Is this true? Did our most trusted representative go woke?
By now you have heard about the leak of Jim Jordan’s “Confidential” memo, “REPUBLICAN HEARING GUIDANCE Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 6: Examining the Dominance of Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple” The memo was leaked to the press on July 29th, the day before the Congressional Subcommittee Hearing on July 30th. Before each hearing it is common for both parties to put in print and distribute their “Talking Points” to their respective members. Though leaks are widespread in D.C., internal leaks within the parties are rare.
What is obvious is that Mr. Jordan has set down in print what he does and dosen’t want from this hearing and sums it up in his opening “Hearing Themes”
- Political bias in Big Tech is a problem that must be highlighted and examined so that consumers are aware, the market can respond, and lawmakers can evaluate options.
- Antitrust law should be used to promote freedom, competition, and the American dream, not to punish success or attack companies solely because they are large.
- Many Democrats seek to use opportunities to change antitrust law as an opening to undo a century’s worth of legal precedents that gave rise to greatest economy in history and to Europeanize the American business climate.
- Pursuant to existing law, each of these companies is already subject to numerous investigations – these investigations are ongoing and we should trust the Trump Administration and Attorney General Barr to bring appropriate enforcement actions.
The theme about the use and abuse of the anti-trust laws is consistent in the entirety of the memo and Mr. Jordan clearly acknowledges that Big Tech Political bias is a problem, however he repeatedly states that anti-trust law is not the way to solve Big Tech bias.
Antitrust won’t solve political bias
While exploring political bias in Big Tech, it is important to recognize that antitrust serves as a poor tool for advancing socio-political goals separate from market efficiencies and the competitive process.25 Modern antitrust law focuses on preserving the competitive process through application of rigorous economic analysis, and is poorly suited to achieving broader regulatory objectives.26 Accordingly, it seems wise to avoid repurposing antitrust in an attempt to advance and preserve freedom of speech in social media. Using antitrust to break up large technology companies or create sector-specific regulations instead seems likely to backfire. Such regulations may also reduce incentive for entrepreneurs to develop alternate platforms, such as Parler. Instead, new regulations may fortify large social media companies—as has happened in other industries when regulation actually strengthened.
As you read the memo, you will notice that nowhere in the memo does Mr. Jordan support these Big Tech companies, what he stresses is the way these companies should be legally addressed. We have seen all too often how the left will use “any means necessary” in their agenda with erratic and damaging results being the outcome. The Democrat Legislature has become extremely comfortable with not only writing the Law, but also trying to enforce the Law. The last three and a half years has been one nonstop Congressional investigation after another costing untold millions of taxpayer monies and have produced no results.
Mr. Jordan points out that all four of the Big Tech are already under investigation by several enforcement agencies.
Investigations are underway
While the Committee’s Big Tech investigation and this hearing may prove instructive generally—and provide fodder for those with a chip on their shoulders against capitalism—it is important to remember that the Trump Administration is already enforcing the antitrust laws that Congress has given it to administer, and is examining Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook. Arguably—far from showing that the existing antitrust framework is dysfunctional—as they play out these investigations may establish just how well the existing framework functions. In more detail:
- Google: The Justice Department is investigating Google for antitrust violations.154154
- Action against Google appears imminent, including in relation to Google’s search and advertising practices.
- Amazon: The FTC is investigating Amazon for antitrust violations.
- That probe includes how Amazon competes as a retailer with third-party merchants that use its platform, as well as the extent of its control over such third parties.
- Apple: The Justice Department is investigating Apple for antitrust violations.
- This investigation appears to encompass how Apple manages its app store, which is a topic that Chairman Cicilline has focused on recently.
- Facebook: The FTC is investigating Facebook for antitrust violations.
- The FTC’s investigation entails, in part, examining “whether Facebook acquired potential rivals such as Instagram and WhatsApp to head off competitive threats.”
- Recent reporting suggests the FTC may soon depose high-profile executives.
There is a reason why the Constitution separates the power of Congress to make Law and the Power to enforce Law to the Executive Branch. Anything less would be a tyranny. Mr. Jordan knows this and so do you.
As you hear that Representative Jim Jordan has sold you down the road and as a target of the Social and Political bias (that has run unchecked by these four Big Tech companies and basically smother the voice of Conservatives) then Mr. Jordan must be in somebodies pocket by not forcing anti-trust legislature that would only benefit free speech. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.
Mr. Jordan’s memo conveys a respect for the “Rule of Law” and “Limited Government”. Two very conservative values.
Willy-nilly law-making would deliver more power to the Congress where everything becomes a moving target and the Congress gets to decide who wins, and when and if the Law is applied more to some and less to others. Anti-trust was meant to break up companies because their size, power, and control of markets inhibit or prevent free entry into the market. Anti-trust was not intended to break up companies because they are biased. Don’t believe for a moment that the Democrats want to break up these four Big Tech companies because Democrats don’t agree with Big Tech’s left-leaning bias, or the Democrats have suddenly become champions of free speech. What they want are 10 or 12 companies that they hand deliver to leftist cohorts in exchange for loyal beholding to the cause. The fact is the use of anti-trust laws to break up Big Tech is a move to take control of social media and put it totally under the control of the leftists. The Democrats don’t like that they don’t have control over the owners of these companies, that the boss may someday do something crazy, like foster free speech, or let a smaller company survive long enough to become a platform for Conservatives.
It’s hard sometimes to do the right thing when it looks like the wrong thing. Why would Mr. Jordan not jump on the chance to shut down these shadow-banners, blockers, cancellers, and deletory-conspirator’s? Turns out that he respects the rule and intent of the Law as granted to Congress by the People in our hallowed Constitution, to limit the power and size of Government by stopping leftists from the ill-gained booty of breaking up big companies and selling them to the highest bidder, to defend free markets even when the cost defending them outweighs the short term gain, and most importantly, to prevent Congress from thinking they can both create the Law and enforce it.