Congressional Leadership Realizing That 'Big Tech' Antitrust Bills Aren't Ready For Prime Time

from the back-to-the-drawing-board dept

As you've now heard, there's a big push in Congress to revise how antitrust works. A group of mostly Democratic House members (with a few Republicans on board) introduced a questionable package of antitrust bills, with many, many problems. There were some good ideas (such as better funding of the FTC) and some more creative ideas (such as around interoperability), but done in such ham-fisted ways that they would cause a lot more harm than good. We've noted how the bills would create massive problems for content moderation, and raise related speech issues.

Last week's marathon markup hearing in the House Judiciary Committee did not ease these concerns -- if anything they made them much, much worse. After the hearing was finally over, a bi-partisan group of Judiciary Committee members put out a statement highlighting the half-baked nature of the proposals.

“The marathon markup – that started Wednesday morning, recessed as the sun came up on Thursday morning, and then reconvened for another four hours on Thursday – featured several bills that would radically change America’s leading tech companies and made crystal clear that the bill text as debated is not close to ready for Floor consideration.

“The package of legislation poses harm to American consumers and the U.S. economy and left Members on both sides of the aisle with basic questions that have yet to be answered. What companies are covered in the scope of the bills? If only four, why? Why are foreign firms not covered? Were the definitions of ‘covered platforms’ arbitrary or not? How would the bills impact useful products that consumers rely on? How do the bills protect the data of American consumers? How do the bills protect consumers from arbitrary tech company abuses, as well as safeguard the nation’s security and economic interests?

“The 16-month-long investigation conducted by the Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Subcommittee rightfully scrutinized digital markets in an effort to remove barriers to competition. Unfortunately, the resulting legislative proposals – which the full Committee did not hold a hearing on or have reasonable time to fully consider – fell short of adequately addressing identified problems in an effective way that serves Americans’ interests. We urge the sponsors of the bills to take the necessary time, commit to a comprehensive approach, and work with their bipartisan colleagues of this Committee to address the concerns articulated during markup to further develop these bills.”

Of course, given how nearly all of those concerns were brushed aside by Committee members who support the bills, my fear was that this process was on an unstoppable train track. People had asked Rep. Jerry Nadler to slow things down before the hearing and he had refused. However, it appears that more soberly minded members of the leadership are now realizing that maybe this rush job is a mistake.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is now pumping the brakes on moving these antitrust bills to a full floor vote.

“There was disagreement among the Democrats in the committee and not every Democrat voted for it, and some very senior members opposed it,” Hoyer said of the House Judiciary’s consideration of the legislation last week. “There’s a lot of discussion to be had before I get to scheduling bills for the floor.”

What this really means is that someone has taken the temperature of the other members and realized there aren't enough votes to pass these bills. That doesn't mean they won't be back (or that this process won't just jump over to the Senate for now). It's entirely possible that updated versions of the bills will be even worse. But, for now, at least, it appears that Congress is taking at least a temporary breather on rushing through these bills.

Filed Under: antitrust, big tech, congress, david cicilline, steny hoyer

As White House Makes Final Push On TPP, Congress Slams On The Brakes

from the some-good-news... dept

Things are heating up around the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, the trade agreement among many of the Pacific Rim countries that has tremendous problems. The US has been pushing very, very hard to get the deal signed and delivered by the end of the year. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced that he still believes an agreement can be made by the end of the year.

"I think the important thing to remember is that the reason we are in the TPP discussion is the same as the reasons Singapore is -- same for Japan and the other countries are -- that it is in each of our own interest for there to be high quality agreement that benefits each of us individually and all of us together collectively.

"And that is the reason why we are still optimistic that we can reach a successful conclusion of the TPP discussion this year."

Of course, there are a number of indications that with some of the massive gaps between negotiating positions that still remain that it may be difficult to hammer out an agreement in time. But... it also might not matter much, because Congress may be slamming the brakes on the whole process. We just noted that a very large number of folks in Congress have told the White House that they're very uncomfortable giving the USTR "trade promotion authority" or "fast track authority," which would effectively have Congress giving up its Constitutionally defined role as the sole governmental branch that can "regulate commerce with foreign nations."

In effect, without trade promotion authority, the USTR is negotiating without any real mandate. That is, the agreement itself is somewhat meaningless, because the USTR has no ability to commit the US to anything. Only Congress can do that, and it appears Congress is skeptical about giving up its Constitutional powers to the USTR -- and, given what's been seen in the leaked versions of the TPP (oh yeah, and the very fact that it had to be leaked in the first place) -- it seems Congress has some very good reasons to be wary of the USTR having any more power than it currently does.

So it's good to see that Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two Democrat in the House, has basically said that there's almost no way Congress is giving the USTR trade promotion authority this year. Bizarrely, as the article notes, the Republicans seem overeager to support trade promotion authority, while it's the Democrats who are effectively blocking it. Yes, you read that right. The Republicans in the House, who have been fighting President Obama on nearly everything, are eager to give up their own constitutional powers in Congress and hand them directly to the Obama White House, while it's the President's own party that is (rightfully) concerned about moving forward with such a plan.

For the life of me, I cannot see why Republicans would support such a thing. It appears that a bunch of highly paid lobbyists are going around pretending that TPP is actually a "free trade" agreement, and telling Republicans they should be in favor of free trade. But it's not a free trade agreement at all (quite the opposite, actually). Maybe someone should explain to the Republicans that giving up their own sole power to regulate foreign commerce and handing it the White House, which has written a proposal designed to massively benefit traditional donors to Democratic candidates, isn't the wisest of political strategies.

Filed Under: congress, fast track authority, jack lew, steny hoyer, tpp, trade promotion authority, ustr

Democratic Leadership Says NSA Data Collection Is Fine Because You 'May Be In Communication With Terrorists'

from the seriously? dept

One of the things that became quite clear with yesterday's vote by the House to keep the NSA collecting records on every single one of your phone calls was the strange bedfellows that came together over this issue. Fighting against the surveillance were conservatives who were skeptical about government power along with liberals who were skeptical of government overreach into private lives. On the flip side, you had the White House and the leadership of both parties -- who tend to lean more towards supporting excessive power in the executive branch (perhaps because of their own dreams of being able to control that power). It's not often you see Michele Bachmann and Nancy Pelosi agreeing on very much.

Over at the Huffington Post, there's a good article about these odd pairings, noting the oddity of Bachmann endorsing the "identical" position as the Obama administration. But the really stunning point is at the end of the article, where it mentions that Steny Hoyer, the Democratic whip, who's in charge of gathering up the votes on the Democratic side, and who apparently was working overtime to convince Democrats to vote in favor of ignoring the 4th Amendment, sent the most bizarre "description" of the amendment. While that only has a clip, a friend sent over the full "description" sent by Steny Hoyer to all of the Democrats in the House:

Amash/Conyers/Mulvaney/Polis/Massie Amendment – Bars the NSA and other agencies from using Section 215 of the Patriot Act (as codified by Section 501 of FISA) to collect records, including telephone call records, that pertain to persons who may be in communication with terrorist groups but are not already subject to an investigation under Section 215

Talk about misleading. The program pertains to everyone. At this point, it's no secret that the records collected under this authority include a record of every single phone call. This is not about collecting records of people talking to terrorists. It's about collecting records on everyone. So, the only rational deciphering of Hoyer's email is that he believes that every American "may be in communication with terrorist groups" and therefore it's okay to spy on them.

How do these people get elected?

Filed Under: business records, collection, democrats, metadata, nsa, nsa surveillance, section 215, steny hoyer, terrorists