J.D. Vance: Crypto Fan, Lina Khan Ally, Big Tech Critic — Who’s He Really Fighting For?

J.D. Vance: A Silicon Valley Insider Turned Antitrust Crusader

In the heart of Washington, D.C., a surprising convergence of voices echoed through the halls of Bloomberg’s headquarters. The event, hosted by startup incubator Y Combinator, brought together some of the most prominent figures championing a resurgence of antitrust reform in the United States. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, known for their relentless pursuit of curbing the power of Big Tech, were joined by a less expected figure: Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH). While Vance’s past is deeply intertwined with Silicon Valley, his stance at this event aligned closely with Warren and Khan – Big Tech needed to be reigned in.

“The fundamental question to me is, how do we build a competitive marketplace that is pro-innovation, pro-competition, that allows consumers to have the right choices and isn’t just so obsessed on pricing power within the market that it sort of ignores all the other things that really matter?” Vance remarked to the audience.

This stance, particularly within a Republican party often viewed as pro-business, raised eyebrows. Vance went further, expressing admiration for Khan, the Biden administration official many Republicans have fiercely criticized for her assertive approach to blocking tech mergers. “I look at Lina Khan as one of the few people in the Biden administration that I actually think is doing a pretty good job,” Vance declared at the event, aptly titled RemedyFest, referencing the antitrust remedies of breaking up large companies.

Vance’s interest in reining in Big Tech is rooted in his belief that these companies exert excessive control over the dissemination of information online. This aligns with a broader Republican concern – stemming from content moderation policies aimed at curbing election misinformation – that tech companies have become perceived as suppressing conservative voices. This growing concern has been voiced in Congress, including through failed bipartisan efforts to enact new tech competition legislation, and in the Supreme Court, as evidenced by recent rulings examining the boundaries of free speech on social media platforms.

Before his entrance to the political arena, Vance’s ties to Silicon Valley dated back to his time working for billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel, a key player in the 2016 Trump election. Vance’s 2016 book, "Hillbilly Elegy," a memoir detailing his upbringing in rural America, resonated strongly with the tech elite and helped launch him onto the national stage.

His advocacy for antitrust reform extends beyond social media. Vance has also emerged as a vocal proponent of a less restrictive approach to the regulation of cryptocurrency, mirroring a stance often favored by Trump and backed by millions of dollars in political donations from tech billionaires like Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz, and Elon Musk. At RemedyFest, Vance criticized SEC Chair Gary Gensler for his approach to crypto regulation, which he sees as overly punitive.

“The question the SEC seems to ask in regulating crypto is, ‘Is this a token with utility?’” Vance stated. “And if it’s a token with utility, then they seem to want to ban it. If it’s token without utility, they don’t seem to care.” Vance believes that tokens with utility can be regulated while still allowing for innovation in the space.

This stance on crypto aligns with Vance’s anxieties about excessive overregulation hindering the emergence of social media challengers to incumbent giants like Meta. "If we’re not making it possible to do verification, then we’re going to make it really hard to challenge the existing incumbents in the space,” he argued.

The political implications of Vance’s views are significant, especially as he assumes the role of Trump’s vice presidential candidate. While Vance has expressed his alignment with Trump’s instincts on antitrust, the two may diverge on policies related to the Federal government’s role in enforcing antitrust regulations. Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute, cautions that “Trump’s policies would destroy the Federal government as we’ve known it since The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. And if you don’t have a functioning Federal government, you can’t enforce antimonopoly law.”

Despite his intimate knowledge of Silicon Valley and his alignment with tech-backed figures, Vance is far from a conventional tech insider. His controversial support for Trump, including his embrace of the "stolen election" narrative and his labeling of January 6th arrestees as "political prisoners," reflects a deep connection with a fervent segment of conservative political discourse. He is also a vocal supporter of the pro-natalist movement, advocating for policies aimed at increasing birth rates, a stance often at odds with women’s reproductive rights.

Yet, Vance’s position within the Republican party, coupled with his unique understanding of both tech and populist ideology, makes him a force to be reckoned with. The Republican-led push for antitrust reform, particularly focused on curtailing the power of tech giants, has gained significant momentum. Whether Vance’s influence will be felt in a potential Trump administration remains to be seen. However, his views on antitrust reform, particularly his advocacy for a decentralized and competitive tech landscape, will undoubtedly shape the ongoing debates surrounding the future of the tech industry and its impact on society. His stance, while surprising within the context of traditional Republican ideology, highlights the growing recognition that unchecked corporate power can be as potent a threat to democracy as unchecked government power.

Time will tell if Vance’s embrace of antitrust reform is a genuine ideological shift or a strategically-chosen platform for his political ascent. But regardless of his motivations, his views on antitrust policy, as well as his unique position as a prominent voice bridging Silicon Valley and Trumpian conservatism, will have a profound impact on the next chapter of American tech regulation.

Article Reference