It may have taken economic collapse, a pandemic and the election of Donald Trump, but after decades out of style, aggressive antitrust enforcement is finally back in vogue. While many icons of the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s were titans of industry in tech, finance and beyond, today’s trendsetters—like Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—are lining up against some of those very same wealthy magnates, seeking to break up companies like Amazon, Google and Goldman Sachs.
Less famous but just as valuable to these efforts are organizations like the Open Markets Institute and American Economic Liberties Project, whose research and advocacy have helped drive the new antitrust movement. Sarah Miller is an alumnus of Open Markets and now executive director of AELP, where she oversees a staff of more than a dozen people operating with a budget around $2 million. Ironically, a fair amount of that budget, Miller says, comes from foundations funded by tech giant co-founders like Pierre Omidyar and Chris Hughes.
But it’s not just tech companies or big banks that have drawn Miller’s ire; she and her AELP cohort see monopolies across numerous industries, from pharmaceuticals to telecom and agriculture, where overpowered companies are immiserating workers, bilking consumers, and making themselves rich and powerful beyond belief. With Democrats back in power and popular will clamoring for intervention against massive corporations, Miller and her team are hoping to make the most of the moment. In a recent phone conversation with Blue Tent, Miller discussed shifting attitudes among the right and left when it comes to corporate power, how Amazon and Google may resist regulation, and more.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
BT: The last two Democratic administrations were marked by their somewhat cozy relationships with monopolized industries—I think of major financial institutions under the Clinton administration and then big tech under Obama—but now, it seems like the script has flipped, and big tech especially is on the outs with Democratic voters and politicians. What do you think led to this quick change?
SM: I think that the problem of having monopolization, the ways that large corporations abuse their power, just became so pronounced that it was impossible to ignore. Part of our success was that we had a story for how Facebook, for example, was able to destabilize democracy; why Amazon, for example, was able to make tens of billions of dollars during the pandemic; why smaller banks who give traditionally to underserved communities and small business owners from Black and brown communities weren’t getting support that white small businesses were getting, because we’ve allowed the banking sector to become so consolidated. So there’s often a straight line between these questions of market structure and the ways that everyday people in smaller businesses are able to operate in the economy, and that being reinforced over and over and over when you look at a broad range of economic problems tied together.
BT: How seriously do you take recent Republican critiques of big tech? You have someone like Josh Hawley, who filed lawsuits against Google, and then people like Marco Rubio, who kind of vaguely support union efforts at Amazon. Do you think they’re really serious about their opposition to big tech power, and do you think there’s a real opportunity for collaboration with progressives, or is it just chest-beating?
SM: I think there are two dimensions to this. One is that we have seen real bipartisan cooperation at a state level. The major antitrust cases that were brought against Facebook and Google—there were five of them—are bipartisan, and many, almost all of them, include state and territorial AGs. So I think that demonstrates that there is some bipartisan appetite for working together, and all of those suits, I should mention, call for the courts to break up Facebook and Google in addition to other remedies. So these aren’t, kind of, light touch requests for remedies. I think on the conservative side, I would point to somebody like Ken Buck, who’s the ranking member of the House antitrust subcommittee, who has worked very well with the chair of that committee, David Cicilline, to endorse the findings and massive investigatory report that was published in the fall, and who has largely been, I think, a good partner on that committee.
I think when it comes to some of the Senate Republicans, or in general, across the Republican party, there is an awareness that tech platforms, in particular, have immense control over the public discourse, reinforced by banning Trump, and there’s a genuine level of discomfort with that. But at the same time, I think we will see when it comes time to vote on nominees and bills if it is chest-beating or if it is real.
BT: What about within the Democratic coalition? People are pretty aware of the outspoken critics of monopoly power like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but are there particular Democrats or liberal groups that you think are standing in the way of more aggressive antitrust enforcement?
SM: Right now, I’ve been pretty astonished around, certainly, the powerful rhetoric that’s been emanating from all corners of the Democratic Party on this, from Amy Klobuchar who, like a month ago in a speech—and I think she’s considered a more moderate voice—she said, look, breakups aren’t radical, the status quo is radical—which is something I’ve been saying for three years—actually, it’s this world that we’re living in that’s really extreme.
I should say with Biden, as well. Biden has appointed Tim Wu to the NEC [National Economic Council]; he is a very well-regarded anti-monopolist in a traditional Brandeisian sense; Lina Khan to the FTC [Federal Trade Commission], also a really exceptional appointment of a new generation of leadership on these issues, so we’re feeling positive about that. And then it will come down to the details, like, are we able to get legislation through that actually solves the problem versus putting a Band-Aid on it and facilitating a press conference where we say grand things but aren’t delivering in the way that we need to? So that’s still the open question. I think there is a genuine desire to deal with these problems at the root, and understanding that they have massive social and economic consequences that spire out in all directions.
