Eradicating racial inequities is an overarching policy agenda for the Biden administration. All policy levers, including antitrust, should be deployed in furtherance of that agenda. Antitrust is one of several tools that can achieve a more equitable society.

THREAD

Antitrust law was meant to disperse economic power. Thus, attacking power imbalances that disproportionately harm Black workers or consumers is a perfectly legitimate use of antitrust. Thinking of the NCAA’s wage-fixing cartel, which disproportionately harms Black athletes.

Alas, there are myriad applications.

Detractors say using antitrust to pursue such ends represents a “politicization” of antitrust. They claim antitrust, unlike all other policy tools, is somehow off limits. Hooey.

Would using the EPA to eradicate racial inequities in water quality constitute the “politicization” of environmental policy? Would using the FCC to eradicate racial disparities in broadband connectivity constitute the “politicization” of communications policy?

Concern for racial inequities *flowing from a power imbalance* should inform antitrust case selection and theories of harm. Indeed, the decision NOT to bring such a case reflects a political judgment--the callous indifference to racial inequities that flow from power imbalances.

“Let’s not politicize antitrust” is code for “Let’s not use antitrust in a way that upsets the current power imbalance, which serves me and my constituency just fine.” Ignore these folks, and for the health of the nation, don’t let them anywhere near Biden’s antitrust team. END