Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Regulating the regulators

Regulating the regulators

It stands to question the judicial branch's role in the day-to-day happenings of government

Getty Images

William Natbony is an attorney and business executive specializing in investment management, finance, business law and taxation. He is the author of The Lonely Realist, a blog directed at bridging the partisan gap by raising questions and making pointed observations about politics, economics, international relations and markets.

Ronald Reagan famously said, “If you want more of something, subsidize it. If you want less, tax it.” He could have added, “And if you want to further a political agenda, appoint appropriate regulators.”


Regulation is the easiest way to implement partisan policies, and the Supreme Court this term (in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) will decide whether regulators indeed should have the final say in broadly or narrowly interpreting laws passed by Congress…, a tug-of-war between partisan policy-making, constitutionalism and market efficiency.

A potentially more consequential legal battle involving the same tug-of-war began in August when the Securities and Exchange Commission promulgated a set of “Private Fund Adviser” rules, leading a coalition of industry organizations that represent hedge funds, venture capital funds, and private equity funds to file suit in Federal court to strike down those rules based on their alleged unreasonableness.

The Loper Bright litigation was brought by a group of commercial fishing companies that challenged a rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service requiring the industry to pay for the costs of observers to monitor compliance with fishery laws (at $700/day). The District and Circuit Court decisions applied a seminal 1984 Supreme Court ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council in deferring to the regulator’s interpretation of Federal fishery law. Because the Supreme Court has elected to review the Loper Bright decision, it will be revisiting and potentially overruling Chevron (noting that Justice Thomas has stated that he believes Chevron to be wrongly-decided and that the determination of whether regulations are reasonable should be made by judges rather than regulators).

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The Chevron case is precedent for the legal doctrine that public policy decisions are within the Constitutional domain of the Executive Branch and not within the power of the Judiciary. Congress often enacts ambiguous laws and sometimes explicitly directs the Executive Branch to issue regulations to implement those laws. However, commentators have questioned both the right of Congress to delegate to the Executive Branch such an inherently legislative power as well as whether such delegation is Constitutional and whether the final arbiter of “reasonableness” should be the courts or the regulators. Chevron seemingly put those questions to rest, though that was during the Reagan Administration when the belief was that judges were remaking laws based on their own (liberal) political preferences by selectively upholding and striking down regulations and thereby substituting their judgment for the expertise of Reagan Administration regulators.

Whether such presumed “expertise” truly exists is debatable since it is based on appointments made by successive presidents who, by definition, are partisan. In 1984, those appointments had a decidedly Reaganesque bias. In 2023, they have a Bidenesque bias.

In a nation that has flourished under the Rule of Law, clarification of law by regulation is a necessity, providing intelligibility and consistency. However, excessive regulation weakens democracy and, at times, undermines free markets. Regulation by its nature adds complexities that if not administered judiciously constrict freedoms, empower special interests, and impede law enforcement, adding financial costs that siphon away personnel and dollars.

Those are some of the issues presented to the Supreme Court in Loper Bright…, as well as to the Federal courts in National Association of Private Fund Managers et al v. Securities Exchange Commission.

Congress created the SEC to restore investor confidence after the 1929 stock market crash to protect unsophisticated investors, including by ensuring that businesses participating in America’s financial markets make fulsome and truthful disclosures. The combination of comprehensive investor-protection laws and SEC oversight created the confidence necessary to make American markets the global leaders in capital formation, investment management and trading has set the global standard for safety, liquidity and efficiency. It also has made America’s private funds businesses world-leaders, further enhancing the preeminence of America’s financial industry.

Among the reasons for the global primacy of America’s private funds – that is, hedge, venture capital, and private equity – is the principled-based balancing between disclosure, reporting and audit processes, on the one hand, and the requirement that only financially-sophisticated investors may invest in them, on the other. Foundational to private funds’ success has been the absence of systemic abuses, providing strong evidence of an industry subject to an appropriate level of government regulation. Excessive regulation, after all, can stifle growth, distort markets, and drive businesses to alternative jurisdictions. These are among the concerns expressed by the petitioners in National Association of Private Fund Managers, a litigation response to the SEC’s adoption on August 23rd (by a 3-2 vote) of new and amended rules that will significantly impact the private funds industry. The rules are far-reaching – comprising 660 pages – and a material departure from the SEC’s pre-2021 approach of judiciously regulating the industry to ensure that investors are protected without unnecessarily burdening markets.

The new private fund adviser rules are only the latest among an (over-) abundance of SEC rules and proposals that attempt to address perceived deficiencies in America’s financial market regulatory structure, deficiencies that have not manifested themselves in adverse practices or resulted in litigations or enforcement actions. For example, the post-2020 SEC has taken aggressive steps to regulate public companies by adding new disclosure obligations with respect to executive pay, cybersecurity risk, conflict diamonds and climate-impacting actions and policies, excluding cryptocurrency firms from engaging in any form of regulated financial services business and proposing significant limitations on activist funds seeking to influence corporate actions.