BT: What do you think is the sector that’s the most in need of antitrust enforcement that doesn’t get as much attention as it deserves?
SM: We’re looking more closely at the pharmaceutical sector. There are multiple problems in the pharma sector, obviously there are patent monopolies, and then there’s sheer market power. So last week, we launched a new coalition to call on the FTC to investigate what’s essentially a cartel among insulin manufacturers; there are three of them, they’ve been raising prices in lockstep for 20 years, and nobody has done anything about that. And there’s authority to do something about that, which is the frustrating thing. Just yesterday, Katie Porter and quite a few House Republicans sent a follow-on letter to the FTC reiterating our request for an investigation to hold these corporations accountable for raising prices together over the past 20 years.
BT: Antitrust is one of these issues that can come off as a very high-level or wonky topic that involves some lawyers taking on these incredibly complex cases. Are there things that grassroots groups or other progressive groups that aren’t as in-the-weeds on all the particulars can do to get involved or support these sorts of efforts?
SM: Part of the strategy is to make it so complicated that people feel too intimidated to learn about it and engage. And that’s partly why we are supportive of remedies that we know work. When a market is too concentrated, usually if you break up some corporations, then you create competition, and everyone else in that market has more bargaining power; workers and consumers and smaller businesses. That’s not rocket science, and that’s a genuinely important solution to a lot of problems.
When we think about, from a grassroots perspective, from an organization perspective, affecting business practices or holding corporations accountable, I think that the majority of the time, that’s around directing energy toward CEOs and corporations themselves. What we need to recognize is that corporations will never break up their own monopolies. They’re really hesitant to take steps that materially impact their financial position, and then at the end of the day, it’s policymakers who really aren’t held accountable for their bad behavior, who have facilitated this monopolization, who have looked the other way too long while these market practices proliferate without actually addressing underlying power that is driving those practices. So we have to hold policymakers accountable, too, for the corporate abuses that are rampant across the economy.
BT: How do you expect big tech companies in particular to resist antitrust enforcement if it’s made tougher on them?
SM: I think there are two main ways, and we already see it. So one is, they have kind of infinite resources at their disposal to launch flashy PR campaigns, to lobby, to hire—the revolving door has been very fast—to slow down or neutralize actions that would impact their power or otherwise change the narrative to be in their favor.
I think the other thing that we need to expect is, because economic power confers political power, that when a lot of these corporations feel backed into a corner or feel action is imminent, they will leverage that political power to harm consumers or smaller businesses or other vulnerable groups and say, ‘look, we have to do this because of the government, this is the government’s fault,’ and engage in essentially hostage-taking. And we’ve seen that with Amazon, where, when France tried to impose stricter safety regulations during COVID, Amazon said, well, we’ll just shut down delivery, we won’t deliver products to French citizens. So I think policymakers need to be ready to stand firm against those sorts of scare tactics and bullying, and we as a movement need to be equipped to counter that narrative and expose that hostage-taking thing for what it is, rather than letting them get away with putting it back on to the policymakers who obviously want to be reelected.
BT: Another idea that’s been floated as an alternative by more left-wing thinkers is to take these monopolized industries and just nationalize them, theorizing that they function better as a monopoly, and would therefore function best as a democratically controlled monopoly. Where does nationalization fit into your view of monopoly power?
SM: This is a case-by-case question, so it’s a hard one to answer just point-blank. I think if you’re looking at public goods, if you’re looking at things like healthcare, if you’re looking at things like education, if you’re looking at things like housing, that are really critical both for increasing equity, for ensuring people are financially secure, there is, in my opinion, a huge need for greater investment in public, universal goods in those and other spaces.
I think if you’re looking at an entity like Facebook, it is safer in some ways, because of the dangers of fusing something like a communications platform that basically all Americans are on with the government, that is a little bit scary. And I think in general, if you look back and think about the dangers, potentially, just coming out of the Trump administration, of a strategy that would speak to accept these severely concentrated market structures and nationalize them, you could get into a pretty dangerous spot pretty quickly. What our goal is here—again, in most but not all cases—is to create a more balanced system of bargaining power between businesses, workers, consumers and communities. We feel like that is often going to be a safer option in the long term for democracy and ensuring that these corporations behave appropriately and positively.
BT: A big trend at a lot of nonprofits and progressive organizations has been a push for unionization by their workforce. If your staff were to try to unionize, would you do anything to oppose them or discourage them?
SM: Of course not! I would welcome it. Unionization and increasing worker bargaining power through unionization is not what we work on, but is something we are entirely in support of, particularly as we see how many roadblocks Amazon is throwing up in Bessemer, Alabama. That fight is so important, and it’s also important that policymakers step in to ensure that Amazon, for example, is less powerful so they can’t manipulate local governments, and it’s not such a massive David and Goliath battle next time.
