TNR BLOGS

January 07, 2009 | 5:11 PM
January 07, 2009 | 4:42 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:20 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
07.11.2008
A Good Problem to Have at the SEC

Obama will announce his Treasury secretary nomination in the next few days, and the safe bet is on Larry Summers or Timothy Geithner. But an almost equally important pick will be his SEC chair. After a remarkable period of reform under William Donaldson, the commission has languished under Chris Cox. To his credit, Cox didn’t do as much damage as people expected--he resisted efforts to de-regulate aggressively, at times clashing with the Commission’s free-market fanatic, Paul Atkins. But he was way behind the curve on the key issues, and he’s been barely relevant over the last month of turmoil.

Fortunately, if this Wall Street Journal report is accurate, Obama is focusing on two great choices for SEC chair, Harvey Goldschmid and Damon Silvers. Goldschmid teaches at Columbia Law and is a former SEC commissioner; Silvers is an associate general counsel at the AFL-CIO and a longtime consumer advocate. Both are experts on financial regulation, and both tilt heavily toward investor and consumer protections. Obviously Silvers would face opposition from business interests, but if there’s any time to get a friend of labor in the chairman’s office, it’s now.

 

Whoever gets the job will face the task of rebuilding a drifting agency in the middle of a financial storm: According to the Journal, the SEC’s corporate-finance chief, John White, is leaving, and rumor has it others are soon to follow. But the bigger issue is whether, in a year, there will even be an SEC, at least as we know it. There is bipartisan agreement that the financial regulatory system needs top-down restructuring, at the very least a merging of the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. But it will also mean halting the bleeding of regulatory power to the Fed, the FDIC, and the Treasury. I personally favor a strong SEC, which is why I back Goldschmid for the job--his experience at the SEC makes him better able to expand his agency’s reach from day one. But the choice between the two is a good problem to have.

 

--Clay Risen

Posted: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:53 AM with 3 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

dbhuff said:

The SEC has suffered for years under a too-small budget and complaints about sarbox. I don't remember the exact numbers, but the number of lawyers I seem to recall is about 100, and many of them have served less than 5 years. Given what they do, this means constantly overworked staff. You can get around regulation either by killing the regs, or by starving the agency doing the regulating.

A new robust SEC that watched all exchanges (commodities, derivatives, etc) with enhanced budget and profile would be good. The Fed/FDIC should not be involved as it is way outside their expertise to manage transparent markets. I'm not against them absorbing the office of Thrift supervision and others though, why redundant agencies?

November 7, 2008 11:39 AM

purcellneil said:

I just read Jeff Rosen's piece on Prop 8 which suggests that jurists ought to make their interpretations of the Constitution on the basis of popular opinions - that to do otherwise invites a backlash as seen in Tuesday's vote in California.  I generally don't comment on articles open to the general public, mainly due to the high volume / low quality aspects of that channel, but I wonder if anyone would object to me commenting here.

Rosen's idea that interpretations of the Constitution should be rooted in a judge's perception of public opinion is plainly wrong.  The rights of an unpopular or powerless minority, suffering persecution at the hands of the majority, ought to be protected by the Courts when a fair reading of the Constitution suggests that they are entitled to relief.  

Where else can such people turn?  

This notion is in direct contradiction of the principles that underlay our most basic rights of free speech, privacy, and religious freedom - it enables open and blatant intolerance and is clearly not an idea liberals should embrace.  

Neil

November 7, 2008 1:14 PM

tec619 said:

Investor protection? What a quaint concept.

November 7, 2008 3:42 PM