presidency to push for a breakup of Microsoft.

  • EDIT: OK so this is actually more complicated than I thought. Parts of what I said originally are wrong. Sorry; let me see if I can correct this.

    • Khan's term actually ends Sept 2024; I thought she was appointed to a full 7yr term; she was not.
    • Rather, she replaced former FTC chair, Joseph Simons, so she's finishing out his 7yr term.
    • Additionally, the president can designate a new Chair at anytime, without senate confirmation, as long as the president picks a current commissioner.
    • Lina Khan was not a current commissioner, which was why she was confirmed by the Senate in 2021.
    • If the Chair role is removed from a commissioner, that person reverts back to a regular commissioner.
    • But the Chair obviously sets the tone and direction of the FTC and can appoint people to certain positions within the agency, so it's a powerful role.
    • If a commissioner or chair's term ends, it is possible for them to continue in that role until a new commissioner or chair is selected (Source) .

    So that's why these billionaires are asking for this now. Because Khan will probably remain in her chair role beyond the election, until she's replaced. If Harris wins, Hoffman and Diller are expecting Harris and Dems to "make good" on their "purchase" and to select a new chair. Still ridiculous.

    How easy is it for a president to remove a chair of the FTC? Decided to look into this.

    FTC commissioners serve 7yr terms. Khan was only appointed and confirmed by the Senate in 2021. So she should be there until 2028, unless she resigns.

    Additionally, the FTC is an independent regulatory agency (versus an independent executive agency). So it sorta exists "outside" of the executive branch. In terms of firing commissioners (chair or not), independent regulatory agencies commissioners can't be fired at will:

    Presidential attempts to remove independent agency officials have generated most of the important Supreme Court legal opinions in this area.[9] In 1935, the Supreme Court in the case of Humphrey's Executor v. United States decided that although the president had the power to remove officials from agencies that were "an arm or an eye of the executive", it upheld statutory limitations on the president's power to remove officers of administrative bodies that performed quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, such as the Federal Trade Commission.[1]: 142  Presidents normally do have the authority to remove regular executive agency heads at will, but they must meet the statutory requirements for removal of commissioners of independent agencies, such as demonstrating incapacity, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or other good cause.[10]

    Source: Wikipedia.

    So there is some due process there. The president can't just demand a commissioner of these kinds of agencies, like the FTC, to resign. I guess, a president could technically demand it (as it happened in this case that got to SCOTUS), but the commissioner is under no obligation to follow through. I'm sure there are legal ways to pressure a commissioner into resigning, and a presidential administration could lie and claim one of those reasons for dismissal. But again, there's at least due process. As far as resigning, Khan doesn't strike me as a kind of person who'd just roll over, especially given who and what the FTC has been going after lately.

    All that to say...it seems really stupid for Diller and Hoffman to demand this. Especially so publicly. Aside from the anti-consumer angles, it's not even a slam dunk for a president to dismiss a sitting commissioner of an independent regulatory agency. Plus, this at a time when even Republicans seem to be turning on big business at times (though it's hard to say what Republicans are for or against these days and with whom). Obviously, liberals and many Democrats have been shouting for more business regulation and consumer protections for years, decades, now. So the public is definitely on the side of, well, the public. So why do this so publicly?

    I guess just typical billionaires thinking they can throw money around and expect things will happen how they want.