Partisan bias in securities enforcement
Accusations that some federal agency has acted with partisan bias in enforcing the law—treating partisan allies more favorably than enemies, or enemies more harshly than allies—are commonplace in American politics today. Critics have leveled such charges at the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, and even the independent agency […]
Reilly Steel is an Academic Fellow and Lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School. This post is based on his article in the Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization.
Accusations that some federal agency has acted with partisan bias in enforcing the law—treating partisan allies more favorably than enemies, or enemies more harshly than allies—are commonplace in American politics today. Critics have leveled such charges at the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, and even the independent agency that regulates the nation’s securities markets, the Securities and Exchange Commission or SEC. Moreover, these accusations have landed on officials from both sides of the aisle. When Donald Trump was President, critics accused the Department of Justice of going easy on President Trump’s political allies, as reflected by the dropping of charges against Michael Flynn and weakening of the sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. After Joe Biden became President and Republicans took the majority in the House, congressional Republicans formed a “Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government” to investigate alleged partisan bias against Republicans.
