Tech's Lobbying Push Follows Market Consolidation, Study Shows

The flood of lobbying dollars spent by tech companies has increased with market concentration, according to a new study that cites similar patterns in the pharmaceutical and oil industries. Bloomberg: The report suggests that entrenched firms face less competition and don't have to invest as much in innovation, giving them more resources to spend influencing the democratic process. Reed Showalter, an attorney with the anti-monopolist group American Economic Liberties Project who wrote the study, said policy makers and antitrust enforcers should look beyond the impact that mergers have on consumers and consider how market concentration affects the democratic process. "We need to more closely scrutinize various elements of competition policy that have allowed industries to become more concentrated over the last 30 to 40 years," Showalter said in a phone interview Tuesday. "Allowing unchecked concentration is the cause for a lot of the democratic harms that we're also seeing people complain about as big money enters politics. There's no coincidence there."

Yeah Captain Obvious

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Only one who's been living under a massive rock and taking regular doses of valium for the past two decade has failed to notice the Sherman Act had been framed on the wall for purely decorative purposes.

Re: Yeah Captain Obvious

[rpnx]

Don't be foolish, congressmen don't have brains, someone important has to publish a report before they might notice the obvious.

Re:Yeah Captain Obvious

[ShanghaiBill]

Part of the increase in lobbying is just math: Influencing regulation on a sector makes way more sense if you control 50% of that sector than if you control 1%. You get way more bang for your buck.

Another factor is that regulations such as SOX increase the barriers to being a public company. So many innovators look at being acquired as their exit plan rather than an IPO. So David is eaten by Goliath.

The rise of private equity and mutual funds diminishes competition. Fidelity owns shares in all the big tech companies and has a seat on many BoDs. The last thing they want is price competition. A fight for market share just shifts value from one part of their portfolio to another with no net gain. They prefer cozy arrangements where each company picks a sector to dominate.

Re:Yeah Captain Obvious

[BrainJunkie]

Influencing regulation on a sector makes way more sense if you control 50% of that sector than if you control 1%

This is it exactly. Nice that someone bothered to check that it applies to the Tech industry as well, but this is a well worn path that most every other sector has gone down.

Control enough of the market to make it worthwhile to lobby up bureaucracy that small competitors can't afford to navigate, as well as barriers to entry to discourage anyone new.

Re:

[VeryFluffyBunny]

I suspect that most politicians deliberately & consciously steer clear of electronic communications & the internet & do their business via more traditional, ephemeral modes that don't leave such damning trails of evidence. Any electioneering & PR campaigning, they leave to interns & agencies so as to leave a fair degree of plausible deniability. As a result, they have difficulty understanding of how the interwebs-pipes work, let alone how they're abused, the likely outcomes of that abuse

Re:

[maglor_83]

policy makers and antitrust enforcers should look beyond the impact that mergers have on consumers and consider how market concentration affects the democratic process

Pretty sure the lawmakers are perfectly happy with how this works out for them.

Re:

[Joce640k]

Get your hand down there and scoop it all out into the desk drawer. You'll be fine.

Re:

[jacks smirking reven]

Own it.

Tell your boss "I shit my pants. It was a big one. I need to clean up".

They'll appreciate your honesty.

Not capitalist.

[jellomizer]

I am sorry the United States is not a Capitalist economy. It says it is, but it is more of an Oligarchy. We are being told that Big Companies are Corrupting our Government or we are told that Government is Corrupting our Big Companies. Both are feeding off of themselves back and forth. A Politician cannot stay in power without the backing of Big Money from these companies, these companies which have gotten so big and lazy in innovation cannot survive without the push from government to keep or distract public opinion away from them.

When there is a company or a person who is actually trying to innovate or change the world, they have to face the Corporate Government hybrid, where they need to be either really smart, really tough, or have to make something that doesn't interfere with these groups. Otherwise you are going to be on a massive onslaught of hate, FUD, mistrust and often created legal roadblocks to prevent you from succeeding.

While Tesla is part of this Government Company process, it is also not as involved as some of the other companies. GOP Backed by Oil Companies see Tesla as a Threat, Democrats Backed by Big Three Auto/United Auto Workers also see Tesla as a threat. Tesla also doesn't advertise so the Media Companies that support both sides also will not give them a fair shot as well.
So Tesla so far has been doing well, but it has been fighting against a lot of headwind, because politically Tesla is expendable, as helping the Oil Companies and the Traditional Auto companies is preferable. So it is easy to make laws and put investigations to make Tesla seem like they are overtly dangerous, are ripping off customers, or misleading them. Where they may be no worse and often better than the companies that are getting green lights and exceptions because they are a sponsor to the government.

This is the problem how I see it. However, I really don't know of a good answer. Except to ignore what everyone is saying and do your own research on what you think is best for you. However, that isn't easy as there is so much fake and bias information out there making an informed decision is nearly impossible. Because going back to my Tesla Example, while they may be unfairly targeted, they themselves being a huge company, are probably also hindering many other Electric Auto makers from getting their time to shine, and stopping their innovations that may offer a superior option to Tesla.

We may think of ourselves for thinking for ourselves and not being sheep to the system... However, that is what they want you to think, because if you think are you free, then it is easier for them to control you.

Re:Not capitalist.

[The Real Dr John]

"...entrenched firms face less competition and don't have to invest as much in innovation"

The ironic part is that "capitalism" is supposed to work because of competition. It's part of the idiotic "invisible hand" fairy tale, but nonetheless, is supposed to be a bedrock principle of capitalism. But here in the US it is all merger mania, with the companies and their hordes of lobbyists screaming that mergers will allow economy of scale, which will help them "innovate". But it's all a fair tale. Companies should never have been allowed to get this big, and now that they have, what are you or anyone going to do about it? They own the news (Bezos bought the Washington Post, for example) and they have captured the government agencies. Now legislation is written by corporate lawyers working for the wealthy (think Koch) and handed to bought-and-paid-for congress people who then pass it into law.

Until people on both the left and right of the political spectrum realize that the enemy is the rich people, nothing is going to change. The rich have two types of news, one for the Red Team, and one for The Blue Team. They spin opposite stories to their audiences while whipping them into hateful frenzies against each other. I've been around a long time, and I've never seen regular people on the left and right so much at each other's throats. It is all manufactured hatred, brought to you by the rich and powerful. Standard divide and conquer tactics. Don't fall for it.

Amazing

[smooth wombat]

It's almost as if we haven't learned that competition is a good thing.

This is the same reason the U.S. still has some of the slowest broadband speeds for some of the highest prices in the industrialized world. When there are only 3 - 4 big providers who don't intrude on the other's territory [arstechnica.com], this is what you get.

Charter CEO Tom Rutledge recently said that Charter avoids competing against other cable companies because that would make it hard to buy the companies later. If two cable companies compete, the FCC is unlikely to approve a merger between them, he said.

At this point, with as few competitors as there are, no mergers should be allowed until such time as more competition comes into play. Though I don't see that being realistic with all the bribing, excuse me, "lobbying [reactiongifs.com]" taking place.