Latest News

Ross Kerber, a top US business lobby, tries to be nonpartisan with Trump

Has Donald Trump become a socialist? Analysts from all political parties have expressed concern about the president's unprecedented economic and corporate interventions. The president has made a number of unprecedented corporate and economic interventions, including giving the government stakes at companies such as Intel and putting pressure on the Federal Reserve in order to lower interest rates. He also pressed media and law firms. Investors and academics are concerned that the measures will undermine business independence. Many blame major trade groups because they have not united and pushed back harder against Trump. Vanessa Williamson, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution told me that doing so "would help protect individual businesses and leadership from possible retribution by the regime for their outspokenness".

Richard Morrison is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that promotes free market capitalism. He said: "While individual CEOs might be reluctant to defend the law and their company, business federations are there for this exact reason."

Neil Bradley, executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the largest U.S. Business Lobby) agreed to an interview shortly before Labor Day. The following is an edited transcript of our conversation.

Q: What are your thoughts on the Intel deal and other similar agreements? A: There are a number of factors at play. What are the rules, is the most common question and concern we hear. It is very rare for the government take a stake in an equity company.

Q: This kind of thing happened during the financial crises, for example with banks. A: Yes, that's what I meant. These programs included the rules from the beginning. People who defend what happened here point to these cases. It's not that they're wrong, but the rules were very clear and limited in the past. It was unexpected and caught many people by surprise, as the rules were not clearly defined.

Q: What about Trump's pressuring of the Fed? A: The Chamber of Commerce has a history of defending Fed autonomy when it comes monetary policy. Bradley wrote this blog in July. This was a very common thought among the founders of the United States, an attempt to avoid the question of how money is valued.

Q: Do you worry that Trump's (attempted firing) of Fed Governor Lisa Cook will undermine the independence of the Fed? We are paying attention. This will essentially come down to the question of "cause."

Q: You must disagree with the Fed's overall philosophy. Q: Does a president have the right to make suggestions about monetary policy? Yes, of course. The real question is whether the Fed can operate its monetary policies independently of any political actor. I don't think we've crossed the line yet. That's what needs to be maintained.

Q: Do you have any other concerns? A: In any administration, it doesn't matter if we are talking about equity stakes or regulatory issues. There is always a discussion on policy and the process. It is important that we have clear road rules.

Q: Is the tariff process a good example of something that was not done properly? A: Yes. The Chamber has filed an amicus curiae brief in pending litigation regarding the ability to apply IEEPA (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), for tariffs. The Chamber generally does not like high tariffs. Where does the authority for tariffs lie? Over the past 70 years, Congress has absolutely delegated the tariff authority to President. IEEPA, in our opinion, is not among them. On Friday, a divided U.S. court of appeals ruled that most of Trump's Tariffs were illegal.

Q: I have heard that groups of businessmen like yours could and should speak out more against Trump. They say that your voice is stronger than that of individual CEOs. A: The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have a role to play in shaping the relationship between government and private sector so as to preserve our free-market economic system. We also operate in an environment that is highly politicized. It's really important to make the points clear in a nonpartisan way.

We don't want our free market economy to become just another partisan issue. Our free-market system has survived because of a bipartisan consensus. As we advocate, it is important to maintain this consensus by preserving the free market. The arguments will be a waste of time if they are just a repetition of "Republicans for this and Democrats for that." It is important that people know what lines should be maintained regardless of the office.

Q: Do we face a constitutional crisis? A: We try to speak in the areas of our expertise and where we are able to comment. When arguments become ineffective, we can conclude.

(source: Reuters)