What Sacks is doing isn’t just a minor ethical blunder; it’s a five-alarm fire drill for our democracy. It exposes the deepening cracks in how policy is made in an era where technology outpaces regulation at a dizzying speed. This isn’t just about one advisor; it’s about the systemic tech advisor influence that is quietly reshaping our future, with little to no public input.
The Valley’s Hand on the Rudder
So, What’s a Tech Advisor Anyway?
In theory, bringing in tech experts to advise government sounds sensible. Policymakers, bless them, often struggle to tell a GPU from a CPU. They need people who understand the plumbing of the digital world to help craft intelligent laws. These advisors can, in the best-case scenario, help spur innovation and ensure regulations aren’t hopelessly out of date the day they are signed.
But here’s the rub. When does advice become direction? When does an “advisor” become a shadow legislator? The line is getting blurrier by the day, and the most glaring example of this is happening right now.
Case Study in Capture: The David Sacks Affair
Let’s be clear about who David Sacks is. A card-carrying member of the “PayPal Mafia,” a successful venture capitalist at Craft Ventures, and a man with, according to an explosive NPR report, over 400 investments in tech firms, a huge number of which are tangled up in the AI gold rush. This is the man advising the potential next President on how to regulate AI.
It’s like asking the head of OPEC for advice on climate change policy.
Sacks recently flexed his newfound muscle by persuading Trump to sign an executive order aimed at challenging state-level AI regulations. His argument, echoed by fellow VC Marc Andreessen, is that a “50-state patchwork is a startup killer.” What he conveniently leaves out is that a lack of robust, localised regulation is a jackpot for the very startups he has poured millions into. This isn’t public service; it’s private sector policymaking masquerading as national strategy.
The Ethical Black Hole
Democratic Oversight? What’s That?
This situation throws one of the biggest democratic oversight challenges of our time into sharp relief. David Sacks was not elected. The public cannot vote him out. Yet, he is wielding immense power over policies that will affect every single one of us.
His defence? He’s been granted “ethics waivers.” But as legal expert Kathleen Clark bluntly told NPR, “These are sham ethics waivers.” They essentially give him a free pass to shape policy in a way that directly benefits his sprawling financial portfolio. It’s accountability theatre, and frankly, it’s insulting to our collective intelligence.
A Textbook Case of Regulatory Capture
This brings us to the thorny issue of regulatory capture risks. Regulatory capture is what happens when a government agency or policymaking body, created to act in the public interest, ends up being controlled by the industry it’s supposed to be regulating.
Sacks’s situation is a masterclass in this very concept. He’s not just lobbying from the outside; he’s on the inside, holding the pen. He is actively working to create a federal framework that preempts stronger state laws, effectively designing the regulatory “henhouse” while owning a significant stake in the “foxes.” This isn’t a bug in the system; for many in Silicon Valley, it’s the intended feature.
We Need More Than Just a Little Sunlight
Cries for Transparency and Real Reform
If this fiasco teaches us anything, it’s that the current system is broken. We desperately need meaningful transparency reforms that go beyond rubber-stamped waivers. What would that look like?
– Radical Transparency: A public, searchable database of every financial interest held by any advisor, updated in real-time. No exceptions.
– Ironclad Recusal Rules: Automatic and non-negotiable recusal from any discussion or decision that even hints at a conflict of interest. No waivers, no excuses.
– An Independent Oversight Body: A genuinely independent body with the power to investigate and penalise conflicts of interest, operating outside the political whims of any single administration.
Is any of this likely to happen? Not without a massive public outcry. The incentives are all aligned to keep things exactly as they are: opaque and profitable for those on the inside.
The Dangers of Policy-by-VC
The private sector policymaking model, where billionaires and their proxies write the rules, is fundamentally at odds with the public good. Their goal is, and always will be, to maximise returns for their limited partners. That means pushing for deregulation, squashing competition, and socialising the risks while privatising the profits.
Remember the Silicon Valley Bank collapse, where the federal government stepped in to back $175 billion in deposits? Sacks himself has dismissed the idea of a federal bailout for AI, yet he’s architecting a system with minimal guardrails. The hypocrisy is staggering. Even Steve Bannon, of all people, seems to see the danger, quipping that it takes more regulation “to open a nail salon on Capitol Hill than you have into one of the most… dangerous technologies ever invented.” When Bannon sounds like the voice of reason on tech risk, you know we’re in trouble.
This isn’t about stopping innovation. It’s about ensuring that the rules of the road are written by and for the public, not by a handful of unelected tech oligarchs with a vested financial interest in the outcome. The tech advisor influence has become a backdoor for corporate power, and it’s time we slammed it shut.
What do you think? Is it possible to harness tech expertise in government without succumbing to this level of regulatory capture? Or is this just the new, uncomfortable reality of 21st-century governance?
