“A bill like this would harm the economy in general. It would in particular threaten workers, consumers, investors and those affected by the coronavirus,” Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told ABC News.

“In crisis conditions especially, mergers are a way for companies with a relevant strength, such as a strong balance sheet or superior distribution channels, to combine with others that may be weaker yet have vital assets such as promising research, a loyal consumer base, or a superior product line. If mergers are blocked, some weaker, yet valuable companies, will flounder, discontinue research, furlough workers or even enter bankruptcy,” he added.

Despite its prominent sponsors, the proposal is unlikely to pass a Republican-controlled Senate and White House. Olson said that the possibility the bill becomes law is unlikely.

“This bill is an exercise in political symbolism, not the way an advanced democratic country should approach antitrust policy. It’s the equivalent of a Trump tweet — it lets off steam, everyone can take sides, and it allows momentary domination of a not especially meaningful conversation until everyone moves on to the next,” Olson said.

Mergers are also a main means by which successful tech startups hit the mainstream and win wide distribution for their products; absent the prospect of being able to exit this way, fewer funders and principals will be interested in going the startup route.

Bad ideas in our time: emergency merger moratorium is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Labor and employment roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Banking and finance roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren wants to break up big tech firms and impose new regulation on firms with high revenues. Walter Olson discusses what that might look like in practice.” I join Caleb Brown for a Cato podcast on themes outlined in this space last week. Related: Geoffrey Manne and Alec Stapp last March on Warren’s plans for tech and antitrust (“To Warren, our most dynamic and innovative companies constitute a problem that needs solving.”)

Bonus: earlier posts on Warren and her economic plans including white-collar prosecution, exit tax, regulation of private equity, and corporate governance first, second, third posts as well as political spending and labor co-determination.

Talking Warren’s big antitrust plans is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Also on Monday, Nevada said it would withdraw from the lawsuit in exchange for early deployment of the next generation of wireless in the state, creation of 450 jobs for six years and a $30 million donation to be distributed by Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford and aimed at helping women and minorities, Ford’s office said.

How blatant can you get? The best touch, of course, is the $30 million fund with which to ingratiate lucky beneficiaries around the state. (“The recipients of these grants for the use of the charitable contribution will be at the discretion of Nevada’s attorney general” — that is, the same AG Ford who filed and settled the state’s case, and from whose press release is excerpted that sentence.) It looks a lot like the familiar cozytown set-up in many cities in which permission to build a large development or win a public contract just might call for a hefty donation to a local nonprofit with ties to the mayor and council.

Notwithstanding the best efforts from some quarters to develop per se rules in hopes of generating clear and predictable legal outcomes, antitrust law remains a world of subjective interpretation in which government office-holders are left with great discretion regarding how and against whom to wield enforcement power. Whether you want to call it logrolling or use a less flattering term like “extortion,” the temptation is to trade off antitrust leniency for some of the other sorts of favors business might be able to render government actors.

All of which brings us to presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s and other candidates’ new proposals for antitrust, which a CNBC headline accurately reports (as to Warren’s) “would dramatically enhance government control over the biggest U.S. companies.” In particular, the proposals would invite the government far more deeply into oversight of business practices, including refusal to share “essential” facilities with competitors, pricing goods below the cost of production, and much more, as well as mergers and acquisitions.

It’s hard to know whether Sen. Warren sees all this new arbitrary discretion as a bug, or a feature, in her enormous plan. Either way, an accumulation of power that tempting will sooner or later attract appointees seeking either a political whip hand over the U.S. corporate sector, a source of payouts like that in Nevada, or both. [cross-posted from Cato at Liberty]

Nevada’s antitrust deal sheds light on Elizabeth Warren’s big plan is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

November 6 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Banking and finance roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Labor and employment roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

P.S.: On the constitutionality angle, note that the Competitive Enterprise Institute has just filed a lawsuit on behalf of a couple challenging the constitutionality of a provision of the 2017 tax reform law known as the Mandatory Repatriation Tax. Counsel Andrew Grossman, quoted in the CEI press release, stated:

The Mandatory Repatriation Tax is unconstitutional for the same reason that a wealth tax would be. The Constitution does not permit Congress to simply declare money that it wants to tax to be income and then demand its cut. And the courts have never permitted retroactive taxation reaching back anywhere near the 30 years, as the Mandatory Repatriation Tax does. The details of the tax may be complicated, but the constitutional violations are clear.

Wealth registries and exit taxes is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Liability roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system