Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org.

On October 15, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece by Congressmen Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) entitled “Depoliticizing Elizabeth Warren’s Pet Project,” about, of course, the CFPB. The article criticizes the CFPB’s single director structure, explaining that was not always the intention of policymakers. In 2007, they explain, then-Professor Warren proposed a Financial Product Safety Commission governed by five bipartisan commissioners. The June 2009 Obama Administration white paper that led to enactment of Dodd-Frank, they note, advocated a consumer financial protection agency led by a five-person bipartisan commission and that both Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank supported that concept. However, they say, as the Senate version of the bill proceeded, a political decision was made to centralize the agency’s power in a single individual, solidifying the policy positions of the political party that controls the White House. The piece then argues for a commission structure at the CFPB. Of course, a new conservative pro-business President could appoint a CFPB Director who would rescind many of the actions of Director Cordray. On November 17, the American Banker published a piece by Brian Knight, the Associate Director for Financial Policy at the Milken Institute’s Center for Financial Markets, explaining why a commission structure may be in the CFPB’s best interest. Mr. Knight suggests that a commission structure would bring broader expertise (e.g. in technology) than the current Director’s limited expertise in enforcement. It also would bring continuity and stability, avoiding the whipsaw effect of a new Director changing direction and rolling back regulations written under Director Cordray. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has suggested that such a roll-back would not be upheld by courts as it would be deemed arbitrary and capricious because it would be without factual basis, but Mr. Knight suggests that facts can be garnered to support a roll-back, particularly facts regarding the effect of regulations on limiting access and harming innovation. Finally, he suggests that a commission structure would be more consistent with democratic representation and would better reflect the political diversity of the country, which may be particularly important in the case of an agency that has such a broad delegation of authority from Congress. Speakers with diverse voices should have a seat at the table, he suggests.