Why of course they voted no? They could have voted yes… it’s popular. We’re supposed to be a nation governed by the people, which means the rules are supposed to be what is popular

The rulemaking process for this started 3 years ago. If the republican commissioners didn't want rules dropping so close to the election they could have supported changes to speed up the rulemaking process but they didn't. In fact, the dissent complains about how "rushed" the process was.

> It is also hardly one of the most pressing election issues.

Let's just send Lina Khan to Ukraine and get this problem squared away I guess

> Of course Republican commissioners are going to vote "no" if the FTC is handing out popular rulings like candy just before the election.

What? Why is that defensible? Make life worse/keep life bad for Americans so we have a better chance in an election? Do you hear yourself?

See here for a rebuttal of the same argument on a different topic:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626381

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41626251

Short answer is that you're just not paying attention.

I think the main reason to vote for the current administration is because of the actions taken by the FTC in the last four years. It isn't just this last month.

I would recommend reading the newsletter "Big" by Matt Stoller for context.

Lina Khan seems widely hated across the aisle, so that's a good first step.

The SEC has also taken unprecedented actions under Rohit Chopra.

The FTC under the current administration has been going gangbusters the entire term.

On what basis do you make the accusation that the administration has been sandbagging their own policy changes?

Damn we better pull Amy Coney Barrett off the Supreme Court then

Ah yes, "we can't do anything before an election", despite it always being just before some election, and also it's totally okay when one party does it.

“Of course”?