3 ms·
This is par for the course in most government agencies that regulate private business. The SEC gets tons of press and scrutiny (and it happens anyway!) but ther
by seibelj 6y ago
This is par for the course in most government agencies that regulate private business. The SEC gets tons of press and scrutiny (and it happens anyway!) but there are innumerable government agencies with similar issues. You can also downvote me, but anyone who has worked deeply with the government from the private sector is full of WTF stories.
- whimsicalism 6y agoIt is common, but I would not go so far as to say "par for the course". Nor does the SEC get "tons of press and scrutiny" - indeed, you can see all of the positive op-eds written in places like the NYT and WaPo about Mary Jo White's appointment (with a few notable dissenters in Salon like Matt Taibi). In the EPA, for instance, this was Obama's appointee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_McCarthy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_McCarthy. No significant industry ties. Here's another one of Obama's picks for FDA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamburg . Again, no significant industry ties.
- irl_zebra 6y agoI did downvote you because you said I could, but this is absolutely true. But, it kind of should be true. Government employees need to strongly know the industry they’re regulating to regulate effectively. I can’t imagine someone with zero financial ties and only knowledge from school going to direct how the SEC does investigations any more than I can imagine the same happening at the FDA. I don’t think there should be so much regulatory capture (there is), but I do think a revolving door of sorts for many positions is helpful from a perspective of knowing the regulated industry and acting with the best knowledge of regulating that industry.