MEMORANDUM

To: —

From: CJ

Date: July 10, 2025

Subject: Regulating Single Firm Monopolies

BOTTOM LINE: Single firm monopolies are both harmful to consumers and smaller firms due to their role in weakening market competition. Without strong market competition, these single firm monopolies can executively raise prices and establish high entry costs for new firms to participate in the supposed market. When this occurs, consumers must set aside more income to buy less product, and smaller firms interested in joining the market struggle to turn a profit. 

BACKGROUND: 

The proposed legislation would help resolve the following issues:

Increasing Concentration of Market Power

According to the Federal Reserve Bank, there has been a drastic increase in market power of a few powerful firms in recent decades. This market power increase is rooted in mergers and acquisitions between large corporations, ultimately forming few firms with large amounts of control over specific industries. Present corporations facing litigation include Google, Amazon, Meta, and Apple.   

Higher Entry Costs

Because these firms have gained large amounts of market power, they have unprecedented control over specific areas of the industry in which they partake. They may choose to lower prices to a point where it is fiscally impossible for any competitive firms to join the market and make a profit. Although the monopolist firms themselves may be losing profits in this scenario, they employ this strategy to ensure their market power remains high and they are able to raise prices again once competitors disappear.

Overemphasis of Consumer Welfare

Attacks from Robert Bork, former Acting Attorney General and Solicitor General of the United States, and the University of Chicago against Supreme Court law in the 1970s and 1980s restructured antitrust law to emphasize consumer welfare. With this, for a corporation to be considered a monopoly, it typically must be proven that consumers have been harmed. This overemphasis on consumer welfare disregards entry costs for other potentially competitive firms, leading to a lack of prosecution against corporations who exhibit monopolistic practices. Consumer welfare is an important aspect of antitrust law, but not the only factor.

Flexibility of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is a measure of market concentration calculated by summing the squares of the market shares of all firms in a market, with higher values indicating less competition. Markets are considered uncompetitive and concentrated when they have an HHI of above 2500. However, the more uncompetitive a market becomes, the less consumer welfare and R&D are being garnered through these markets. Lowering this HHI benchmark will promote market competition, and by utilizing the insight of antitrust and market experts, the determination of a new benchmark will allow for a productive balance between consumer welfare and low entry costs for potential competitive firms.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION: Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced S. 130, Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act of 2025 on January 16, 2025, which was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Beginning in 2021, this bill would apply a “stricter standard for permissible mergers by prohibiting merges that” develop a risk of substantially reducing competition or create a monopsony (e.g. when a single buyer/employer “has sufficient market power” to decrease the price of goods or amount of wages due to reduced competition.) The bill would also prohibit exclusionary conduct, establish financial penalties for violations and instate whistle blower protections. 

PROPOSED LEGISLATION: This proposed legislation builds upon on Senator Amy Klobuchar’s bill, Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act,re-introduced every Congress,which promotes competition and improves antitrust enforcement. Section 3 of this bill aims to “prevent harmful dominant firm conduct” by limiting the amount of market power a single firm can hold within a specified market and ultimately reduce a given firm’s ability to maintain high entry costs for smaller firms and high prices against consumers. To measure whether a single firm is a monopoly or not, we will use the HHI as well as expert opinions to categorize market definitions. To protect both consumers and smaller firms against the anticompetitive actions of single firm monopolies, this proposed legislation specifically aims to lower the threshold of the HHI index to qualify a large firm as a monopoly, and further aims to introduce greater protection for consumers against these large firms. Enforcement will take place through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and would establish a nonpartisan commission to construct market definitions for legal cases, impose financial penalties on firms shown to have engaged in anticompetitive practices and work with large firms to reduce their market shares.

RECOMMENDATION:

Congress should work to update the current antitrust HHI thresholds to determine the non-competitiveness of markets. They should further work to reframe the focus of antitrust law to focus on striking the balance between promoting consumer welfare and establishing lower entry costs to markets, such that potential competitive firms are able to enter the market without being ran out of business. These updates would ultimately further protect consumers while promoting sustainable competition between producers.

Memorandum

From: Clain Johnson

ATTN: Congresswoman Debbie Dingell

Subject: Companion Bill Proposal

Purpose

Within this memorandum you will find a comprehensive assessment of your upcoming reelection campaign for Michigan’s 6th Congressional District, outline your advantages, disadvantages, and the potential threat of Christopher Taylor, the current Mayor of Ann Arbor. The assessment presented here draws upon data of past elections, current political dynamics, and emerging trends to demonstrate key elements that will shape the upcoming election and offer actionable insights for your campaign to navigate this election cycle effectively. 

Advantages

• Incumbency: Having served in Congress since 2014, your extensive incumbency will serve as a cornerstone of your campaign. Your Congressional achievements within the environment, such as the Great Lakes Restoration Reauthorization Act of 2022, and within the field of medicine, such as the Sustaining Excellence in Medicaid Act of 2019, have resonated with the constituents of the 6th District. These achievements demonstrate your legislative skill and will continue to serve as a foundation to strengthen your well-established name recognition. 

