Matt Yglesias is back with some new, likely but not certainly, intentionally trollish arguments. Tired of misunderstanding decade-old ethics disputes, he has found a new rage-bait position to take: It’s good that VP Harris’ debate prep team includes the lawyer currently defending Google in its case against the federal government for antitrust violations.
For those unaware, our friends at The American Prospect have been covering the concerning fact that VP Harris’ debate prep team includes Karen Dunn, a lawyer representing Google in their ongoing antitrust case. This is obviously concerning; as Harris takes advice from its lawyer, Google is actively litigating antitrust law allegations.
This has angered Matthew Yglesias who has pined for the (supposedly) bygone era when corporate executives could control government. After we rebutted his last piece (where he mourned the fact that an investment banker with no government experience was denied a position as Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance in large part because he was completely unqualified), Yglesias has decided to make this case his shining example of what the revolving door can be, with Harris’ performance at the debate was proof that Dunn was qualified and capable. On this we don’t disagree. Dunn is a high-powered lawyer sought after by huge firms both for her insider connections and her abilities. On the issue of debate prep she probably is as qualified as anyone, considering that she is one of very few people to have prepped 3 Democratic candidates for presidential debates, and that there is no obvious career track for someone looking to be part of a presidential debate prep team.
But not only do we want qualified people in positions of power, but we also want them to lack conflicts of interest that could inhibit their commitment to public service. Dunn’s conflict of interest is glaring, and the concern that Dunn could obtain a favorable outcome for her client as a result of her close ties to the Vice President is real. For instance, it is entirely possible that at some point there will be a negotiation between Google and the representatives of the American people from the Justice Department. It makes it more challenging for administration officials like Assistant Attorney General Johnathan Kanter to negotiate with Dunn knowing that the current VP (and possible future president) owes much to Dunn. Would you want to negotiate with someone who has your ultimate boss on speed dial when you have probably only met them a few times?
What is also notable is the fact that Harris did not mention antitrust enforcement at all during the debate. This is not to say she has abandoned it as a part of her campaign as we have written, but that Dunn’s influence may have steered her away from highlighting the policy that Dunn is fighting in her day job.
Ours is not an unreasonable view, and is one that many Americans are likely to agree with. Dunn may be a good person to have on the debate prep team, but we do not think she is irreplaceable. Giving credit to Dunn for Harris’ 2024 performance is just as fair as blaming Dunn for Obama’s weak performance in 2012.
Given the lack of concrete benefit, her conflicts of interest should outweigh any possible benefits she brings to the table. But if we’re wrong? And Dunn has become irreplaceable? Perhaps she could demonstrate patriotism and decline to sell her services to a corporation being sued by not only the Biden-Harris Administration, but governments all around the world for monopolization and other forms of bad conduct.