There is significant concern that these spate of new regulations are adding unnecessary compliance and consumer burdens that among other things, will create size disadvantages and barriers to entry, all with consequences for America’s markets and the preeminence of its financial services industry. The extent of this concern is manifested by the unprecedented action taken by the National Association of Private Fund Managers, the only instance in which the industry has deemed it necessary to institute litigation.

Both Loper Bright and National Association of Private Fund Managers present the Constitutional question of whether the Executive Branch should have the authority to broadly interpret legislation without clearly-defined judicial guardrails. It is exceedingly difficult in this 21st Century age of complexity for government regulation to be clear and unambiguous. Moreover, it is beyond Congress’s authority, as well as its ability, to micromanage the day-to-day administration of legislation. Underlying the Chevron precedent is the Constitution’s allocation of policy-making to America’s two elected branches of government and not to the judiciary. The question before the Supreme Court in Loper Bright is how far policy-making regulation should be allowed to go. From a purely legal perspective, it is difficult to understand why the Court would reverse 40 years of precedent. On the other hand, the NMFS's fishing boat "tax" of $700/day and the SEC's 660 pages of new private fund rules (especially when added to the SEC’s cornucopia of regulatory proposals) both provide strong arguments against regulatory excess, raising legitimate questions about what, indeed, is "reasonable."

Read More

Person dropping off a ballot

An Arizona voter drops off a ballot at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center on Election Day 2022.

Eric Thayer for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Are there hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants on Arizona’s voter rolls?

This fact brief was originally published by the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting. Read the original here. Fact briefs are published by newsrooms in the Gigafact network, and republished by The Fulcrum. Visit Gigafact to learn more.

Are there hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants on Arizona’s voter rolls?

No.

There is no evidence to suggest that thousands of undocumented immigrants are registered on Arizona’s voter rolls. Non-citizen voting has been found to be exceedingly rare.

Keep ReadingShow less
Why toddlers are motivating an early school educator to vote

Maira Gonzalez works with students in the preschool and after-school program associated with First United Methodist Church in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Mark Macias

Why toddlers are motivating an early school educator to vote

Macias, a former journalist with NBC and CBS, owns the public relations agency Macias PR. He lives in South Florida with his wife and two children, ages 4 and 1.

The Fulcrum presents We the People, a series elevating the voices and visibility of the persons most affected by the decisions of elected officials. In this first installment, we explore the motivations of over 36 million eligible Latino voters as they prepare to make their voices heard in November.

Florida is home to the third largest population of Hispanics, Latinos. In a recent survey of Florida Latino voters by UnidosUS 2024, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris(47%) leads Republican Donald Trump (42%).

__________

Maira Gonzalez vividly remembers the 2000 presidential election in Florida, and today, she sees many similarities.

“I see a pattern between Bush and Trump,” Gonzalez said. “It’s not fair what they were doing years ago and now. I understand there is a lot of crime with immigrants, but they’re blaming it all on Latins. They’re all being lumped together. Just like we have good Americans and bad Americans, it’s the same with Latins. I’m bilingual, so I see both sides, but you can’t blame Latin immigrants for everything.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Federal Reserve building
Hisham Ibrahim/Getty Images

Project 2025: The Federal Reserve

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Few federal agencies are as misunderstood by the general public as the little known Federal Reserve Board. The Fed, as it is known, oversees the central banking system of the United States. That means it superintends many of the most crucial levers for making the economy run, including maintaining the stability of the financial system, supervising and regulating banks, moderating interest rates and prices, maximizing employment and more. Often when Congress is too politically polarized and paralyzed to fiscally stimulate the economy, many look to the Fed for faster executive action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hulk Hogan tearing off his shirt

Hulk Hogan was part of a testosterone-fueled script for the Republican National Committee.

Jason Almond/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Manhood is on the ballot, as if politics isn't crazy enough

Page is an American journalist, syndicated columnist and senior member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board.

In case you somehow haven’t noticed, manhood is on the ballot.

Even before President Joe Biden stepped aside to let Vice President Kamala Harris step up to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee, insiders from both parties were calling this the “boys vs. girls election.”

And even before the Republican National Convention opened in Milwaukee in July, spokesmen for Team Trump were telling reporters they hoped to contrast “weak vs. strong” as their social media message — and present a stage show as testosterone-fueled as a Super Bowl.

Keep ReadingShow less
Blue donkey and red elephant facing off
kbeis/Getty Images

Why Democrats hate Texas and Republicans detest California

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

A few years ago, a class of senior honors students at the University of Louisville learned firsthand the harsh reality of political stereotypes. They developed an ad for a hypothetical candidate running for Congress to get the reaction of 1,500 randomly selected people across the country. Two versions were created from the same script, using two different actors. One with a Southern accent, the other with the flat Midwestern delivery.

The students asked a couple of questions: Do you think this person is trustworthy, intelligent? Would you vote for this person? What political viewpoint would you ascribe to this person?

The students were taken aback when the Southern speaker got trashed.

Keep ReadingShow less