Spoke Concisely about the New Law

I think there are many different ideas about the relationship between monopoly and democracy. And I think what Bork would have said is that if we have antitrust policies that focus on protecting consumer welfare, that will also be good for democracy. I understand that many people think that this is not what happened and that we need to change our perspective. But I don`t think it would be fair to consider Bork hostile to the idea that antitrust law, in its orientation towards consumer welfare, can itself be an instrument of democracy. And it`s quite interesting to hear an FTC chairman say that now. Because as far as I know, at the time Robert Bork wrote his book in the late `70s, people thought the FTC was really exaggerated, even then. What do you think Bork would think of the idea that antitrust regulation plays a role in protecting democracy from the predations of extremely powerful monopoly corporations? But in this case, the freedom of state interference in the process of the American economy. The freedom for markets to decide, formulate and decide what corresponds to consumer welfare standards. I mean, but you use the same language, but you care about freedom and freedom for completely different groups. CHAKRABARTI: Earlier this week we talked about how Standard Oil was dismantled, but later we got Exxon. You know, Ma Bell was dismantled, but then we had Verizon and other localized monopolies. What makes you believe that this new vision of antitrust law can really lead to a reconquest of the fundamental freedoms you are talking about? You have 30 seconds for that. The research found that the district, where 161 students speak primarily K`iché, is not doing enough to ensure these students have access to the same quality of education as their peers.

In some cases, according to the Justice Ministry, school employees assumed Guatemalan students and families spoke Spanish. The district should also regularly monitor teachers working with students learning English and create a professional development plan to support those teachers. This school year, that means the district must provide teachers with three hours of training on the K`iché community in New Bedford. Some big companies have spoken out against it, as has the White House. But big business, how big is the influence — or will it have an impact in Florida, do you think? CHAKRABARTI: Well, one last question for you, Professor Crane. You know, in this whole week of shows, we`re circling around the question that, to be honest, the current FTC chairwoman, Lina Khan, asked if we should really consider monopolies. Not just on a standard of consumer protection, but on a standard of democratic welfare. CHAKRABARTI: This is Lina Khan in 2019, before she became the current FTC chairman.

Well, Barry Lynn, back when you certainly started digging into this, and even when you brought Lina Khan on board to the Open Markets Institute, you describe that time as this reflection on how to see monopoly power in the country as marginal. That was not so long ago. I mean, it`s obviously not that marginal anymore. What do you think? BEATTY: Yes, and the Justice Department under Robert Kennedy was just extremely interested in prosecuting corporations. And one of the people appointed to the court, Byron White, was an RFK MP, is very involved in antitrust proceedings. And then, at the Supreme Court, he was the author or co-author, or joined four major opinions that critics later said: My God, you haven`t considered consumer welfare here. These were cases of vertical integration and predatory pricing and all those things. What about the consumer? This was the concern raised by the Chicago School of Economics in the 1970s.

CHAKRABARTI: Barry, stay there for a second, because we have to take this short break. But when we come back, I`d like you to tell me what opened Lina Khan`s eyes when she worked with you at the Open Markets Institute. CHAKRABARTI: OK, so Daniel Crane, a law professor at the University of Michigan, is ready for a while. When we return, we will talk much more about what exactly Robert Bork crystallized in his influential book The Antitrust Paradox. And parents could sue the school district if they feel their rights have been violated because they haven`t been sufficiently informed about services that have changed for their students. As president of the United States, Lincoln used his first and second inaugural addresses to examine the importance of the American Union in the face of a divided country. When he assumed the presidency, he spoke at length about the nature of the Union, why secession precluded self-government, and how the federal Constitution imposed on him the duty to defend the Union of States against rebellious citizens. Re-elected four years later and the end of the Civil War, Lincoln overcame both the triumphalism of the North and the resistance of the South by offering a providential reading of war and emancipation in the hope of reunifying the country. Many LGBT advocates fear this could lead to student outings, for example. Or there is concern that teachers don`t know much about the situation at home and could be abused, neglected or abandoned depending on the information that needs to be disclosed to a parent. MEGHNA CHAKRABARTI: That`s relevant.

I am Meghna Chakrabarti. And welcome to the fourth part of our week-long special series, More Than Money: The Cost of Monopolies in America. Today`s episode is really the genesis of the whole series. Because we`re going to talk about two of the most important people in the world of antitrust law over the last 50 years. But before we get there, a brief summary of what we have done. The Department of Education will be headed by someone DeSantis appoints or the governor will appoint whoever is elected in November. And so this bill has been very controversial because a lot of people think that, because it`s written so broadly and needs to be clarified and defined, it could particularly appeal to LGBT students and how trusted teachers and adults in classrooms can communicate about certain issues. CRANE: Yes, but one thing to understand about the American psyche is that we`ve had a love-hate relationship with scale and power since the early days of our founding. If you think back to Hamilton and Jefferson and the battles for the Bank of the United States, you go through Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt and Louis Brandeis and FDR. It`s a cyclical battle, and I think it would be a mistake or two to believe that the Chicago School could have been the end of the story. For example, some provisions focus on how schools inform parents of services that are being modified for their students with respect to things that affect their mental health, or anything that could potentially be emotional distress, perhaps due to confusion of sexual orientation or gender identity.

You know, it`s a very concise calculation. It is a seven-page bill. But it has divided not only Floridians, but also people across the country because there are different ideas about what this law would actually do. And there are also, as far as I know, provisions on dangerous domestic situations. What do these provisions say? LYNN: Well, you know, the bottom line is that the ideas that Robert Bork introduced into antitrust law in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s and used to reshape antitrust enforcement triggered a concentration of power in the American economy that poses a threat to our democracy, our prosperity, or our national security. Just about everything we hold dear. And this is the question we face today as a people. That is the biggest problem we face. LYNN: I don`t remember the exact article. What I remember is what made Lina angry, and it gives you a real idea of who she is and how she fights.

What infuriated them were the arguments used to justify the concentration of power. And she felt that these arguments were disrespectful to the American people, that they treated the American people like children. That they were offensive arguments. And it made her angry. And she said: This is a democracy, and the American people have the right to get real information and make their own decisions. CHAKRABARTI: I understand. So you mentioned the court in Kennedy`s time. So after JFK`s assassination, I mean, it`s really Warren Court that you`re talking about here in the `60s. I mean, is this the place where you would best understand the government`s approach to antitrust prosecution and regulation? CRANE: Well, that`s interesting. People in the cartel space have different views on what Bork meant by consumer welfare or what it should mean.

But I think when you read Bork, he thinks in economic terms about why it`s harmful to society for a company to exercise monopoly power.