Republican politicians from the United States have recently launched extensive research on the process of employing the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Gary Gensler, for political bias and preference. This investigation by the House Financial Services Committee will seek to find out whether Gensler has appointed political allies to the aforementioned positions in preference to qualified individuals.
Inherent within the probe are several key hires that Gensler has made during his tenure that some members of Congress claim to support what they consider a clear trend of political cronyism. In particular, they Single out teachers and other acquaintances of progressive Democratic politicians they spotted within the administration and the SEC in particular.
These appointments have not gone down well with the lawmakers especially because those being appointed are viewed to have been hired because of the perceived political influence rather than given merit which is a hiring factor based on testing and experience.
Questionable Hiring Decisions
The probe into hiring sprees of SEC chair Gary Gensler was in motion since some lawmakers started doubting Gensler’s decisions that may harm the impartiality of the agency. Underpinning these sentiments is the belief that Gensler brings into the SEC hires with a clear political bias that diminishes the SEC’s ability to police markets fairly.Â
Many politicians argue that the large number of politically related persons calls for attention, hoping that Gensler may be hiring persons because of his or her political preference rather than their capabilities. They recalled that a number of the SEC personnel with a progressive background including former staffers of Democratic super donors and activists, raised eyebrows among some circles, leading to criticisms of favoritism in the appointment of such officials rather than merit and ability.
Gensler has completely denied any misconduct, stating that his actions of hiring were based on merit within a candidate, especially their competency. But skeptics doubt it and affirm that since politically affiliated individuals are over-represented in high level hires, the situation raises the sense of impartiality. They argue that, assuming Gensler intends the best for the agency, the specter of political cronyism is enough on its own to damage the SEC.Â
Implication to the SEC’s CredibilityÂ
It is critically important for the SEC as it affects its credibility and efficiency of work if such a probe is performed. In case of being accused of political bias, then the leadership of Gensler could be in serious trouble in that he could be forced to resign. Also, the allegations could negatively impact the society’s trust on the agency to fairly and impartially conduct market business. This is a very important angle of the story as it reveals the fact that the reputation of the SEC is at stake and this calls for the need to attend to the issue of high profile hiring in the agency.Â
The result of the probe will greatly impact the institution in future, including its capacity to give confidence to the public. Also, the staffers’ recruitment may alter because of the investigation to propose hiring practices suitable for the agency, with no regard to political influence. The objective nature of decisions and the agency’s ability to be free from political influence, is paramount to keep the markets efficient and remain effective for the SEC.Â
The special examination aims to find out whether Gensler, the head of the SEC, has been biased in hiring employees that share his political ideologies thus bringing a bias into the organization. Legislators shall look into the technical abilities, working experience and political connection of these appointees as well as the labor relations that Gensler and his staff will use to assemble these employees. In doing so, they want to find out whether the SEC hiring has been politicized under Gensler’s leadership thereby compromising the efficacy of its market regulation.
