Obama DoJ Preparing to Fit Up Antitrust Laws with Some Sharp New Teeth

by Teh Nutroots | Welcome news if true.  Annnnd.... The New York Times says that it is!

The new enforcement policy would reverse the Bush administration’s approach, which strongly favored defendants against antitrust claims. It would restore a policy that led to the landmark antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft and Intel in the 1990s.

The head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Christine A. Varney, is to announce the policy reversal in a speech she will give on Monday before the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy research organization. She will deliver the same speech on Tuesday to the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Though the wingnut faction of the GOP -- by which of course I mean the GOP -- will try to convince them otherwise, this is good news for Main Streeters and innovators. After all, the Bush Justice Department didn't file even one case against a dominant company for violating antitrust law.  (NYT)

The administration is hoping to encourage smaller companies in an array of industries to bring their complaints to the Justice Department about potentially improper business practices by their larger rivals. Some of the biggest antitrust cases were initiated by complaints taken to the Justice Department.

Ms. Varney is expected to say that the administration rejects the impulse to go easy on antitrust enforcement during weak economic times.

She will assert instead that severe recessions can provide dangerous incentives for large and dominating companies to engage in predatory behavior that harms consumers and weakens competition. The announcement is aimed at making sure that no court or party to a lawsuit can cite the Bush administration policy as the government’s official view in any pending cases.

In the speeches, Ms. Varney is expected to explicitly warn judges and litigants in antitrust lawsuits not involving the government to ignore the Bush administration’s policies, which were formally outlined in a report by the Justice Department last year. The report applied legal standards that made it difficult to bring new cases involving monopoly and predatory practices.

Christopher Hayes of The Nation calls it "a shocking departure from the actions of the last administration.'  Now that's change I can believe in.  Bring on the trust busting!   Hayes has just returned from the actual speech, where Varney said pretty much what The New York times predicted she'd say.

[T]he recently confirmed Assistant Attorney General for anti-trust...gave a remarkably forthright, unapologetic defense of zealous anti-trust enforcement....[T]he speech...was short on specifics, but unequivocal about the dangers of "too big to fail." But anti-trust has been relegated to a backwater not only in the Bush administration's justice department, but also in our public discourse and in the elite opinion of legal academia. I think (hope!) this morning's speech marked the end of that chapter....

Mark Thoma at The Economist's View  likewise welcomes this development.

I've long been an advocate of stepped up enforcement of antitrust law, mostly because of the economic consequences of monopoly power. But the financial crisis has caused me to realize how much political power comes with dominance in the marketplace, and that is another reason to take a more aggressive approach to antitrust enforcement:

While allowing that stepped-up antitrust enforcement wouldn't have prevented the banking crisis -- a view with which Tyler Cowen concurs -- James Kwak at The Baseline Scenario says, "[T]he signal that the administration will actually enforce antitrust law is a step in the right direction."

TChris at Talk Left considers a different angle. 

"Ignore everything the Justice Department's antitrust lawyers said and did during the Bush administration" is the message Christine Varney, head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, will be sending to judges..."Warning" judges in a speech not to follow a repudiated policy is an interesting way to advance a legal position....Whether the duly warned judges will care about the Justice Department's revised "official view" will likely depend upon whether the official view coincides with the judge's view.

RECENT BUCK NAKED POLITICS POSTINGS

Quote of the Day -- Fred Barnes to Republicans: "Be the Party of No"

Side of Snark with Dijon Mustard: Sean Hannity Eats Burgers Like a MAN; the GTL Begs to Differ with David Feherty; Progressives Contemplate the GOP Crazy

Obama Knocks 'Em Dead at White House Correspondents Dinner

What did Pelosi Know about Torture and When Did She etc.? & Other Questions I'm Waiting to Hear Answered

Quote of the Day: GOP Chair Michael Steele on Judges with Empathy

CBS Announcer Says Any US Soldier Would be Glad to Assassinate Reid and Pelosi
White House Military Aide Office Director Louis Caldera Resigns Following Statute of Liberty Publicity Photo Debacle

TPMtv's "The Day in 100 Seconds" (May 8, 2009 Video)

Simon Johnson Says Stress Tests are a "Whitewash"

Chair of NY Fed Chair Quits After Continuing Role at Goldman Questioned