Big Tech's $95 Million Spending Spree Leaves Antitrust Bill On Brink of Defeat (bloomberg.com) 46
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: A high-profile push by Congress to rein in the nation's biggest internet companies is at risk of failing with time running out to pass major legislation ahead of midterm elections. Alphabet's Google, Apple, Amazon.com and Meta and their trade groups have poured almost $95 million into lobbying since 2021 as they seek to derail the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which has advanced further than any US legislative effort to address the market power of some of the world's richest companies. After a nearly two-year battle, the bill is now at a critical juncture as the Senate returns this week for a final stretch before the November midterms. Backers of the measure swear they have the necessary votes, yet it's unclear if they do, and the Senate will be busy with other must-pass spending legislation.
Although clipping the wings of tech giants through antitrust reform had support from both Republicans and Democrats during this Congress, a likely GOP majority in the House next year is expected to focus on allegations that internet platforms squelch conservative viewpoints. That's why tech lobbyists have been trying to run out the clock. Leading Republicans like California's Kevin McCarthy, who is on track to become Speaker under a GOP majority, have publicly opposed the antitrust push. The legislation's sponsors can see the window narrowing. Antitrust advocates were expecting a vote before Congress adjourned for four weeks in August. But Schumer told donors in July that it didn't have enough votes to pass.
The bill has 13 co-sponsors in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass and be sent to the House. Supporters like Yelp's head of public policy Luther Lowe, a longtime Google critic, argue that enough undecided lawmakers would vote for the measure if it came to the floor. A Schumer spokesperson said he's working with the bill's sponsors to find the necessary votes and he still plans to bring it to the floor. The bill was approved by both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on strong bipartisan votes. Several amendments have addressed concerns about privacy and security issues. What hasn't killed the bill "has made it stronger," said Yelp's Lowe. The measure seeks to restrict the companies from favoring their own products, so that competitors who depend on these platforms to reach consumers wouldn't be at a disadvantage. That could impact the design of Google Maps, the display of Apple Music on an iPhone or the prominence of Amazon Basics on the company's e-commerce site. "I don't see it going to the floor," said Michael Petricone, senior vice president of government affairs at the Consumer Technology Association, a trade group that counts Amazon, Google and Facebook among its members. "With an election coming up, I expect senators to come back and focus on issues that are popular with voters. Tech regulation is not one of those issues."
Although clipping the wings of tech giants through antitrust reform had support from both Republicans and Democrats during this Congress, a likely GOP majority in the House next year is expected to focus on allegations that internet platforms squelch conservative viewpoints. That's why tech lobbyists have been trying to run out the clock. Leading Republicans like California's Kevin McCarthy, who is on track to become Speaker under a GOP majority, have publicly opposed the antitrust push. The legislation's sponsors can see the window narrowing. Antitrust advocates were expecting a vote before Congress adjourned for four weeks in August. But Schumer told donors in July that it didn't have enough votes to pass.
The bill has 13 co-sponsors in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to pass and be sent to the House. Supporters like Yelp's head of public policy Luther Lowe, a longtime Google critic, argue that enough undecided lawmakers would vote for the measure if it came to the floor. A Schumer spokesperson said he's working with the bill's sponsors to find the necessary votes and he still plans to bring it to the floor. The bill was approved by both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on strong bipartisan votes. Several amendments have addressed concerns about privacy and security issues. What hasn't killed the bill "has made it stronger," said Yelp's Lowe. The measure seeks to restrict the companies from favoring their own products, so that competitors who depend on these platforms to reach consumers wouldn't be at a disadvantage. That could impact the design of Google Maps, the display of Apple Music on an iPhone or the prominence of Amazon Basics on the company's e-commerce site. "I don't see it going to the floor," said Michael Petricone, senior vice president of government affairs at the Consumer Technology Association, a trade group that counts Amazon, Google and Facebook among its members. "With an election coming up, I expect senators to come back and focus on issues that are popular with voters. Tech regulation is not one of those issues."
The biggest drawback of republics is that... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are run by politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately for us, nobody alive in the US has lived in a republic. The US has not been an operational republic in over 150 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that America has been a monarchy for 150 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm with the other person that replied...how do you figure?
Re: (Score:1)
Presumably we got a law or constitutional amendment or court ruling that he doesn't like.
Or maybe he just doesn't know what a republic is.
Re: (Score:2)
"The Roman Senate: The best government money can buy" - Comicus
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not true. And ignores the point of the story, that they're *buying* legislators.
But you think monopolies are good, and that there shouldn't be a lot more convictions and removals from office for corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
All of the companies you are lambasting here are run by wealthy, leftists
Overturning Roe means the unborn can be treated as first-class citizens. BTW, Roe's victims were predominant non-white.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You passed obummercare with a 50-50 Senate. If you can't pass something now it's not because it's not possible; it's because you don't give enough of a fuck, and the GOP isn't involved in that.
Alright, shitheel. What you have omitted is that over 200 amendments were approved specifically for GOP members in order to get their support. So what happened? The GOP negotiated in bad faith and pull all of their support.
Re: (Score:2)
However, in that 50-50 senate, not everyone was strictly and uniformly following what the party whips demanded. So there were some GOP members who helped pass it. Since that time, they whips have gotten bigger (I mean the actual whips, I haven't noticed the weight of the party whips). Also proximity to elections has a big dampening factor on legislators who might buck the party line.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused, are you for or against the bill ? You seem angry at the Democrats in a sort of knee jerk way but don't really say much about the bill.
If you're for the bill presumably the fact that 95% of Democrats are for it and 100% of Republicans are against it suggests the problem statistically is with the republicans.
If you're against the bill you should be happy that the republicans (and a democrat or two) are successfully blocking it.
You don't really seem to be either of those two though, you're just
Sad state of affairs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It is sad that rights of millions of Americans and billions others worldwide can trampled for just $95 Million.
How is the government forcing Facebook and Twitter to censor speech protecting my rights?
IMO, the tech giants are doing a fair job of balancing free speech while banning the most malicious lies and conspiracies. I am much more worried about being "trampled" by partisan government interference.
Re: (Score:3)
You're more concerned about having your rights trampled by an elected official (who you can vote out) than someone who isn't elected and would happily kill you if it would increase his stock price by $1? I don't get that.
Re: (Score:2)
You're more concerned about having your rights trampled by an elected official (who you can vote out)
Donald Trump was elected. So was Adolf Hitler (at least with a plurality). Democracy is no guarantee of good government.
Whatever mechanism of government control that is put in place by Biden and the Democratic congress may be controlled by Trump or DeSantis after 2024.
It has happened before. The Left created the HUAC in the 1930s to suppress their opponents on the right. It was later weaponized by Right in the 1950s to suppress the left.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, more and more it is looking like the US Federal Govt., via the FBI did, in fact, push Facebook directly to censor and mis-label the Hunter Biden laptop subject as Russian misinformation, when they knew that it was legitimate.
Polls show that if the general public had known this was real and what the contents show about Joe, Hunter and the Biden clan, that Joe very likely would not have won the election,
That is n
Well some of that is good news (Score:2)
I've read the bill itself and also have thoughts on the summary here.
Quoting the fine summary: ...
--
clipping the wings of tech giants through antitrust reform had support from both Republicans and Democrats during this Congress,
The bill was approved by both the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on strong BIPARTISAN votes. Several amendments have addressed concerns about privacy and security issues.
--
That's really good to see, the two parties working TOGETHER to make things better. Offering amendments t
Re: (Score:2)
That's worded as nebulously, globally, and vaguely as gun control bills are.
No wonder it doesn't have support. Even a simpleton can see at first glance that there's going to be no way to enforce that equitably.
Lots of rich politicians and their advisers (Score:2)
If lobbying is free speech (Score:2, Interesting)
then so is not paying taxes
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Robing a bank is "free speech" that protests banks.
Re: (Score:2)
Robing a bank is "free speech" that protests banks.
That would have to be a pretty big garment.
Re: (Score:1)
Can't have naked banks, think of the children.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, even during a bare market.
Somebody stop me...
Re: (Score:1)
Now your assets are exposed.
Rule #1.... yawn (Score:2, Troll)
Rule number 1 of any law being proposed by those in government: name it something completely opposite what it actually does.
