4 ms·

The FTC is an independent federal agency, and the President doesn't have the same amount of control over it that he has over federal executive departments. For

The FTC is an independent federal agency, and the President doesn't have the same amount of control over it that he has over federal executive departments. For example, the President could fire the Secretary of Labor at any time, for any purpose, because executive department heads serve "at the pleasure of the President." The same is not true for FTC commissioners, who are statutorily protected from firing except for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." SCOTUS held in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) that an FTC commissioner could not be removed by the President for policy reasons, because it was explicitly granted non-executive powers by Congress. His power to issue Executive Orders to independent agencies is unclear, and often Presidents will "recommend" they do things, rather than "direct" them, as he would an executive department.

tablespoon 4y ago
>> It sounds good as long as the White House doesn't try to use the FTC as a political weapon to disadvantage their opponents. Like going after Amazon for their union stance or Facebook for their censorship stance. > The FTC is an independent federal agency, and the President doesn't have the same amount of control over it that he has over federal executive departments. Isn't that the same as the FCC? We all know what happened with it and Net Neutrality during the Trump administration. If it's staffed/led by the right people, it could act as a semi-autonomous political weapon.
- madeofpalk 4y ago
  You think Trump lead the repeal of Net Neutrality?
  - dmix 4y ago
    Fortunately most of the worst examples the anti-net neutrality crowd used never made sense from both a business model and technology perspective. Trying to turn the internet into tiered internet packages like early 2000s cable companies offered would be a disaster even without neutrality laws. There's probably a reason the only real-life example in history that Wikipedia lists was some bottom-of-the-barrel Portuguese mobile network that experimented with a discount plan that never took off. The lobbyists either bought into the bullshit benefits like everyone else or more likely were just taking the default anti-gov interference position. The internet is so far from ever being the extremely limited centralized platforms that cable offerings were that the analogies never made sense if you spent any amount of time considering them.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  It's difficult to staff with people who don't have opinions, and sometimes those opinions coincide with or bend towards other nexuses of power. But finding an uncorruptible, unopinionated, independently-minded civil servant... who also values service over salary... is a pretty tough ask. ;)
  - acdha 4y ago
    There’s a difference between having opinions while sharing the goal of having a functional system and being Ajit Pai. There are many civil servants who put aside their personal politics trying to make the government succeed.
    - favorited 4y ago
      You're not wrong, but it's important to remember that Ajit Pai was not a civil servant – he was a political appointee. Civil servants are career government employees, whose jobs are not tied to an election, administration, or term in office. Civil servants necessarily put their own personal politics aside, because in all likelihood they will serve under several different political administrations. That is not the case, nor the expectation, for political appointees.
      - acdha 4y ago
        Good clarification — I was thinking the appointee level because this thread was talking about the overall direction of the FTC, and I was looking for a comparison which most people here would be familiar with where you could see the difference between people who differ in priorities versus those who seem to think the agency should not exist. I should have clarified that my next sentence was switching to refer to the people who implement policies set by the senior levels: there are many people who do not agree with all of those decisions but will try their best to implement them because they want to make the country more successful or believe that a law needs to be enforced even if someone on their side broke it.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  We all know that a sample size of 1 can prove anything.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    Less well known: it only requires one exception to prove a proposition false. Not to mention: individual citizens have next to no insight into what really happens within various governmental agencies. And culturally, the tendency is to assume that one's preferred beliefs are true.
- deviantbit 4y ago
  Don't kid yourself, this is being weaponized. Anytime the government does anything, it is not to help you or me. It will be used in ways not intended. The Sherman Act has been used by many politicians to go after their political advisories. If the FTC wants to do this, then they need to go after the banks for their anticompetitive practices. How about Apple? In the 90s, Janet Reno went after Bill Gates. It wasn't because of the browser in Windows. It was a result of Microsoft's reach into Congress, helping turn Congress over to the Republicans. Microsoft's execs didn't want the tax increases that were coming, so they went all in for Republicans. After the election, Reno directed the DOJ to prosecute M$. What a circus that was to see. Then, you know what really hit the fan, Microsoft backed Dave Stirling in California. Democrats were going to do anything they could to destroy M$. Can you imagine someone going after Google, or Apple, because they won't let others put software on their devices? How anticompetitive is the Apple Store? Can I please remove Chrome off my Chromebook, and use Firefox? Google and Apple donate heavily to Democrats, as does Microsoft today. You're not going to see it used where it needs to be, related to technology, IMHO. I'm not picking on Democrats, there are plenty of anticompetitive right leaning companies as well (The Banks, Oil & Gas Industry, Agriculture...).
  - joe_guy 4y ago
    fyi, arguments become immediately less convincing when they include "m$" (or make a lot of politically one sided claims without citation)
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      > fyi, arguments become immediately less convincing when they include "m$" OK... but deviantbit's comment clearly presents Microsoft as the victim of corrupt government officials, which isn't really compatible with calling it M$. It seems more likely that the use of M$ in "Democrats were going to do anything they could to destroy M$" is to present M$ as a label given to Microsoft by the Democrats in order to make it easier to attack. He's trying to tell you that arguments based on the epithet "M$" are or should be unconvincing.
    - deviantbit 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago

