Lessons from the National Association of Realtors settlement for the 2024 election

A couple of weeks ago, the National Association of Realtors agreed to settle more than a dozen cases alleging that the organization and brokerage firms associated with it violated antitrust laws by setting industrywide standard commissions, paid by sellers of homes. The NAR agreed to pay $418 million in damages and adopt a new business model.

If a federal judge approves the settlement, commissions — currently set at 5 to 6 percent of the sale price of a home, in contrast to 1 to 3 percent in other countries — could come down by about one-third, bringing home costs down with them.

The little-known backstory to the settlement underscores the profound differences between the Trump and Biden administrations’ approach to pocketbook issues affecting Americans. That story also serves as a reminder to President Biden: You can’t make music if you don’t blow your own horn.

For decades, federal authorities suspected that the real estate industry was conspiring to fix prices. The president of the NAR declared that even compared to class-action suits, the Department of Justice “was the bigger problem.”

In November 2020, the Trump DOJ filed “an anti-trust case and simultaneous settlement requiring the NAR to repeal and modify certain anti-competitive rules.” The devil, however, was in the details. When the NAR agreed to be more transparent about commissions and stop asserting that home buyers do not pay for any services, the Trump DOJ ended its investigation.

In July 2021, the Biden DOJ withdrew from the settlement, arguing that it did not address the fundamental problem and prohibited a “broader investigation of NAR rules and conduct to proceed without restriction” in the future. The NAR’s claim that the Biden DOJ does not have the authority to reopen a probe closed by the Trump DOJ is now making its way through the courts.

In November 2023, a court in Missouri found the NAR guilty of fixing commission fees and imposed a fine of $1.8 billion. With the clock ticking on other suits and the DOJ in hot pursuit, the NAR agreed in mid-March in essence to the terms laid down by the Biden DOJ: a “decoupling” in which sellers no longer determine commissions for the agents of buyers.

At a time when housing is expensive and in short supply, this settlement, if approved, will be a game changer. More than sufficient reason for President Biden to draw a clear contrast with the sweetheart deal offered by the Trump DOJ.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats have presented their 2025 budget proposals, even more evidence of priorities that are far apart. The Republican Study Committee, which includes 80 percent of GOP House members, endorsed the Life at Conception Act, which maintains that “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization.” If enacted into law, the Life at Conception Act would make abortion illegal in all cases, including rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother; and threaten federal funding of contraception for low-income Americans and in-vitro fertilization.

The RSC budget cuts Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the Children’s Health Insurance Program by $4.5 trillion over the next ten years. The RSC calls for an increase in the retirement age, without specifying the age or the impact on some 95 programs that provide different benefits depending on the age of the individual.

Trump continues to give mixed signals about whether he supports or opposes cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Concerned about support for pro-choice candidates and referendums since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Trump recently suggested, with some equivocation, that he’s open to a 15-week federal ban on abortion.

The Biden administration’s priorities include unequivocal support for a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion; empowering the government to continue negotiations with pharmaceutical companies to reduce the prices of drugs and cap out-of-pocket costs for some of them, as it has for insulin; limiting child care expenses for most families; providing universal pre-K and Head Start; appropriating substantial funds for nutrition programs and an increase in the supply of affordable housing; and completion of hundreds of projects across the country funded in the bipartisan infrastructure bill — which was opposed by his predecessor.

These days, hyperpartisanship, media silos and the politics of personality contribute to misinformation and ignorance about issues that matter. And so, in 2024, it’s essential that candidates provide clear, concrete and compelling explanations of what they and their opponent have and haven’t done, what they plan to do and what’s at stake. And voters should take the time to fact-check and compare these claims before making their decisions.

Democracy requires nothing less.

Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.