Patriot Act
Net Neutrality
No Child Left Behind
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act
Affordable Care Act
Civil Rights Act
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
These bills, laws... are always garbage propaganda doublespeak.
So what does this likely-garbage act actually do? I'd bet it just further entrenches the government with the affairs of corporations, increasing their fascistic symbiosis.
Re: (Score:1)
Some are debatable, but it would turn into the usual political talking points to debate them.
I'll pick one for the heck of it: EESA: It did help the economy at a time when it needed help. Perfect? No, but probably better than doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I have not read even a single page of the " American Innovation and Choice Online Act", I can be sure of one thing - it will squash innovation and reduce choice.
Just say that you're a moron.
So, I really hope this thing dies with the $95 million stake through its heart.
Yeah, you'll love paying 30% tax on groceries if you order them through your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I can say that with great confidence after reviewing the contents of every single bill every published by every government that has existed since the dawn of time, which to a bill do the exact opposite of what is advertised on the label.
I disagree.
IANAL but I have legal training in my field of expertise and there are a couple laws that are really well-crafted, meaningful and do what they're supposed to do. And trust me, I'm as cynical as the next guy when it comes to politics and politicians.
I have noticed that most of these well-made laws are relatively old - around a century or so. Most of what's been passed in the last two or three decades is garbage, just from a mechanical POV. I mean the quality of the wording, the clarity and usefuln
Lobbying IS bribery (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems astonishing to most of the democratic world quite how widespread legalised corruption - known as "lobbying" - is in the USA. The mere idea that any company would spend tens of millions on such things seems incredible.
Whilst other countries, including my own (Australia), have their challenges (the favourite being "vote for what I want and I'll give you an amazing well paid cushy job when you retire" - cough, fossil fuel companies, cough), the USA has rendered bribery both legal and incredibly powerful - to the considerable detriment of its populace.
Re:Lobbying IS bribery (Score:4, Insightful)
Lobbying certainly ought to be criticized as we currently structure it, but lobbying itself is crucial to democracy. If you send a letter to your congress critter asking for some change, you're lobbying. And you'd be surprised how many congress critters actually pay attention to those letters.
The problems with American democracy are systemic. We have a system that was designed over 200 years ago for a country that looked much different than what we have now. Lobbying, in and of itself, is not a problem. The systemic problems of our government just manifest in corrupt lobbying.
Here are some major issues that allow for a system to be gamed:
1. 2 Senators per state despite widely disproportionate state sizes in both land/population
2. Single member House districts
3. Plurality voting
4. Pseudo-Federalism (for the most part we ditched federalism with the Civil War, but we've done so using creative interpretations of the Commerce Clause or controlling states through funding—so we have a system that is unitary in many regards but has random constraints such as leaving education up to the states).
5. We allow states (and the U.S. Congress) to enshrine the two major parties through legislation and through rules, as the only two viable parties. In many states the signature requirements are higher for independents than for party members (oh, and to be considered a party you need a minimum number of members and to jump through hoops). Boards of Elections are usually run by the two major parties.
6. Checks and balances. The idea of the executive/legislative/judicial balance of power sounds great on paper. It's real easy to teach kids in school. But, aside from the military, the majority of the government consists of bureaucratic agencies that are given broad powers to set rules and make regulations. The problem with this is we stick them in the executive branch but they really fit this gray area between legislative and executive. Furthermore, as we have seen with some rather incompetent presidents, the executive often tries to stuff the bureaucracies with cronies who don't know what they're doing.
The fact is that we do not have a democracy. Hell, we don't even have a representative government. Our government is the result of so many odd historical factors that for all intents and purposes it could be considered a random result. When you don't run a tight ship, it's easy for bad actors to take advantage of the situation and exploit it for personal gain.
It's easy to look at America and see our many symptoms and point to them as the problem. But treating symptoms does not cure the disease.
Re: (Score:2)
It might just be more transparent in the USA. I know my country has its scandals around nice after-politics jobs and luxury trips and secretive lobby groups and all of that. Who knows what else is going on behind the scenes?
The USA has ... (Score:4, Insightful)
the best politicians that money can buy -- unfortunately