> Prior to becoming FTC Chairman, Simons was a partner and co-chair of the Antitrust Group at the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. Simons has held two previous positions at the Commission. He served as Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition between 2001 and 2003, during which he was responsible for overseeing the re-invigoration of the FTC’s non-merger enforcement program. In an earlier stint at the Commission in the 1980s, Simons served as the FTC’s Associate Director for Mergers and the Assistant Director for Evaluation. Simons earned the FTC’s Award for Meritorious Service. [0]
The "Antitrust Group" at Paul Weiss isn't in the business of trust busting. That's the group that defends businesses accused of antitrust violations. Not my first pick for head of an agency that is chartered with protecting American consumers.
I'm not sure what you mean by "involvement"? He was with the agency for 2 years from 2001-2003 and for 2 years in the 1980's. I understand that e.g., prosecutors become defense attorneys and vice versa, but in those cases they have clients or bosses to ensure they're working in good faith. I'm skeptical that anyone in the Trump administration will exert pressure on Simon to run the FTC as an advocate for US consumers.
This skepticism is the product of an administration that hires people like Ryan Zinke and Tom Price. None of his hires get the benefit of the doubt.
He was Director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, and earned an FTC award of meritorious service.
> I'm skeptical that anyone in the Trump administration will exert pressure on Simon to run the FTC as an advocate for US consumers.
Agreed— I would just like to point out that his working in corporate law should have no negative impact on the outcome. If our administration truly wanted someone who wouldn't do anything to defend American consumers, they could find that in a wide range of candidates.
The only argument that would raise issue with him working in corporate law prior to this appointment would be to claim that he may give preferential treatment to those he previously defended. This is an entirely separate issue from Trump, and while possible, I would be very surprised if the government had no federal oversight of this position. This claim, if I'm not mistaken, would actually amount to a criminal level of corruption.
