Clinton Could Act on Antitrust Without Congress, Says ILSR Researcher
The Democratic Party’s prioritization of antitrust enforcement in its 2016 platform (see 1607290051) “was made possible in part by the Bernie Sanders movement, but it's also the product of years of advocacy by scholars and activists who believe that high…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
levels of concentration in banking, retail, agribusiness and other sectors are ravaging our economy and democracy,” said Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in a Wednesday opinion piece for Truthout. The platform positions “do say something about the mood of the party and where its future direction might lie,” she said. Mitchell lauded the inclusion and pointed to a recent speech by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who “named names,” including Comcast's. “But the boldest part of her speech, the part that Democrats most need to hear, focused on a new breed of ascendant monopolies: Amazon, Google and Apple,” Mitchell said. “Led by socially liberal executives, these companies donate much more to Democrats than Republicans, but they also oppose the idea of government intervening in the markets they control.” Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “would have plenty of leeway to act,” Mitchell said of antitrust. “Our powerful antitrust laws were never repealed; [former President Ronald] Reagan simply changed the framework that guides their enforcement. This means Clinton could go after concentrated power without help from Congress.”