The Article below was published in Vol. 136, Issue 8 of the Lake Forest College Stentor on April 30, 2021.
By Nathaniel Bodnar ’21
Staff Writer
Recently, United States senators have made it abundantly clear that a driving factor in their decisions to regulate companies is that the companies they are targeting are those they view as political threats. Politicians of all stripes have made their malice toward companies well known, and they view tax codes and antitrust policy as a weapon to fight these companies. The surplus of information and the willingness of politicians to go on unrestrained Twitter rants shows their true colors.
A prime example of a Twitter spat of this type is between Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Amazon. Warren initially called out Amazon for “exploit[ing]loopholes” in the tax code. Amazon tweeted in response that they were paying taxes per the United States tax code but that she could change the tax code as a member of the Senate. Warren responded that she would not only make them pay their fair share but also “fight to break up Big Tech, so you’re not powerful enough to heckle senators with snotty tweets.” She explicitly stated that antagonistic tweets were grounds to punish companies with antitrust actions. Unfortunately for her, even if she did break up “Big Tech,” individuals on Twitter or elsewhere can heckle her regardless of their corporate power. An account dedicated to rating dogs (@dog_rates) with scores typically hitting 13/10 has 18 times the followers of the Amazon account she fought with.
Breaking up “Big Tech” for their political beliefs not only runs afoul of typical American legal norms but also will not stop elected officials from facing criticism. Undoubtedly, she has other reasons for wanting to break up Big Tech, but even the insinuation that a company’s speech is a driving factor for antitrust action poisons the whole endeavor.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) wants to break up Big Tech for similar reasons. Hawley takes issue with the “speech bias” that companies like Facebook have. He continually references speech bias and viewpoint discrimination as a factor in breaking up Big Tech. He specifically notes that “Conservatives ought to be concerned about the bias that the dominant online social media platforms are exercising.” Hawley is, at least in part, motivated to take antitrust action and make bold moves to eliminate Section 230 (This protects social media companies from liability regarding the decisions they make while moderating their site). Like Warren, Hawley sees the political views and actions of companies he finds disagreeable as a reason to invoke regulatory and antitrust action.
Unfortunately, this phenomenon is broader than these two senators. Major League Baseball recently opted to move their All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver as a political statement regarding Georgia’s new voting laws. Republican Senators quickly called for revoking Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption because, as Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said, “It’s time for the federal government to stop granting special privileges to specific, favored corporations—especially those that punish their political opponents.” The political stances of businesses increasingly seem to make businesses liable to antitrust action or threats, and it appears that both sides of the Senate chamber are becoming more open to this view.
