The Federal Trade Commission is one of the most powerful branches of the U.S. government. FTC members have virtually unlimited power to prosecute any individual or business for almost any reason. Thanks to the “administrative” process, 99% of FTC actions are never subject to public scrutiny, judicial review, or even congressional oversight. The five FTC commissioners are one step removed from economic dictators. At least dictators give entertaining speeches.
So it’s laughable that the Senate confirmed two new FTC members yesterday without debate or even a formal vote. The Senate approved Julie Brill and Edith Ramirez as commissioners by “voice vote” — meaning there was no actual vote — and no discussion beyond a perfunctory statement from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. Last year, Ms. Brill and Ms. Ramirez appeared at a confirmation “hearing” with several other random presidential nominees that lasted less then two hours. This is how much scrutiny FTC commissioners get before they’re given the keys to the kingdom.
Incidentally, Ms. Brill is a former assistant attorney general of Vermont, the same state Pat Leahy represents in the Senate. It’s not a coincidence. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz was a staffer for Leahy’s committee before getting his commissionership as a reward. And as Leahy gushed on the Senate floor yesterday,
Ms. Brill has spent much of her professional life working on behalf of the people of Vermont, and I look forward to continuing to work with her as she helps to advance Chairman Leibowitz’s active agenda. I know her family, and was delighted to introduce her at her confirmation hearing. I congratulate Ms. Brill on her confirmation.
So she’s a friend of Leahy and supports an “active agenda.” Those are the only qualifications you need to sit on the FTC and control virtually every aspect of the American economy. Here’s to central planning!
(For those of you keeping score, Ms. Brill succeeds Pamela Jones Harbour, whose term actually expired last September; Ms. Ramirez assumes a seat that’s been vacant since the Bush administration.)
{ 12 comments }
These blog posts about the FTC never fail to disgust me. What an ugly, unchecked, unconstitutional abomination this organization is. Why does no one in the media or in politics ever notice, or care?
“The Senate approved … by “voice vote” — meaning there was no actual vote”
You need to study parliamentary procedure. A voice vote IS a vote. There is nothing wrong with a voice vote. Its the default way to take a vote UNLESS an org has a rule that disallows it. If its not clear as to the outcome of a voice vote, a raising vote can be taken. It, too, is NOT counted.
Now, I do not know what the rules are of the Senate to know if they allow for a voice vote. If they do, there was nothing wrong with them doing so.
Just for confirmation, here’s the video:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292348-1 (slider time: ~625:30)
You’ll notice that S.M. Olivia is right, it’s at the very end of the session (~8pm) and there doesn’t appear to be more than 10 people in the room (most of which appear to be staffers or clerks).
MB —
I know my parliamentary procedure, thank you very much. Here’s an exact transcript of what transpired yesterday on the Senate floor:
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 603, 604, 610, 625, 629, 630, and 700 so that the nominees be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
So, the Senate didn’t even put it up to an actual voice vote as Robert’s Rules envisioned. It was just a package of “unanimous consent” requests that nobody objected to. My guess is there weren’t many senators in the chamber at the time, probably not a quorum. You want to call this a legitimate “vote,” fine, but I think my underlying argument stands unrefuted.
You tried to claim that a voice vote was not a true vote, which isn’t so. That’s what my point was.
If you want to condemn what the Senate did and say it wasn’t proper, I won’t disagree with that. It certainly sounds like it was not proper. If there was no quorum, it was not a proper vote, regardless of the method.
For myself, I prefer that bodies like the US Congress take a roll call vote on everything, to ensure fairness and so we know how the vote goes. But I’m not that knowledgable about the parliamentary rules they follow.
BTW, they don’t follow Robert’s Rules, nor should they. They follow a modified version of Jefferson’s Rules, which itself was based on parliamentary procedure as practiced in England. Robert’s is based on parliamentary procedure as practiced in non-government bodies.
Skip I remember reading a very good article a while back on regulatory law, I wish I could find it again. The gist of it was that branches of government like FTC, FCC, etc can prosecute people under laws that do not require passage by an elected body, they can not give you a criminal conviction or jail time but can impose fines which if you do not pay will result in you being jailed for contempt, you have no right to a trial by your peers, a few other disgusting things.
Its no better here in Canada, plus we have the Human Rights Commisssion hauling people before tribunals where the judge and prosecuter are the same person.
Note that MB merely changes the subject, he ignores the main point in your article, thats all
statists can do when shown what a horror story government now is.
“The gist of it was that branches of government like FTC, FCC, etc can prosecute people under laws that do not require passage by an elected body, they can not give you a criminal conviction or jail time but can impose fines which if you do not pay will result in you being jailed for contempt, you have no right to a trial by your peers, a few other disgusting things.”
You can get around contempt.
mikey —
I can say with respect to the FTC, things are actually getting worse. The FTC had two administrative law judges who actually exerted independent judgment on occasion, dismissing four FTC staff complaints in the past few years. The FTC’s response? Removing the ALJs from certain cases and replacing them with FTC commissioners — ostensibly because the commissioners have more “experience” with complex antitrust matters.
If I ever want to stir things up a bit, I just mention the fact that there are no actual checks built into the US constitution. As far as I can tell, there is no way to check our federal government without creating another entire federal government. People don’t seem to enjoy my point of view for some reason. Go figure.
The old school media will never bite the hand that controls it!
That is the definition of corruption and MUST BE STOPPED!
NOW!
I’d love to be pointed to an article that gives some good detail in describing the FTC regulation enforcement process. I tried Olivia’s but while I got lots of good tidbits, I didn’t find anything that just described the basic process.
There probably is none on paper. I would challenge anyone to find a statute requiring anyone to comply with them.
Comments on this entry are closed.