LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman has a request for Vice President Kamala Harris, should she become president: replace Lina Khan as head of the Federal Trade Commission. Khan is “waging war on American business,” he told CNN last week. Hoffman, to be clear, is not just another man with an opinion. The billionaire and political megadonor donated $10 million to the Biden-Harris campaign, pushed his peers to do the same and is planning on a major fundraising push in Silicon Valley for Harris. And his public demand to oust Khan is the latest sign America’s billionaires need to be reminded that government policy shouldn’t be dictated by those with the largest checkbook.
The Biden administration has been the most pro-worker and pro-consumer presidential administration in decades. That charge has been led, in part, by Khan. In her tenure as FTC chair, Khan has spearheaded efforts to block mergers that could result in monopolies in sectors ranging from big tech to grocery stores, and she has stood up for worker rights by moving to ban widely reviled noncompete agreements. It’s no surprise then that after Hoffman made his demand, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the Service Employees International Union came to Khan’s defense.
Khan’s pro-consumer, pro-worker, anti-monopoly agenda has attracted no small amount of hate from powerful and monied interests.
This is a very democratic — with a small d — agenda. It is about freedom — the freedom to start a business and not worry about anti-competitive practices from deep-pocketed rivals, the freedom from unaccountable businesses that have no market incentives to worry about the needs and rights of their customers, and the freedom for workers to move jobs as they wish.
It also happens to be a popular agenda — that is, with everyone but the most powerful. Khan’s pro-consumer, pro-worker, anti-monopoly agenda has attracted no small amount of hate from powerful and monied interests. Since Khan became FTC chair just over three years ago, the Wall Street Journal opinion page has printed more than 100 opinion pieces ranting about her record — an average of one screed every 11 days. Billionaires regularly take to CNBC to complain about her record; on Monday, media mogul Barry Diller referred to her as “a dope” and said that, if Harris wins, he would lobby her for Khan’s removal.
These plutocrats are speaking up, in part, because Harris’ opinions on Khan are largely unknown. But their opening and influence would be much less if it wasn’t for our campaign financing system, which privileges access to money over the power of the ballot box. A study by Martin Gilens at Princeton University and Benjamin Page at Northwestern University confirmed that government action is much more likely to reflect the wants and sentiments of wealthy Americans and corporate interests than actual majority sentiment.
Americans hate this reality. It’s a large part of why former President Donald Trump was able to ride “drain the swamp” to the White House in 2016. But it’s also a part of the reason he got tossed in 2020. Instead of draining the swamp, he appointed the wealthiest Cabinet in American history and opened up the spigots for those who sought to influence his administration.
But the power of the corporate purse also helps explain why Democrats quickly embraced any business leader who spoke up and took on Trump. Seeking allies against Trump, it was a natural next step to elevate prominent business leaders who said they didn’t support his administration or re-election. Anti-Trump forces even celebrated Elon Musk when he resigned from a Trump business advisory council after the former president walked away from the Paris climate accords. As we know, Musk soon resumed his right-ward trajectory. Others who were quick to condemn Trump in the wake of Jan. 6, have also made their way back to supporting the former president, seemingly because he’s promising tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks.
Money talks in both our culture and, the more money, the louder the voice. Take, for example, how voter concerns about Biden’s advanced age were largely ignored — until, that is, his shocking June debate performance led donors who had previously backed Biden’s re-election effort to shut their wallets.
… the real issue is that the legalized corruption that is the U.S. campaign financing system is hardly a way to run an effective and democratic government.
As for Trump, he barely mentions “drain the swamp” these days. He instead is campaigning on a grab bag of grievances, even as he privately visits major donors, tin cup in one hand and a for-sale sign in the other. Earlier this year, according to The Washington Post, he all but promised to do away with a laundry list of policies and regulations reviled by the fossil fuel companies if, in turn, their executives raised $1 billion for his campaign.
All this explains why the wealthiest Americans are increasingly used to getting their way no matter what party is in charge — and why they are so quick to get offended when thwarted.
Hoffman’s got other beefs too — he’s also made it known he would like to see tariffs imposed under both Trump and Biden rolled back. Taken together, this brazenness leaves Harris in a terrible position. While she should keep Khan on, if she wins and decides, for whatever reason, to replace the current FTC chair, it will look like she is doing the bidding of billionaires. Calls for Harris to return Hoffman’s money, on the other hand, don’t solve the underlying problem either. Not only would it be hard to know what to give back, but Hoffman’s case raises contributions from many other donors.
And the real issue is that the legalized corruption that is the U.S. campaign financing system is hardly a way to run an effective and democratic government. Until that changes, nothing else will.
