Technology Regulation on the Ballot

The 2024 U.S. presidential race has seen no shortage of twists and turns. One unusual development that will stand out for its future consequences is the conspicuous polarization among technology investors. First, Elon Musk endorsed Donald Trump in the immediate wake of the assassination attempt on July 13. Days later, Trump announced JD Vance, the Ohio senator known for his ties to technology venture capitalists (VCs), as his running mate. Then came the podcast episode in which Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz declared their support for the Trump & Vance ticket. As some sectors of the Silicon Valley kept endorsing right-wing politics more openly than before, President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from the race in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris reinvigorated the efforts of billionaires like Reid Hoffman and Mark Cuban to get a Democrat elected to the White House. All in all, Silicon Valley appears more openly divided over politics than ever before.

A big part of what is at stake is technology regulation. It is no secret that Andreessen and Horowitz were never fans of Biden’s decision to regulate cryptocurrencies, but the newfound enthusiasm for the Republican candidate goes beyond the dreams of getting wealthier thanks to unregulated crypto markets. Right-wing VCs simply want to eliminate technology regulation as such. For tech leaders in the Democratic camp, the desire to shape the future of technology law by publicly supporting regulation competes with Silicon Valley’s earlier techno-libertarian predilection to nip emerging regulations in the bud. Technology ethics and regulation are on the ballot in November.

Avoiding simplistic binaries is necessary to make sense of the increasing politicization of technology regulation in the United States. This is not a story of the administrative state versus entrepreneurs, social democracy versus laissez-faire, or Big Tech versus small business. All the actors involved are capitalists who have been lobbying politicians for their vision of the future of capitalism. Long gone are the days when tech leaders (reportedly) stayed away from Washington, D.C. Now, they want to conquer it.

Thus, the dividing line is nothing less than the future of capitalism. The self-identified libertarian tech leaders envision a future in which their personal business success should not be slowed down by regulations in the name of human rights, consumer protection, workers’ rights, privacy, or environmental sustainability. It is no wonder that the same group has been leading the assault on what they consider the woke agenda of racial, gender and environmental justice. Ironically, their plan for eliminating government regulation requires capturing the government. In fact, Silicon Valley has increasingly turned to government as a customer and funder since the pandemic.

The tech leaders in the Harris camp obviously express more positive attitudes towards public-sector involvement in directing the future of technological innovation, but support for regulation comes with a caveat: they want to sit at the table to shape the regulation agenda. This attitude marks the continuation of a trend prevalent among technology leaders who realized that regulation was coming their way, whether they wanted it or not: demand regulation, set up powerful lobbies targeting legislative bodies, build networks with politicians, and ultimately set the pace and direction of regulation. This was Big Tech’s game plan during the negotiations that shaped the European Union’s AI Act. Now, it’s coming home. 

Both visions need to grapple with their internal contradictions. The libertarian camp is betting on what is often called a right-wing populist political movement that oscillates between denouncing Big Tech as an evil cabal of shady overlords and wooing its finances. Blaming government and the so-called “coastal elite” for the economic woes faced by millions of Americans is morally dubious for the alliance of the Republican base, a figure like Vance who rose to fame as author of Hillbilly Elegy, and tech billionaires, who are the closest anyone comes to being that elite.

The pro-regulation camp has its own internal contradictions to work through: Harris’s constituency includes marginalized populations that have most to lose from watered-down regulations. The more tech leaders capture the regulatory agenda, the more social movements will object to what they will surely consider minimalistic and toothless laws and policies. The pressure on Harris to vow to dismiss Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan, who has been advocating effective sanctions targeting technology companies, reveals that not all pro-regulation tech leaders actually want regulation that works.

As of this writing, pollsters forecast a very close race. While the role of technology regulation in deciding the outcome should not be overstated – after all, voters have a lot more immediate concerns on their minds – it cannot be denied that attitudes towards technology ethics and technology law are a component of party platforms. The Trump & Vance ticket seems to go all in for techno-libertarianism, which has solidified support among some VCs and tech leaders at the risk of contradicting Republicans’ own critical language towards Silicon Valley. The Harris & Walz camp wants to attract a broad, cross-class alliance of technology regulation advocates but might have to face fallout when disagreements over the content and effectiveness of such regulation boil over in public debates.