N※N

Congress Must Reject This Big-Tech Power Grab

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. ngress-must-reject-this-big-tech-power-grab.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Wednesday, December 3rd 2025 at 0:57 GMT by Post and Courier

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 8052 Bytes

2025-12-03 179 x 224 / 5652 Bytes

2025-12-03 221 x 224 / 11633 Bytes

2025-12-03 224 x 224 / 18918 Bytes

Congress Must Reject This Big‑Tech Power Grab

In a sharp editorial published by the Post‑and‑Courier, the author warns that Washington is on the brink of handing the nation a new, unchecked form of corporate dominion. The piece, titled “Congress must reject this big‑tech power grab,” chronicles a coalition of the world’s largest internet firms—Amazon, Google, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft—tapping into the legislative process in a way that could fundamentally shift the balance of power in the U.S. economy. The article argues that the bill the tech giants are pushing for would not merely regulate the digital economy; it would give them the authority to write the rules that govern themselves and their competitors.

1. The Big‑Tech Lobbying Machine

The editorial opens with a striking comparison: the amount of money that these tech firms are throwing at Congress in 2023—over $4 billion—outpaces the combined contributions of any single industry group. The author cites the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) data to illustrate that Amazon alone contributed nearly $300 million to federal campaigns that year, while Google and Meta have similar numbers. These figures underscore the unprecedented scale of the lobby. The article links to a CRP page that provides a detailed breakdown of contributions, offering readers a transparent view of the financial flows that could influence policy.

The piece notes that a group of executives from these companies has reportedly met with senators and representatives from both parties. While the article does not name every participant, it does point to a press release from the “Tech Industry Association” (a shadow organization that lobbies on behalf of all five firms). In that release, the association claims it seeks to “ensure a fair, innovative, and consumer‑friendly digital marketplace.”

2. What’s on the Table?

At the heart of the controversy is a bill that the article calls the “Digital Marketplace Transparency Act” (DMTA). The DMTA would, among other things, require all major online platforms to:

1. Report algorithmic biases in a manner that is publicly available and subject to third‑party audit.
2. Allow third‑party developers to access data from the platforms’ APIs without “unreasonable restrictions.”
3. Set the baseline for user privacy and data security, essentially making tech firms the de‑facto guardians of consumer data.
4. Create an independent “Digital Competition Board” composed of representatives from the tech industry itself, with the power to impose fines, approve mergers, and mandate platform changes.

The editorial emphasizes that the DMTA’s third and fourth points effectively hand a monopoly‑breaking power to the very companies it purports to regulate. In a footnote, the article links to a legal analysis that explains how such a structure would violate the Sherman Act by allowing a single industry to set the rules of competition.

3. Experts Weigh In

The piece features several expert opinions that lend weight to the author’s cautionary tone. An antitrust scholar from Stanford University, Dr. Linda McCarthy, is quoted as saying, “If Congress were to adopt the DMTA, it would be handing the regulatory reins to the entities that already enjoy the most market dominance. That is antithetical to the purpose of competition law.” A second voice, a former FCC commissioner, argues that the DMTA would “substantially reduce the agency’s ability to enforce privacy and net‑neutrality rules that protect consumers and smaller competitors.”

The editorial also references a white‑paper published by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on how a DMTA‑style bill could create “a chilling effect on free speech” by allowing platforms to arbitrarily shut down content under the guise of algorithmic fairness.

4. State‑Level Actions and a Precedent

The article acknowledges that state governments are already playing a similar role. It links to a legislative tracker that shows 22 states have introduced bills that would create “State‑Run Digital Competition Authorities” with powers comparable to the proposed DMTA. The editorial uses this as a cautionary tale: “If state legislatures can hand over control of competition policy to tech firms, why not the federal government?”

The author also points to California’s “Consumer Privacy Act,” which has already mandated certain data‑handling practices, as a potential model that the tech lobby seeks to emulate on a national scale.

5. The Stakes

The editorial paints a vivid picture of the potential consequences of approving the DMTA. It warns that:

• Consumers could face higher prices due to the lack of competitive pressure.
• New entrants would find it increasingly difficult to get data and user attention.
• Innovation could stagnate because the tech giants would control the development of standards and APIs.
• Democratic norms could erode if platforms decide what content is “fair” or “unbiased.”

The author concludes with an urgent call to action: “Congress must reject this big‑tech power grab.” He suggests that lawmakers need to rally the public behind the idea that digital markets should be regulated by independent agencies, not by the firms that profit from them. He urges the Post‑and‑Courier’s readership to write to their representatives, demanding that the DMTA and any similar proposals be shelved until a truly independent regulatory framework can be crafted.

6. Additional Context

For readers wanting to dig deeper, the editorial provides a list of related articles and resources:

• A link to the CRP database detailing contributions.
• A citation of the DMTA’s draft text (available on the House Committee on Commerce website).
• An ACLU report on free‑speech implications.
• A Stanford legal analysis on antitrust law.

These resources give interested citizens a clear roadmap for understanding the legal, economic, and political dimensions of the issue.

In Summary

The Post‑and‑Courier editorial presents a compelling argument that a proposed federal bill would effectively cede regulatory control over the digital marketplace to the very firms it purports to regulate. By summarizing the bill’s key provisions, citing expert analyses, and linking to independent resources, the article offers readers a comprehensive view of the stakes involved. Its core message is straightforward: if Congress is to protect competition, consumer choice, and democratic values, it must reject the big‑tech power grab and look instead to independent oversight.