On September 10, 2024, an article in the politics section discussed the pressure on Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris from wealthy donors to abandon the Biden administration’s regulatory stance on corporate power. With two months until the November election, many Americans are still undecided about Harris’s candidacy. A recent poll by The New York Times found Harris and Donald Trump in a close race, with 28 percent of likely voters wanting to know more about Harris, compared to only 9 percent for Trump.
Harris’s potential advantage lies in her ability to convey clear messages, particularly on how she would address corporate influence in the U.S. economy and politics. Polling over the years indicates strong public support for government action against corporate monopolies, price inflation, and non-competitive practices. An August poll highlighted that over 80 percent of likely voters favor government measures to lower drug prices, investigate oil companies, enforce right-to-repair rules, and ban noncompete agreements.
The Harris campaign’s policy statement, “New Way Forward,” emphasizes her intention to combat anti-competitive practices and corporate exploitation. The policy includes a proposed federal ban on corporate price gouging of food and groceries, building on existing state statutes.
However, significant Democratic donors are pressing Harris to tone down her anti-monopoly rhetoric and to consider replacing key regulators like FTC Chair Lina Khan and SEC Chair Gary Gensler. These officials have been pivotal in the Biden administration’s efforts to regulate corporate power, but face criticism from major donors. For example, Lina Khan has been cited as impeding the technology sector and other parts of the economy, while Gensler has faced pushback from figures like billionaire Mark Cuban over the SEC’s regulatory actions regarding crypto exchanges.
The article implies that Harris should publicly defend these regulators and assert her stance against corporate influences to attract voters who seek a candidate willing to oppose powerful corporate interests. Drawing a parallel to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s approach in the 1930s, it argues that Harris needs to clearly position herself as a leader committed to holding corporate powers accountable.
In conclusion, the article suggests that for Harris to secure a strong mandate, she must resist donor pressures and champion the regulatory accomplishments of the current administration.
