Our last article, New Brandeisians keep their promise, discussed the contents of Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s (D-MN) proposed overarching antitrust legislation, Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act (CALERA). Now, we’d like to take a step back and focus on the arguments supporting and opposing such reform, and in particular the precise manner in which the proposed legislation goes about such reform. We’d also like to highlight another antitrust statute proposed by Sen. Klobuchar, the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act. Continue Reading
New Brandeisians keep their promise: New antitrust legislation reflects movement in role of antitrust laws
Probably never before has there been introduced in Congress so many bills relating to antitrust. At last count, over 25 different pieces of antitrust legislation have been introduced just this year, covering antitrust in general and distinct industries in particular, including pharmaceuticals, sports, news and oil. And more have been promised. While some proposed laws are bipartisan in nature, most are single-party efforts. Interestingly, while both sides want to battle mega-mergers and worry about increasing market concentration, true to their ideology, they attack the issue in distinct ways. We will devote this issue to the key – and perhaps most radical, at least in terms of its departure from the status quo – piece of legislation proposed by the Democrats, the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act (CALERA). Continue Reading
1990s to the present: The Chicago School and antitrust enforcement
There is no question that antitrust policy, at any time, is highly influenced by the prevailing economic thinking. Equally unquestionable is the fact that economic thinking is highly influenced by one’s political philosophy. With these principles established, the current debate over the purpose of the antitrust laws, and thus the standards they ought to employ, seems an inevitable conclusion to the shifting economic and political tides that have taken place over the last several decades. In this installment in our series, The antitrust revolution is coming? The antitrust revolution is here?, we discuss the continued evolution of antitrust through the 1990s and 2000s and the arguments for and against retaining “consumer welfare” as the prime or sole objective of the antitrust laws.
The antitrust revolution is coming? The antitrust revolution is here?
Borrowing from the immortal words of Paul Revere, the title consciously evokes images of a battle, though fought with words and ideas and (hopefully) not muskets and bayonets. The proper objectives of the antitrust laws and the appropriate level of antitrust enforcement has been discussed in mainstream media more over the last decade than perhaps at any point in time. Indeed, in both 2016 and 2020, the Democratic Party platform included a section on antitrust. Many non-lawyers may assume that the public discussions about antitrust are nothing more than the normal discourse attendant to political jockeying. And to some extent that may be correct. But there really is a more fundamental debate going on that hit at the heart and soul of antitrust. In fact, to a very real extent, the debate about antitrust mirrors the divide in social philosophy that underlies the political schism that exists today.
