With a presidential election looming, many are still weighing how they will vote for at the top of the ticket.
Polls suggest that Americans are not especially thrilled with the choices before them.
I can’t tell you who to vote for, but I can add this important factor: A president makes around 4,000 political appointments, 1,200 of which require U.S. Senate confirmation.
So while it’s easiest to view a presidential election as a popularity contest, in reality you are voting for a team of 4,000 appointees who will be wielding the levers of federal power.
In the 2020 election, the American people chose a team that believed in massive expansion of federal spending, federal regulation, and federal intervention in the economy.
And it mattered.
One such example is Biden appointee Lina Khan, chosen to head the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Under recent administrations, both Republican and Democratic, the FTC has generally stayed within its limitations with the understanding that the American people generally want a free-market economy.
Not so with the Biden administration and Lina Khan.
Under Ms. Khan, the FTC has pursued a hyper-aggressive intervention into the economy, launching lawsuits that in some cases have not even been supported by senior FTC staff.
In her remarks at the 2023 The New York Times "DealBook Summit," Khan openly endorsed aggressive enforcement tactics over more measured approaches.
However, this strategy has backfired, causing the agency to exceed its authority, lose multiple court battles, and implement unnecessary regulations that threaten the nation's economic well-being.
In the almost three years since she became chair, the FTC has failed to win a single merger challenge it brought to court. This losing streak has spanned high-profile cases such as Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard, Meta's acquisition of Within, and Illumina's acquisition of Grail.
But agencies like the FTC can launch rulemakings that don’t require court approval, and Khan has been similarly aggressive in that sphere.
A good example is the FTC's proposed rule to ban junk fees.
This rulemaking overlooks the important role these fees play in enabling businesses to offer customers a wider array of options.
Take airlines, for example — by charging baggage and seat selection fees, they can keep base ticket prices lower, making air-travel more accessible to a broader range of flyers.
Without these fees, airlines would need to raise base fares, pricing out many cost-sensitive customers. The same principle applies to fees charged by banks, cable providers, event venues, and other businesses — the extra charges enable them to maintain a diverse array of service tiers and packages to cater to different customer needs and preferences.
Ultimately, these fees are not a deceptive tactic to extract small amounts of money from consumers, but a practical mechanism that fuels business competition and consumer choice.
Furthermore, a February 2024 report by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee noted that the Chairwoman wanted to appear "aggressive" but was actually acting "with little regard for the consequences of losing in a way that negatively affects the enforcement agenda."
Clearly, under the chair's leadership, the agency has prioritized her personal and political agenda over protecting American consumers from scams, fraudsters, and other harms.
The FTC's misguided priorities risk undermining the competitiveness that fuels our nation's prosperity. It's time for the FTC to realign its mission and refrain from overreaching into areas beyond its purview. Instead of trying to run the economy according to Khan’s preferences, the FTC must return to protecting consumers from actual, demonstrable harms.
That won’t happen under a Harris-Walz administration, but it might not happen under a Trump administration, either.
While Kamala Harris has obviously endorsed Khan’s actions, Trump’s vice presidential pick Sen JD Vance, R-Ohio, has also expressed support for many of Khan’s actions.
Still, administrative rulemakings are subject to challenge in the courts, and courts have become accustomed to rejecting Khan’s arguments.
The real lesson is that if voters elect leaders that believe in expanding government power, that’s exactly what they will get.