Kamala Harris’s tenure as California’s attorney general has often been touted as a time when she took a hard stance against “corporate greed and price gouging.” Her supporters claim that from 2011 to 2016, Harris challenged pharmaceutical, oil, electronics, and cosmetics companies, positioning herself as a crusader for the consumer. However, a closer look at her record reveals a much less impressive reality. Despite the rhetoric, Harris’s actions did little to curb prices, and the impact on consumers was negligible at best.
Did Harris Really Challenge Corporate Greed?
Let’s start with the pharmaceutical industry. One of the most significant areas where consumers are hit hardest by high prices is prescription drugs. Harris’s office did take on some pharmaceutical companies, but the results were far from groundbreaking. In fact, her tenure saw little in the way of meaningful reform or regulation that would have made a real difference in the lives of Californians struggling to afford their medications.
Take the example of drug pricing. While Harris’s office launched investigations into companies accused of inflating drug prices, these efforts largely resulted in settlements that didn’t fundamentally alter the practices of the pharmaceutical giants. The companies paid fines, but these were often seen as the cost of doing business—a drop in the bucket compared to the profits they continued to make from high drug prices. Meanwhile, consumers continued to face skyrocketing costs at the pharmacy.
The Oil Industry: More Talk Than Action
Harris’s record on the oil industry is similarly unimpressive. California has some of the highest gas prices in the nation, a situation exacerbated by the actions of the state’s powerful oil companies. Harris’s office did investigate allegations of price manipulation and market collusion, but the outcomes of these investigations were underwhelming.
While there was plenty of talk about holding oil companies accountable, there was little in the way of substantive action. No major reforms were implemented, and Californians saw no relief at the pump. The investigations, much like those in the pharmaceutical industry, ended with settlements that did nothing to change the status quo. The oil companies paid their fines and continued business as usual, leaving consumers to bear the burden of high gas prices.
Electronics and Cosmetics: A Mixed Bag
When it comes to the electronics and cosmetics industries, Harris’s record is a mixed bag at best. Her office did take on some cases involving false advertising and deceptive practices, but these efforts were more about enforcing existing laws than about tackling price gouging or corporate greed.
In the electronics sector, for example, Harris’s office pursued cases against companies that misled consumers about product features or warranties. While these actions were necessary, they didn’t address the broader issue of inflated prices or anti-competitive practices in the industry. Consumers might have been protected from misleading claims, but they weren’t saved from high prices.
The cosmetics industry saw similar enforcement actions. Harris’s office went after companies that violated labeling laws or made false claims about their products. Again, while these efforts were important for consumer protection, they didn’t result in lower prices for consumers. The focus was on compliance with regulations, not on addressing the root causes of price gouging.
The Bottom Line: No Real Impact on Prices
The reality is that during her time as California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris did little to curb prices in any meaningful way. While she took on cases that made headlines and resulted in settlements, these actions didn’t translate into lower costs for consumers. The companies she targeted continued to operate much as they had before, and the underlying issues of corporate greed and price gouging remained unaddressed.
It’s also worth noting that Harris’s tenure as attorney general coincided with a period of significant economic growth in California. Despite this, many Californians struggled with high costs of living, including healthcare, housing, and everyday goods. If Harris had truly been successful in challenging corporate greed and price gouging, we would have seen some relief in these areas. Instead, the cost of living in California continued to rise, and many of the same problems that existed before her tenure persisted after she left office.
Why the Narrative Doesn’t Match the Reality
So why does the narrative of Kamala Harris as a champion against corporate greed persist? Part of it has to do with political messaging. Harris and her supporters have been keen to highlight her record in a way that fits the narrative of a tough-on-corporations attorney general. However, when you dig into the details, it becomes clear that the results don’t live up to the rhetoric.
Another factor is the complexity of the issues at hand. Tackling corporate greed and price gouging is not an easy task, and it requires more than just headline-grabbing investigations and settlements. It requires systemic changes, such as stronger regulations, more robust enforcement mechanisms, and policies that promote competition and transparency. These are changes that Harris did not pursue during her time as attorney general.
What Could Have Been Done Differently?
If Harris had been serious about curbing prices, she could have taken a different approach. For one, she could have pushed for stronger regulations to prevent price gouging in the first place. This could have included advocating for laws that limit price increases on essential goods, such as prescription drugs and gasoline.
Harris could also have used her platform to promote greater transparency in pricing. For example, she could have supported initiatives that require companies to disclose the true costs of their products and services, making it harder for them to inflate prices without justification.
Finally, Harris could have focused on promoting competition in the industries she targeted. Many of the issues related to high prices stem from a lack of competition, which allows companies to set prices without fear of losing customers. By promoting policies that encourage competition, Harris could have helped to drive prices down and make goods and services more affordable for Californians.
A Record That Falls Short
In conclusion, the claim that Kamala Harris effectively policed “corporate greed and price gouging” during her time as California’s attorney general doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While she did take on some high-profile cases, these efforts did little to address the underlying issues that drive high prices. The settlements and fines she secured may have made headlines, but they didn’t result in real relief for consumers.
If we’re going to have an honest conversation about corporate greed and price gouging, we need to look beyond the rhetoric and examine the results. And in the case of Kamala Harris, the results simply aren’t there.
