yesEmily BirnbaumNone
×

Get access to Protocol

I’ve already subscribed

Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy

Power

Cracks are appearing in the bipartisan pushback against big tech

Though Democrats and Republicans alike have joined the "techlash," their policy conclusions are sometimes far apart.

Rep. Jim Jordan

Rep. Jim Jordan has found himself at the center of a pressing question for Republicans: How should they think about the tech industry?

Photo: Getty Images/Bloomberg

The bipartisan energy around the most important congressional investigation into the tech industry could be in jeopardy.

As the House Judiciary Committee's nearly yearlong antitrust investigation into Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple nears completion, some Republicans involved have started to distance themselves from the Democrats on the committee, and even the probe itself.

That distance was brought into sharp relief Wednesday, when every Republican member of the antitrust subcommittee pushed back against the Democratic chairman in charge of the investigation. In letters to the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, the six Republicans on the antitrust subcommittee, including ranking member Jim Jordan, derided recent Democratic proposals to pause mergers amid the pandemic.

Rep. David Cicilline, the top Democrat on the antitrust subcommittee, recently proposed such a moratorium, as did the progressives Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Cicilline on Tuesday criticized a potential takeover of Grubhub by Uber, calling it "a new low in pandemic profiteering."

The Republicans on the antitrust subcommittee disagree. "These lawmakers … are using the crisis as a pretense to rail against firms being free to make decisions they perceive to be in their best interests," the Republicans wrote in their letter. They added that they believe the federal regulators in charge of antitrust law are conducting proper reviews amid the pandemic, and delaying M&A activity could "stunt economic development and development."

The merger moratorium did not even make it into the Democrats' economic stimulus package proposal, which was unveiled on Tuesday. But the letter signals that, despite a bipartisan "techlash" in Washington, many Republicans' pro-business inclinations could yet prevent them from getting behind the farthest-reaching proposals to rein in tech.

Though Republicans and Democrats have coalesced around heated criticism of Facebook and Google, particularly since 2016, significant differences in approach and style have emerged — and there are serious limits as to how far many Republicans will go in calling for government regulation of the tech industry.

Jordan, a fervent Trump ally as well as a legendary libertarian and congressional investigator, has found himself at the center of a pressing question for Republicans: How should they think about the tech industry? It's a tense spot as his libertarian, free-market ideology runs into the culture war around the power of big tech.

Republicans, including Jordan and most importantly President Trump, have loudly and frequently derided the big social media platforms for exhibiting "bias" against conservatives. Democrats, meanwhile, have focused more ire on the working conditions within tech companies and big tech's unprecedented corporate power.

But the policy conclusions on either side of the aisle are sometimes far apart.

When Democrats and several Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee threatened to subpoena Jeff Bezos for testimony at the beginning of this month, Jordan's signature was noticeably absent, though three Republicans signed onto the letter. A GOP aide familiar with thinking on the Republican side of the committee told Protocol at the beginning of May that Jordan disagrees with the Democrats' approaches on "price-gouging and merger reviews."

And in February, when Rep. Doug Collins was still the top Republican on the committee before he stepped down to pursue a Senate seat, top Republicans threatened to abandon the tech antitrust investigation altogether after the Democratic chairman of the full House Judiciary Committee, Jerold Nadler, appeared to call for "breaking up all the large companies" at an event.

There is still significant GOP support for the probe. Several Republican members of the subcommittee have been supportive of the investigation itself. Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican from Colorado, recently told Politico that "support is growing" among conservatives for tweaking antitrust laws. And Rep. Matt Gaetz, another Trump ally, has continually criticized big tech and supported Cicilline's efforts.

Matt Stoller, a leading antitrust advocate, told Protocol last week that he sees "skepticism" toward big tech in the House Freedom Caucus, a small-government block of conservatives in Congress that Jordan co-founded.

"Big tech's obviously a big policy problem for both sides," he said. "I could see [Jordan] moving one way or the other." As a member of the minority party in the House, ultimately Jordan is not in control of the investigation and will not dictate its conclusion. But Stoller said that it "matters" if Jordan ultimately dissents, after the investigation was bipartisan for months under Collins.

Jesse Blumenthal, who oversees tech policy for the Charles Koch-funded group Stand Together, said he thinks Jordan is deeply skeptical of the antitrust probe, and will balk at a "politicized" process in which Congress "comes in and decides 'this is a good company' and 'this is a bad company.'"

The letters on Wednesday mark Jordan's most significant public comments about antitrust issues since replacing Collins, and there's likely far more to come — particularly if Bezos is compelled to testify before the committee. For now, staffers from both parties are continuing to work side-by-side on the "fact-finding" phase of the investigation, which will culminate soon in a final congressional report. They could also propose legislation to update antitrust laws to better rein in Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple.