• Uncompetitive Democratic District:  The 6th District’s demographic composition and historical voting patterns align with your democratic party affiliation. With a Cook PVI of D+11 and a history of supporting democratic presidential candidates by large margins, you possess a robust base of political support. The district’s leftward lean provides you with a favorable electoral landscape with little competition from the Republican party.

• Fundraising: In every Congressional race you have participated in, you have demonstrated the ability to garner significant campaign funding in comparison to your opponents.. A prime example being the 2022 midterm elections, where you raised $1.56 million in contrast to your top opponent’s $12.07 thousand. With this, your track record reflects diverse sources of contributions to your campaign funding, with substantial support from PACs within the labor, health, and energy & natural resources sectors, as well as generous donations from both large and small individual contributors. 

Disadvantages

• Potential Primary Challenger: As Michigan’s 6th District is uncompetitively democratic, the largest concern to your campaign will be the potential emergence of a Democratic primary challenger. The rising influence of the progressive wing, particularly among young voters, may lead to competition within the primary race. This may necessitate strategic adjustments to some policy positions, such as law enforcement and education, or a careful allocation of campaign resources to preemptively address and appeal to this demographic.

• National Political Climate: National political dynamics can spur more constituents to vote than normally would, as demonstrated in recent elections. More extreme progressive ideals involving the environment, educational policy, and equal rights can influence a higher number of democratic voters to search for an alternative progressive candidate. To combat this, a continued progressive stance in most areas will satisfy your more progressive constituents, but position-taking with a moderate stance towards government spending will assist your continued attainment of the moderate democratic vote. 

Potential Competitor- Christopher Taylor

As the current Mayor of Ann Arbor, Christopher Taylor serves as a potential competitor within the upcoming democratic primary election. 

• Progressive Ideals: Christopher Taylor built a platform that includes protecting Ann Arbor’s parks and recreation, providing assistance for the city’s neediest, and investing in infrastructure. Since then, he has worked to implement this platform into reality as well as establish public support for the arts as well as making the city more affordable.  

• Network: Having served Ann Arbor as a member of the City Counsel and as the Mayor for a combined total of over fourteen years, Taylor has developed an extensive networkin the state and federal government as well as local fundraising organizations.. 

  • Organizing visits and fundraisers for federal officials as well as enforcing and supporting Governor Whitmer’s COVID policy have portrayed his ability to work loyally with Lansing and Washington. Through this, he has an ability to gain endorsements from state and federal governmental officials. 

  • Through local fundraising for Ann Arbor’s City Council and Mayoral elections, Taylor has gained connections to large donors within the county as well as developed experience of how to campaign on a larger scale than most mayors, due to Ann Arbor’s often competitive primary elections.

Overall Reelection Prospects

Given Christopher Taylor’s potential challenge as a progressive candidate, your prospects for winning reelection remain strong. With over eight years of Congressional experience, your name recognition and credibility far surpasses Taylor’s. Your extensive network within the state and federal government, coupled with your fundraising capabilities, provides a significant advantage. Furthermore, as a moderate progressive candidate, Taylor may need to adopt more extreme positions to win over progressive voters, risking alienation of moderate voters from across the political spectrum. Assuming you secure the primary, the general election appears promising due to the 6th district’s strong democratic lean.

Memorandum

From: Clain Johnson

ATTN: Congresswoman Debbie Dingell

Subject: Companion Bill Proposal

Purpose

This memorandum contains a comprehensive proposal of a legislative hearing within the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce, through the House Energy and Commerce Committee; designed to bolster American electric vehicle manufacturing and reduce reliance on China’s EV supply chain, including design, materials, and technology. With America’s increasing reliance on China’s EV supply, especially battery components, this hearing will address this dependency’s implication on the U.S. auto-industry, economy, and national security. Ultimately, this hearing can develop strategies to nurture growth of the American EV manufacturing sector and reduce reliance on foreign production supply in the U.S.

Ideal Witnesses

1. Domestic EV Manufacturers: 

   1. Experienced representatives from leading domestic and foreign EV producers, such as Tesla and General Motors, can provide expertise to members of challenges faced within domestic EV manufacturing, and what they believe they need in order to expand American manufacturing capacity. Because of these corporations’ global business models, their representatives can also delineate the impact of foreign competition on American-made vehicles within other countries.

   2. High-profile figures in domestic EV manufacturing, like Elon Musk, can provide ground for highly viewed hearings by the public. Within these hearings, you can make the national security risk of American reliance on the Chinese supply common knowledge through Tesla’s dependence on China as a supplier. Further, you can position-take through questioning in order to demonstrate your support for the auto-industry.

2. Industry/Economic Experts: Educated economists and leaders from organizations similar to the Electric Drive Transportation Association, like Genevieve Cullen, it’s president, can provide industry-wide recommendations, policy suggestions, and methodologies for industry collaboration to enhance domestic EV manufacturing. 

