PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Letting the CFTC Staff Run the Show

| No Comments


Many independent agencies are governed by politically balanced boards or commissions in order to ensure that their policy decisions are temperate, represent multiple viewpoints, and allow for accountability. Agency decision-making power resides with the commission, the members of which are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate and therefore can be made to answer for their policy calls. The job of agency staffers is to implement the commission's policy decisions, not make them. The principle that political appointees should be responsible for policy decisions applies in both the rulemaking and enforcement contexts. When agencies forget this principle and start encouraging staff to make key decisions without commission input, government's accountability to the American people suffers.

Commissioner Scott O'Malia of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission pointed out one such instance earlier this week. The CFTC is handing over to the staff broad authority to conduct enforcement investigations and exercise the attendant subpoena power. These investigations are not targeted, but rather are conducted pursuant to "omnibus" orders that allow the staff to go on unsupervised fishing expeditions. A procedural gimmick known as the "absent objection" process could enable the staff to extend the omnibus order indefinitely. O'Malia is particularly concerned about the commission's deference to the staff's judgment with respect to the exercise of the CFTC's increased and uncharted enforcement powers under Dodd-Frank.

The CFTC is not alone in ceding enforcement policy-making authority to the staff. For example, several years ago, the SEC gave its staff the power to issue subpoenas without the commission's sign-off and curtailed commission input in shaping enforcement settlements. This is a dangerous trend because--in the words of Commissioner O'Malia--"Congress intended a decision to bring an investigation to be reflective of a shared opinion of the majority of the Commissioners, rather than a unilateral ruling of the Division of Enforcement's staff." Delegated policy-making subverts the principles of accountability on which independent agencies' legitimacy depends.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.