Cicilline this month said he expects the committee's report by the end of spring. The Republicans have not yet promised that they will sign onto the final product.
People

Expensify CEO David Barrett: ‘Most CEOs are not bad people, they're just cowards’

"Remember that one time when we almost had civil war? What did you do about it?"

Expensify CEO David Barrett has thoughts on what it means for tech CEOs to claim they act apolitically.

Photo: Expensify

The Trump presidency ends tomorrow. It's a political change in which Expensify founder and CEO David Barrett played a brief, but explosive role.

Barrett became famous last fall — or infamous, depending on whom you ask — for sending an email to the fintech startup's clients, urging them to reject Trump and support President-elect Joe Biden.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

The failed Visa merger was a lucky break for Plaid

Plaid COO Eric Sager says the deal's collapse won't derail the fintech startup.

In some ways, Plaid stands to benefit after its big deal with Visa fell through.

Image: Jonas Leupe/Unsplash

Plaid spent most of 2020 preparing to be gobbled up by Visa. Heading into 2021, it's going it alone again — and with a potentially higher valuation and newfound freedom from a giant corporation, it might be better off.

If it had gone through, the merger with Visa would have combined a rising star of the fintech revolution with one of the old guards of the financial services industry. But Visa said last week that it was ditching the $5.3 billion deal to avoid a "protracted and complex" legal battle with the Justice Department, which had sued to block what it considered an anticompetitive merger.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Politics

'Woke tech' and 'the new slave power': Conservatives gather for Vegas summit

An agenda for the event, hosted by the Claremont Institute, listed speakers including U.S. CTO Michael Kratsios and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The so-called "Digital Statecraft Summit" was organized by the Claremont Institute. The speakers include U.S. CTO Michael Kratsios and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, as well as a who's-who of far-right provocateurs.

Photo: David Vives/Unsplash

Conservative investors, political operatives, right-wing writers and Trump administration officials are quietly meeting in Las Vegas this weekend to discuss topics including China, "woke tech" and "the new slave power," according to four people who were invited to attend or speak at the event as well as a copy of the agenda obtained by Protocol.

The so-called "Digital Statecraft Summit" was organized by the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank that says its mission is to "restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life." A list of speakers for the event includes a combination of past and current government officials as well as a who's who of far-right provocateurs. One speaker, conservative legal scholar John Eastman, rallied the president's supporters at a White House event before the Capitol Hill riot earlier this month. Some others have been associated with racist ideologies.

Keep Reading Show less
Emily Birnbaum

Emily Birnbaum ( @birnbaum_e) is a tech policy reporter with Protocol. Her coverage focuses on the U.S. government's attempts to regulate one of the most powerful industries in the world, with a focus on antitrust, privacy and politics. Previously, she worked as a tech policy reporter with The Hill after spending several months as a breaking news reporter. She is a Bethesda, Maryland native and proud Kenyon College alumna.

Why Biden needs a National Technology Council

The U.S. government needs a more tightly coordinated approach to technology, argues Jonathan Spalter.

A coordinated effort to approach tech could help the White House navigate the future more easily.

Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

The White House has a National Security Council and a National Economic Council. President-elect Joe Biden should move quickly to establish a National Technology Council.

Consumers are looking to the government to set a coherent and consistent 21st century digital policy that works for them. Millions of Americans still await public investments that will help connect their remote communities to broadband, while millions more — including many families with school-age children — still struggle to afford access.

Keep Reading Show less
Jonathan Spalter
Jonathan Spalter is the president and CEO of USTelecom – The Broadband Association.
Election 2020

Google says it’s fighting election lies, but its ads fund them

A new report finds that more than 1,600 brands, from Disney to Procter & Gamble, have advertisements running on sites that push pro-Trump conspiracy theories. The majority of those ads are served by Google.

Google is the most dominant player in programmatic advertising, but it has a spotty record enforcing rules for publishers.

Photo: Alex Tai/Getty Images

Shortly after November's presidential election, a story appeared on the website of far-right personality Charlie Kirk, claiming that 10,000 dead people had returned mail-in ballots in Michigan. But after publishing, a correction appeared at the top of the story, completely debunking the misleading headline, which remains, months later, unchanged.

"We are not aware of a single confirmed case showing that a ballot was actually cast on behalf of a deceased individual," the correction, which quoted Michigan election officials, read.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky
Issie Lapowsky (@issielapowsky) is a senior reporter at Protocol, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University’s Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing. Email Issie.
Latest Stories