The New Interventionists

Advocates of a federal Agency for Consumer Advocacy have never had easy going. Since 1970, bills to create such a watchdog have passed the House or Senate several times, only to wither in conference committees or under threat of a presidential veto. But persistence pays. Last week the future suddenly seemed brighter when President Carter, fulfilling a campaign promise, called for setting up a federal body to guard consumer interests.

The statement amounted to a presidential endorsement of bills also introduced last week in both houses, and cheered congressional sponsors enough for them to predict quick passage. That may prove to be easier said than done. A Lou Harris poll in January showed 63% of the public in favor of an Agency for Consumer Advocacy and 17% opposed. But support could well decline as debate intensifies and voters begin to look at how the ACA would function.

Since everyone is a consumer, its potential reach would be broad indeed. Specifically, its task would be to monitor the actions of other governmental departments for abuses of their powers at the consumers' expense. The agency would not be able to sue private companies, but it could go to court to challenge the decisions of regulatory bodies. For example, if a telephone company were to ask for rate increases that the ACA felt were excessive, the ACA could appear before the Federal Communications Commission to oppose the application. If overruled, the new body would be empowered to appeal to the courts. Says New York Congressman Benjamin Rosenthal, a co-sponsor in the House: "We see it as an advocacy agency, a small group of interventionist lawyers who are going to be very discreet in picking and choosing their cases."

The bill's critics, notably many corporate executives, see it as a monster in the making. Any company that needs government approval to raise or lower a price, change an interstate route, get an export license or win permission to market a drug, could be subject to ACA'S watchful eye. So too would companies that have to meet Government safety standards for their products. Complains General Foods Chairman James Ferguson, an outspoken critic: "The cost of virtually nonstop litigation would increase enormously the expense of running any business and the price of goods to the consumer, while the costs on the Government side would raise his taxes as well."

Campaign Pledge. A new layer of bureaucracy is the very thing Carter wants least. On the same day that he endorsed ACA, the President also signed legislation enabling him to follow through on another campaign pledge --to reorganize and reduce the size of the Federal Government. Carter proposed initial funding of only $11 million or $12 million annually for ACA. Said Esther Peterson, the new presidential assistant for consumer affairs, whose task will be to lobby the proposal on Capitol Hill: "I am not for Big Business or Big Bureaucracy. We have to start small." If past experience is any guide, keeping it small may turn out to be harder than creating it.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.