Editor’s note: This story was originally printed in Matt Stoller’s newsletter BIG, where he explores the politics of monopoly power.

In 2010, Kamala Harris went to Google headquarters and gave an hourlong interview with David Drummond, the then-chief legal officer who had overseen the YouTube, Android, and DoubleClick acquisitions. Drummond resigned 10 years later in disgrace over a sex scandal, but back then, he was the legal eagle moving Google through its first existential political crisis. The company was being investigated for monopolization, a suit it avoided through connections with Obama and the GOP establishment.

Harris, meanwhile, was running for California attorney general, a race she narrowly won, with the support of progressives. So her stop at Google had a different valence than it would today, as it was a campaign stop for an in-state race. Still, she was asked about antitrust, and today she has a very good chance to be president, so her answer is worth considering.

Drummond prefaced his question with the statement that Google was not a monopoly and was constantly being challenged by entrepreneurs in garages. Then he asked, “How do you think about enforcing antitrust?” Harris’ response was noncommittal. Harris said that it’s important to let businesses “develop and grow” because tech is a “very significant source of California’s economy.” That said, enforcement against bad actors wasn’t necessarily anti-business. “Bad businesses are not good for good businesses,” she added.