California Democrats are Opposing Big Tech Antitrust Legislation. Here’s Why.
AP File Photo/Andrew Harnik
After 23 hours of debate, the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon finally concluded the markup of six antitrust bills designed at reining in Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, and potentially Microsoft. All six bills were advanced to the full House of Representatives. The bipartisan bills introduced by David Cicilline (D-RI) and Ken Buck (R-CO) Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Antitrust Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law respectively worked on a sixteen-month investigation, held seven Congressional hearings, poured through over 1.3 million documents and interviewed 240 market participants. Introduced almost two weeks ago, the bills were met by praise from antitrust experts, consumer protection groups, and privacy advocates who believe that the legislation would bring monumental changes to the way technology companies are regulated in the United States. But the package of bills has many hurdles to overcome if they are to become law. The first hurdle, the markup: a lengthy period of amendments, debates, and votes on the specific language of each bill, has been cleared.
Over the course of the 23 hours, clear coalitions formed in the House Judiciary Committee - but not along conventional party lines. It was clear that members who sat on the Subcommittee on Antitrust and were present during the investigation had a much deeper technical knowledge and market understanding of the issues as a whole. That coalition of those supporting the legislation appeared to be made up of mostly Democrats but lead by a combination of Representatives Cicilline (D-RI), Buck (R-CO), and Matt Gaetz (R-FL). On the other side, a coalition developed of skeptics to the bill lead by Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH). But not all Democrats were fully supportive of the legislation. In fact, the “skeptic coalition” looped in Democrats primarily from California including Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Eric Swalwell (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), and Lou Correa (D-CA) along with their Californian conservative counterparts.
Facebook, Google, and Apple are based in California, so it begs the question, are these Representatives simply representing their constituents, or are there more powerful forces at play?
Cash Money
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, California Democrats take thousands of dollars of donations from Big Tech companies; Facebook, Google (Alphabet), Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft. Zoe Lofgren emerged with dozens of amendments to the bills and in opposition of many of the proposals laid out by Cicilline and others. But a peek behind the curtain shows in the 2020 election cycle alone, Lofgren, a thirteen-year incumbent, took $79,450 from Big Tech companies directly to her campaign and to her political action committees (PACs). Lofgren received money from all five companies, the most of any of the California Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee. That included $34,412 from Google (Alphabet Inc), $15,805 from Facebook, $14,000 from Amazon, $6,108 from Apple, and $9,125 from Microsoft. Throughout her entire time in Congress, Lofgren has taken $92,312 from Google (Alphabet Inc) and $82,825 (Microsoft).
The same goes for other California Democrats while having served fewer terms than Lofgren. Eric Swalwell took $14,876 from Facebook in the 2020 election cycle. Lou Correa, another Democrat who voted against many of the bills took $5,000 from Amazon. And Ted Lieu who did not take as hard a stance against the bills as Lofgren, Swalwell, or Correa received $8,675 from Google (Alphabet Inc) in the 2020 election.
(Contributions by Big Tech to each member)
While other Democrats on the Committee have taken money from the same companies, few have received as much money as Lofgren or Swalwell and have simply decided to do what they believe is right for the country, represent their constituents, and try and pass Big Tech regulation.
Conservative Clashes
An unlikely clash developed in the House Judiciary Committee over the course of the 23 hours between Rep. Gaetz and Rep. Jordan. Gaetz emerged as an unlikely ally for the Democrats. At one point even full Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler said he found himself in “rare agreement” with Rep. Gaetz who responded, “let’s not make it too common, Mr. Chairman.” Jordan, who recently penned an op-ed in Fox News with Chief of Staff to former President Trump Mark Meadows and repeated baseless talking points that front groups for many of these companies (such as Chamber of Progress) have been pumping out for the past two weeks designed at spreading disinformation about the nature of the bills on Google and others behalf.
But Jordan’s disagreements seem to stem from more than simply opposing Democrat’s “radical antitrust bills,” as he said in a statement. A look at Jordan’s campaign contributors shows the same suspects. Google contributed $10,075 to his reelection campaign in 2020 as did Amazon, which gave $4,048. So it came as no surprise to find that Google had contributed $44,075 to Jordan over the course of his Congressional career.
Jordan’s apparent disregard for understanding the issues simply left him as yet another astroturf puppet of the Google lobbyists who claimed that the bills would create “secret committees” at the Federal Trade Commission to regulate data portability and interoperability.
Personal Thoughts
This was the first markup I’d ever watched. I’m eighteen years old, so I have not had the privilege of watching such proceedings (or slugfests) play out before. But a few things struck me. First of all, bipartisanship! Bipartisanship! Bipartisanship! Not only were Democrats and Republicans coming together to sponsor legislation, amendments, and caucusing together, but there was deep, substantive debate about key issues.
Yes, the bills must go through the full House and then the Senate before they get anywhere close to President Biden’s desk but let’s also not understate the impact these bills would have. The ACCESS Act would put on the books the first-ever federal privacy legislation. It would give users control over their data (portability and interoperability), force companies to have to comply with FTC standards, and layout harsh penalties and enforcement proceedings for violations. In short, it would lay the groundwork for users to begin to own their data. Rep. Ken Buck spoke about the data breach of over 533 million Facebook users last April as a need for the ACCESS Act while Zoe Lofgren, who ultimately went on to vote against the bill, invoked Cambridge Analytica’s name as an example demonstrating the need for privacy legislation.
I left feeling hopeful. As Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) said towards the end of proceedings, the work that the House Judiciary Committee did over the course of 23 hours gave her hope for the future of the United States Congress.
Comments