Visa is one of the country’s most accepted credit and debit cards, with the company’s motto boasting: “Everywhere you want to be.” To the federal government, Visa’s widespread utility for cardholders is a bad thing.
Visa is facing an antitrust lawsuit from the Department of Justice, which accuses the company of acting like a monopoly. Unfortunately, Visa is not alone. The Justice Department is undertaking enforcement actions against companies, including Google, Live Nation and Visa. Together, these businesses represent some of the most significant players in technology, entertainment and finance.
To magnify this, as evidenced by their large customer bases, these companies provide popular services on which people rely. Which begs the question: If these businesses are so popular with consumers, who are pushing to break them up?
The lawsuit against Visa drew cheers from advocacy groups, including More Perfect Union, Demand Progress, Fight Corporate Monopolies and the American Economic Liberties Project. These groups have aggressively advocated for breaking up all three companies that Justice is now taking enforcement against. They have also pushed their networks to spread their anti-business agenda.
While such campaigns are designed to give the appearance of consumers seeking redress against alleged harm in the marketplace, one should look with skepticism at their calls for breaking up these businesses.
The Washington Examiner noted, “Under President Joe Biden, deep-pocketed nonprofit organizations allied with the Democratic Party have earned a key seat at the policy-shaping table.” Leaders of progressive groups have met with Vice President Kamala Harris, according to White House visitor logs. These logs also reveal that More Perfect Union president Faiz Shakir has been in regular meetings with the executive branch for the duration of the Biden administration. American Economic Liberties Project executive director Nidhi Hegde has made White House visits.
These groups receive money from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, headed by his son, Alex. One wonders if George Soros’ stated position that Google is “a menace to society” informs his policy advocacy. Or, even more cynical, if these antitrust efforts are emboldened by competitors of Visa, Live Nation and Google who, rather than competing fairly, aim to stir hostility toward their rivals in the marketplace.
Given this apparent influence, is it fair to ask if the administration is heeding calls from these groups when selecting enforcement targets?
It is worth scrutinizing the push behind these efforts, given that these businesses are so popular. They are only “big” because we made them so — by voting with our dollars. Google made the entire internet accessible at our fingertips in a way that was never before possible, providing a service we rely on for its unparalleled browsing capabilities. We depend on its service for that reason. Consequently, no user of Google’s services should want to see this search capacity arbitrarily undermined by the government.
Similarly, consumers rely on Live Nation for hosting extraordinary event gatherings, pairing top venues with musical acts that bring artists and fans together. This requires a level of coordination that Justice’s efforts seem to overlook. If Justice succeeds in using taxpayer dollars to attack Live Nation, it will only diminish its ability to put on the big-time productions that customers desire.
Whether it’s a result of outside groups’ pressure or the desire for career advancement within the progressive movement, one should question the motivations behind these coordinated attacks. Big Business may get a bad rap — but let’s give a little more scrutiny to those calling to break up America’s tech, finance and entertainment sectors.