Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Corporate black holes prevent fair play in the U.S. economy

Mobile phone listing Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft

Like black holes, the largest companies have a reach seemingly exceeds human capabilities, writes Frazier.

SOPA Images/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

NASA defines a black hole as “a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out.” This celestial abnormality can even distort space-time. Though invisible to the human eye, a black hole is detectable by the extent to which everything around it is morphed to its will.

The same is true of our biggest corporations. The total reach of companies like Amazon, Meta and Google seemingly exceeds human capabilities. Yet, the extent to which our laws, culture and daily lives revolve around these corporate black holes reveals a hard truth: Fair play does not characterize our economy. The best ideas may never come to fruition and the smartest people may never realize their potential — they lack the escape velocity necessary to operate beyond the pull of the black holes.


Affording every individual economic opportunity and liberty is at the core of our antitrust tradition. It’s the idea that motivated Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson to reorient our approach to goliath corporations. They realized that when some companies have an unearned advantage over others, there’s a need to help level the playing field. Roosevelt used publicity to call out CEOs who wanted to flout the rules. Taft leaned on the courts to enforce existing laws. Wilson created the Federal Trade Commission to spot new corporate shenanigans.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Each president thought creatively about how best to curtail corrupt, fraudulent and just plain bad business practices. They succeeded … sometimes. They also fell short … a lot. Teddy couldn’t help but assume that his fellow gentlemen would only do right by the American people. His predecessors likewise paid close attention to the interests and demands of the elite class that bankrolled their campaigns and demanded passes from too much regulatory scrutiny.

Those shortcomings shouldn’t distract from the larger message: They each acknowledged that fair play was more important than unjust economic growth.

Fair play is missing from today’s economy. Consumers are trapped in the orbits of a few massive corporations. You can quit Facebook, but your friends will demand you join WhatsApp or Instagram. Your social media still resolves around Meta.

Startups are likewise roped into these economic black holes. Companies like Amazon will extract everything from novel threats. They’ll lure employees from small businesses, or emulate the products of mom-and-pop shops. And, if necessary, they will simply absorb their competition via an acquisition.

The long-term ramifications of giant corporate black holes are significant. Consolidation across several industries has had a particularly pronounced effect on workers and their wages. Leading antitrust scholars forecast that Americans could be earning upwards of $10,000 more in annual income under more competitive conditions. Competition would not only boost incomes but also stretch dollars further. As companies bunch together they also tend to jack up prices. Americans may also have more career opportunities in a more competitive economy. The dominant corporations in their respective industries generally hire fewer workers — driving down total employment.

The laws of anti-competitive gravitational forces under which corporate black holes trap us in their orbit may finally be coming to an end. Like Copernicus realizing the sun’s pull, federal officials have awoken to the democracy-sapping effects of corporate black holes. FTC Commissioner Andrew Ferguson, for one, acknowledged that “society reaps the benefits of free enterprise only if it protects the system from monopolies and fraud.” His colleague, Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, has similarly called for the public interest rather than private profit to be at the center of our economic policies.

This emerging consensus justifies optimism but begs the question: How can individual Americans achieve the escape velocity necessary to wrest control over their economic fates from the biggest corporations? A full outline of those policy options exceeds the scope of this short essay. For now, the most important thing is realizing that our economy does not have to revolve around the priorities of corporate black holes. This Copernicus Revolution can serve as the basis for rewriting our collective narrative and understanding of what fair play means in the modern economy.

Read More

Mark Zuckerberg holding a pair of glasses

Mark Zuckerberg, who is now worth more than $200 billion, shows off new wearabel tech at the Meta Connect developer conference in September.

Andrej Sokolow/picture alliance via Getty Images

We have extreme inequality in America, and it’s getting worse

Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.

Bloomberg recently reported that Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg is now worth over $200 billion. He’s not alone. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Tesla founder Elon Musk, and LVMH founder Bernard Arnault are also worth north of $200 billion.

The news is a searing reminder of the uneven distribution of wealth in America. In the same country as Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Musk reside millions of people without a reliable source of food. (Arnault lives in France.) Redistributing just a small portion of the richest Americans’ wealth could alleviate tremendous human suffering.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iceberg hiding money below
wenmei Zhou/Getty Images

The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters

Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.

In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.

Keep ReadingShow less
hand reaching out over an American flag
Nikolay Ponomarenko/Getty Images

Big Philanthropy to the rescue? Think again.

Cain has served in leadership roles at numerous foundations, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. He was a founding partner of American Philanthropic.

As the media and elites across America take up a fight to “save democracy,” Big Philanthropy is casting itself in the role of superhero. Since 2011, the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for High Impact Philanthropy reports, some $5.7 billion has gone to programs supporting U.S. democracy, with grant announcements that often depict foundations as stepping up to forestall a doomsday.

The Carnegie Corporation, warning of a “fragility of our democracy ... unimaginable just a few years ago,” has pledged to strengthen social cohesion and combat polarization. The MacArthur Foundation is partnering with Carnegie and the Ford and Knight foundations, among others, in the $500 million Press Forward effort to “address the crisis in local news.” As Knight president Alberto Ibargüen put it to the New York Times: “There is a new understanding of the importance of information in the management of community, in the management of democracy in America.”

Keep ReadingShow less
American flag and business imagery
Sean Gladwell/Getty Images

How your company can follow the model for political spending

Freed is president and co-founder, Hanna is research director, and Sandstrom is strategic advisor at the Center for Political Accountability.

With corporate political disclosure and accountability accepted as the norm, the next step for responsible companies is to put in place a framework for approaching, governing and assessing their election-related spending. The framework would establish policies for when or whether to spend and a process for evaluating the benefits and risks associated with a decision to use corporate resources to advance a political cause or candidate.

Keep ReadingShow less