notebook
Congress’s Strange Bedfellows Fighting Big Tech Coming from two different perspectives, there’s an emerging consensus on blunting the market power of digital platforms. Now the parties have to legislate. BY BR I T TA N Y G I B S O N MAJOR BIPARTISAN legislation has
been an endangered species in Congress the past several years. But an unlikely confluence of events has created a coalition of lawmakers, from far left to far right, in favor of regulating Big Tech monopolies. Now the question is whether they can actually legislate on an issue where they have stumbled into common cause. Other attempts at bipartisanship this year have thus far led to partisan standoffs and filibuster threats. But the impact of a 16-month investigation and report from the House Judiciary Committee’s Antitrust Subcommittee, alongside a culturewar fear of internet censorship on the right, has generated the conditions for Congress to act. Regulating technology companies was found to be one of two top areas of consensus in a poll of senior staffers on the Hill, conducted by Locust Street Group and Punchbowl News. The Democrats’ report on competition in digital markets, published last October, was meant to rally bipartisan support for its expansive set of legislative recommendations. It came after months of hearings in the Capitol and the field put a spotlight on antitrust generally and Big Tech specifically (especially after calling the CEOs of Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon to testify last summer). But the subcommittee’s work doesn’t have a straightforward path to success, and the potential unification behind it wasn’t immediate. While Democrats are in control of the House, the whole caucus is not likely to be on board with the Antitrust Subcommittee’s recommendations. The House Judiciary Committee recently adopted the subcommittee report, but Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who represents a district around Silicon Valley, submitted an “Additional Views” document for
12 PROSPECT.ORG MAY/JUN 2021
consideration, which stressed enforcement agencies and courts’ role in antitrust over congressional action. Lofgren, a senior Judiciary Committee member, is not the only House Democrat with long-standing ties to the tech industry. Those members may be reluctant to break up or significantly regulate the platforms. That makes conservative buy-in on any legislation even more important, not just to break a filibuster in the Senate, but even to pass the House. This alone narrows the scope of any potential compromise. While the most progressive Democrats have pushed to extend the anti-monopoly conversation to other sectors of the economy, Republicans have made clear the limits of their interest. “I see the need in Big Tech because of the abuse … I haven’t seen that in other areas,” Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee, told The Wall Street Journal. On Big Tech specifically, there is dialogue between Democrats and Republicans. Buck became convinced during the course of the subcommittee investigation that something needed to be done. In response to the Democrats’ report, Buck wrote his own response to tackling Big Tech, called “The Third Way,” along with Republican Reps. Doug Collins (R-GA), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ). (Collins is no longer in Congress.) The report agrees that “the ball is in Congress’ court” when it comes to regulating the power and market share of the Silicon Valley platforms. This raised hopes that a big bipartisan agreement in the House could put pressure on the Senate to act. Buck’s sway over his colleagues is limited. When the full Judiciary Committee adopted the subcommittee report, they did it on a partyline vote, with no Republicans in
support. That does not bode well for a bipartisan solution. But things are changing quickly. On May 5, after Facebook’s Oversight Board (sometimes referred to as its own Supreme Court) decided it would continue its ban on Donald Trump’s account (while also saying it did not have the authority to permanently block the former head of state), Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the most powerful Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, tweeted: “Break them up.” Jordan borrowing progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Big Tech battle cry was especially shocking, because ahead of the Antitrust Subcommittee’s Big Tech CEO hearing, he shared an internal memo warning that antitrust law shouldn’t “punish success” or focus on the “mentality that ‘big is bad.’” This internal memo was written by Tyler Grimm, a Jordan staffer who is particularly hostile to changes in antitrust. Buck also responded to the Facebook Supreme Court decision by calling for antitrust reform. But Jordan’s three-word tweet signals an opening, because he has much more influence over the Republican caucus. If he is breaking with his more corporate-friendly staffers and demanding action, that could move other members. The Facebook decision is just the latest Republican grievance with how Big Tech does business. Since the 2020 general election, GOP outrage has grown over the belief that Big Tech companies are censoring their speech in ways that specifically target conservative lawmakers, content creators, and then-President Trump. The January 6th insurrection at the Capitol signified this shift. After months of Trump’s tweets being flagged or hidden behind a factchecking square, Twitter and Facebook decided to cut Trump’s main lines of communication, suspending his profiles on their respective platforms. Two days later, Twitter made its decision permanent. By Saturday, January 9, Google and Apple had both banned the conservative alternative social networking platform Parler from their respective mobile app stores. Parler, like Trump’s specific social media
