Corporate & Securities Law

Obama and Antitrust

By David Fischer

I believe that Senator Obama is the first canidate to address any antitrust issues from the stump this year.  During a speach on Sunday in Oregon, he said he would pursue a vigorous antitrust policy if elected.  Reuters reports:

“I will assure that we will have an antitrust division that is serious about pursuing cases,” the Illinois senator told an audience of mostly senior citizens in Oregon.

“There are going to be areas, in the media for example where we’re seeing more and more consolidation, that I think (it) is legitimate to ask…is the consumer being served?”

…

“We’re going to have an antitrust division in the Justice Department that actually believes in antitrust law. We haven’t had that for the last seven, eight years,” he said.

“Some of the consolidations that have been taking place, I think, may be anti-competitive.”

Obama advisers have said previously that he would crack down on any competition lapses in the energy sector that have resulted from big corporate mergers.

In a follow up article, Reuters reports that many antitrust lawyers believe that Senator Obama “may be optomistic.”

But Phillip Zane of the law firm Baker Donelson pointed out that even when the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission challenged a merger during the Bush administration, they often lost the resulting court fight.

“Most of the judges appointed by the Republican administrations, particularly beginning with Reagan … are more skeptical of antitrust enforcement,” Zane said.

Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil agreed. “If you read the decisions, you really scratch your head and wonder what would have satisfied the judge.”

…

A key issue for a new administration will be whether to launch a full-fledged investigation of dominant chip maker Intel, which rival Advanced Micro Devices has accused of acting illegally to push it out of the market.

Antitrust experts disagreed over whether Intel would face more scrutiny if a Democrat won in November.

“They (Intel) do have such an outsized market share that anything they do can be linked to a section two case,” said Axinn, referring to a law against predatory acts to maintain a monopoly.

Gavil agreed. “Companies like Intel, yes, you’re more likely to see cases brought,” he said, adding that Bush’s Justice Department brought no dominant firm cases while the Clinton administration had brought one or two a year.

But Evan Stewart, an antitrust lawyer with Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, argued that Intel’s troubles outside the United States did not hint at lax U.S. enforcement.

Stewart also urged caution in reading too much into Obama’s comments: “This strikes me as sort of traditional on the stump talk. Look, no one ever runs for president saying ‘you can count on me for lax antitrust enforcement.’”

Full post as published by Antitrust Review on May 20, 2008 (boomark / email).