By Thomas Jeffrey Horton (University of South Dakota)
This Article traces Congress’s consistent balancing and blending of social, political, moral, and economic values and objectives over the course of nearly 120 years of antitrust legislation. As a starting point, a plethora of outstanding and insightful scholarship analyzing Congress’s objectives in passing the Sherman, Clayton, and FTC Acts already exists. Less studied, however, has been Congress’s more recent legislation, including the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR Act), and the National Cooperative Production Amendments of 1993 and 2004, to the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984 (NCRPA). By analyzing the legislative histories of such antitrust legislation in detail, the author seeks to show that Congress has never identified any single economic value such as consumer welfare or allocative efficiency, as the sole guiding lodestar for American antitrust. Rather, since 1890, Congress has successfully sought to blend and balance a complex set of social, political, moral, and economic ideals, values, and objectives in our antitrust laws.
The author believes that it is time to deal with the real social, political, moral, and economic values conflicts in antitrust, instead of relying on neoconservative economic proxies that unilaterally declare the values debates to be scientifically and theoretically resolved. Based on nearly 120 years of legislative history, the author concludes that we need to return to an antitrust regulatory system that better reflects Congress’s dynamic historical balancing and blending of multiple fundamental American social, political, moral, and economic values. To do so, we must begin rediscovering antitrust’s lost values, and recommence our historic pursuit of an ethical, moral, and fair free-enterprise system truly devoted to the long-term economic and social welfare of all Americans.
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh