Vice President Kamala Harris finds herself in a unique position as she campaigns for the presidency, with the potential to reshape key economic regulatory agencies should she win in November. Unlike President Joe Biden, who made commitments to Senator Elizabeth Warren during the 2020 campaign that influenced appointments to bodies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Harris enters the race unencumbered by such promises.
Biden’s agreement with Warren led to the appointments of Lina Khan as FTC chair and Gary Gensler to head the SEC. These choices have been praised by economic progressives but have drawn criticism from many in the business community. Now, with Harris at the helm of the Democratic ticket, industry leaders are hopeful for a shift in regulatory approach.
Harris, who has deep ties to California’s tech industry, is
positioning herself as a pro-business candidate with a nuanced understanding of the sector. This stance has garnered support from venture capitalists and corporate executives, nearly 100 of whom recently endorsed her in a joint letter.
Many of Harris’s supporters in the business world are particularly focused on potential appointments to regulatory agencies. They express a desire for leaders who can effectively balance regulation with innovation, especially in areas like cryptocurrency regulation where clear guidelines are sought.
Chris Larsen, founder of blockchain company Ripple and a Harris endorser, told Business Insider he hopes for appointees “not pre-selected by the Warren camp” who can protect consumers while ensuring American companies maintain global industry dominance. Similarly, Christian Catalini of MIT’s Cryptoeconomics Lab criticized Gensler’s “reluctance to engage in constructive dialogue with startups seeking regulatory clarity.”
Mark Cuban, billionaire investor and Dallas Mavericks owner, has even suggested himself for a role at the SEC. He believes Harris is likely to involve more individuals from the private sector in her
administration compared to Biden.
However, Harris has remained relatively quiet about her views on antitrust enforcement and potential appointments. The current terms of Khan and Gensler extend into the next presidential term, with Khan’s ending in September and Gensler’s in June 2026.
William Kovacic, former FTC chair, notes that Harris’s relationship with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party remains unclear. Her level of commitment to their priorities could influence her approach to appointments and regulatory policy.
Adam Kovacevich, a Democratic lobbyist, suggests Harris may not need to cater to Warren supporters and could potentially “reset” the regulatory environment to a more business-friendly approach
reminiscent of the Obama era.
The relationship between Harris and Warren has been tense at times, with Warren giving a lukewarm response when asked about Harris’s place on the ticket in early 2023. This history, combined with Harris’s business world connections, has led some economic progressives to question her commitment to aggressive regulation.
As the election approaches, the question of regulatory appointments looms large for many in the business and tech sectors. Leaders in these industries emphasize the importance of having experienced, competent individuals in key positions to address critical policy issues related to emerging technologies and industries.
With just 50 days until the election, Harris’s specific plans for regulatory agencies remain unclear. Unbound by previous campaign promises but navigating competing factions within her party, she has the potential to usher in a new regulatory era. However, given that regulatory appointments rarely make for effective campaign rhetoric, voters may have to wait until after the election to learn her true intentions.