Pay FTC Attorneys, Economists More, Phillips Says
FTC attorneys should be paid as much as Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board officials, FTC Commissioner Noah Phillips said Tuesday. He agreed with ex-FTC Chairman William Kovacic, who noted financial regulation attorneys and economists make about 20% more than FTC officials in similar roles.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The FTC deals with important, sophisticated issues, just like financial regulators, Phillips said at an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation event. He noted the head of the PCAOB is the highest-paid federal employee. The PCAOB is a private-sector, nonprofit corporation created through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
The U.S. wants Mercedes-level FTC enforcement yet is willing to pay for a Chevy, said Kovacic, now a George Washington University law professor. If the commission were given more resources -- as Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and others discussed (see 2103100058) -- Kovacic said he would pay a smaller number of people a higher wage, to retain talent.
Phillips noted that in two recent legislative efforts, the FTC received more funding. That's helpful, and it “could use more money still.” It’s less about courts and statutes and more about “simply covering the field,” he said, noting the agency makes hard decisions based on current resources.
Both speakers addressed reported FTC nominee Lina Khan (see 2103090057). She’s part of a community that over the past 20 years advocated fundamental transformation of competition law and policy, said Kovacic. President Joe Biden's appointees are giving voices for basic adjustments with the system, he added: “Transformationalists” will continue to change the stream of policy, it has had a significant impact, and traditionalists have been outflanked.
Phillips warned about politicization of antitrust policy, saying part of what’s going on is a broader political conversation that uses language of competition law. Much of the debate has to do with Americans distrusting size and power of companies, said Phillips: It’s not only a quibble with competition. The word "monopoly" has come to mean a “big company doing things I don’t like,” he said. It’s a good way to speak about the suspicion of large companies, he added. Phillips is “very pessimistic” about antitrust fulfilling all the promise that many advocates are discussing. Some in Congress see competition law as essential to solve privacy issues, he said. Phillips said competition and privacy sometimes line up, but if it’s solely a privacy issue, use a privacy regime to fix it. Breaking companies up is often a popular proposal, he said: People don’t get excited when Congress suggests fines or new taxes. They “love” to see the most extreme remedy, he said.
Kovacic is open to adjustments through legislation to reaffirm the FTC as a litigant, separating its cases from private lawsuits. He said the judiciary often views FTC cases with the same skepticism as private lawsuits. Whether Congress should change antitrust laws, though, depends on what you want to achieve, said Phillips. He warned that sometimes the conversation is held at a general level of reining in tech gatekeepers.