>> It sounds good as long as the White House doesn't try to use the FTC as a political weapon to disadvantage their opponents. Like going after Amazon for their union stance or Facebook for their censorship stance. > The FTC is an independent federal agency, and the President doesn't have the same amount of control over it that he has over federal executive departments. Isn't that the same as the FCC? We all know what happened with it and Net Neutrality during the Trump administration. If it's staffed/led by the right people, it could act as a semi-autonomous political weapon.

madeofpalk 4y ago
You think Trump lead the repeal of Net Neutrality?
- dmix 4y ago
  Fortunately most of the worst examples the anti-net neutrality crowd used never made sense from both a business model and technology perspective. Trying to turn the internet into tiered internet packages like early 2000s cable companies offered would be a disaster even without neutrality laws. There's probably a reason the only real-life example in history that Wikipedia lists was some bottom-of-the-barrel Portuguese mobile network that experimented with a discount plan that never took off. The lobbyists either bought into the bullshit benefits like everyone else or more likely were just taking the default anti-gov interference position. The internet is so far from ever being the extremely limited centralized platforms that cable offerings were that the analogies never made sense if you spent any amount of time considering them.
ethbr0 4y ago
It's difficult to staff with people who don't have opinions, and sometimes those opinions coincide with or bend towards other nexuses of power. But finding an uncorruptible, unopinionated, independently-minded civil servant... who also values service over salary... is a pretty tough ask. ;)
- acdha 4y ago
  There’s a difference between having opinions while sharing the goal of having a functional system and being Ajit Pai. There are many civil servants who put aside their personal politics trying to make the government succeed.
  - favorited 4y ago
    You're not wrong, but it's important to remember that Ajit Pai was not a civil servant – he was a political appointee. Civil servants are career government employees, whose jobs are not tied to an election, administration, or term in office. Civil servants necessarily put their own personal politics aside, because in all likelihood they will serve under several different political administrations. That is not the case, nor the expectation, for political appointees.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Good clarification — I was thinking the appointee level because this thread was talking about the overall direction of the FTC, and I was looking for a comparison which most people here would be familiar with where you could see the difference between people who differ in priorities versus those who seem to think the agency should not exist. I should have clarified that my next sentence was switching to refer to the people who implement policies set by the senior levels: there are many people who do not agree with all of those decisions but will try their best to implement them because they want to make the country more successful or believe that a law needs to be enforced even if someone on their side broke it.
BurningFrog 4y ago
We all know that a sample size of 1 can prove anything.
- mistermann 4y ago
  Less well known: it only requires one exception to prove a proposition false. Not to mention: individual citizens have next to no insight into what really happens within various governmental agencies. And culturally, the tendency is to assume that one's preferred beliefs are true.
deviantbit 4y ago
Don't kid yourself, this is being weaponized. Anytime the government does anything, it is not to help you or me. It will be used in ways not intended. The Sherman Act has been used by many politicians to go after their political advisories. If the FTC wants to do this, then they need to go after the banks for their anticompetitive practices. How about Apple? In the 90s, Janet Reno went after Bill Gates. It wasn't because of the browser in Windows. It was a result of Microsoft's reach into Congress, helping turn Congress over to the Republicans. Microsoft's execs didn't want the tax increases that were coming, so they went all in for Republicans. After the election, Reno directed the DOJ to prosecute M$. What a circus that was to see. Then, you know what really hit the fan, Microsoft backed Dave Stirling in California. Democrats were going to do anything they could to destroy M$. Can you imagine someone going after Google, or Apple, because they won't let others put software on their devices? How anticompetitive is the Apple Store? Can I please remove Chrome off my Chromebook, and use Firefox? Google and Apple donate heavily to Democrats, as does Microsoft today. You're not going to see it used where it needs to be, related to technology, IMHO. I'm not picking on Democrats, there are plenty of anticompetitive right leaning companies as well (The Banks, Oil & Gas Industry, Agriculture...).
- joe_guy 4y ago
  fyi, arguments become immediately less convincing when they include "m$" (or make a lot of politically one sided claims without citation)
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > fyi, arguments become immediately less convincing when they include "m$" OK... but deviantbit's comment clearly presents Microsoft as the victim of corrupt government officials, which isn't really compatible with calling it M$. It seems more likely that the use of M$ in "Democrats were going to do anything they could to destroy M$" is to present M$ as a label given to Microsoft by the Democrats in order to make it easier to attack. He's trying to tell you that arguments based on the epithet "M$" are or should be unconvincing.
  - deviantbit 4y ago