3. National Security Officials: A DoD official or national security expert such as Lloyd J. Austin III, the Secretary of Defense, can address national security concerns concerning foreign dependency, especially in the context for data collection by Chinese produced sensors and semiconductors. The subcommittee and general committee would be able to obtain an objective analysis of the national security risks stemming from EV supply chain dependencies and receive recommendations for safeguarding American interests.

Goal Advancement

1. National Auto-industry: Within Michigan’s 6th district, many constituents work in the auto-industry, so one of your primary goals is to keep these workers employed and well-treated. Through this hearing, you can stress the necessity of preserving U.S. auto innovation by highlighting the challenges faced by foreign auto-industries relying on Chinese EV imports or their supply chain. Keeping a strong U.S. auto-industry is necessary, especially for you, as these constituents often vote for your reelection, and about 7% of Michigan’s GDP is gained through business done by the auto-industry.

2. Economic Competitiveness: The Biden Administration’s proposals to have EVs make up 50% of all automobiles produced within the U.S. by 2030 may pressure auto-makers to rely on Chinese and other foreign supply. Doing this allows foreign auto-industries to gain large economic and manufacturing advantages within the world market, as the U.S. would rely on their superior EV supply. Through this hearing, you can demonstrate domestic success in EV research through your founding of the American Center of Mobility at Willow Run. This automated vehicle technology site secured a $7.5 million grant for AV testing in Michigan, and demonstrates domestic EV and AV research success. As the auto-industry is the largest domestic manufacturing industry, your goal to maintain healthy competition within the U.S. is essential for state and national GDP.

3. National Security: With the increasing reliance on Chinese technology used in American EVs, advanced sensors and semiconductors within these vehicles, in America and other countries, can be used to collect data on population and technology that can be utilized by the CCP. National security will be diminished with an increased reliance on Chinese EVs, and the data collected by these vehicles can be used to spur an even greater advantage for the Chinese EV auto-industry. By delineating these national security risks within the legislative hearing, you will be able to publicize the American necessity to bolster its domestic EV industry. Your goal to depend on diverse, domestic sources for materials of EV production is pertinent to fight against Chinese surveillance.

General Overview

With common bipartisan support for reducing Chinese influence in the American EV market, the prospect of committee hearings to educate members on bolstering the auto-industry, enhancing economic competitiveness, and ensuring national security is promising. Even with Republican Chairmanship in relevant committees, the likelihood of scheduling such hearings remains strong, due to the bipartisan advantages inherent in both low-profile, educational sessions featuring EV and national security experts and high-profile, public awareness-raising hearings with influential domestic EV manufacturers like Elon Musk. Both types of hearings have a reasonable likelihood of maintaining bipartisan support and being scheduled during the current congress.

Memorandum

From: Clain Johnson

ATTN: Congresswoman Debbie Dingell

Subject: Companion Bill Proposal

Purpose

Within this memorandum you will find a comprehensive proposal entailing the opportunity and benefits of submitting a companion bill to S.13193, the TREATS Act. Further, should you decide to pursue this opportunity, delineated below are the key procedural steps necessary for your companion bill’s successful passage through the House of Representatives, as well as your prospects of clearing each step. Finally, strategies to address potential obstacles that may arise when promoting this companion bill are elucidated within this proposal.

The TREATS Act

S.13193, the Telehealth Response for E-prescribing Addiction Therapy Services Act, or the TREATS Act, was submitted by Senator Sheldon Whithouse [D-RI] “to amend the Controlled Substances Act to allow for the use of telehealth in substance use disorder treatment.” This bipartisan bill, with fourteen cosponsors, serves to expand telehealth access in regards to substance abuse treatment, especially in more rural regions with limited access. 

• Allows for the prescription of Medication Assisted Therapies (MATs) and necessary drugs without needing a prior in-person medical visit.

• Permits the billing of Medicare for audio-only telehealth services.

Benefits

As an ardent supporter of affordability, equality, and comfortability within healthcare, this bill likely already speaks to you on a personal level. Further benefits of initiating a companion bill to the TREATS Act assist your Reelection Campaign through: 

• Advertising: As the representative of Michigan’s 6th District (D+11), the advertisement of your progressive views towards accessible substance abuse treatment would likely be supported by your highly democratic constituency, the thousands of medical workers employed in your district’s hospitals, and the very constituents facing substance abuse issues themselves. This progressive advertisement in a highly democratic district ultimately bolsters your prospects for reelection. 

• Bipartisanship: As demonstrated by the TREATS Act’s fourteen cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, substance abuse treatment is a bipartisan issue that both Democratic and Republican members of Congress want to act upon progressively. Bipartisan action, initiated on your behalf, demonstrates your Congressional capability to the rest of Congress as well as the public, further strengthening your reelection efforts.

  • Network: Being the primary sponsor of bipartisan legislation demonstrates to the rest of Congress your willingness to work across the aisle, similar to your sponsorship of the bipartisan Expanding Care in the Home Act. This companion bill provides you an opportunity to establish and/or strengthen relationships with other members of Congress, such that you may work progressively and more frequently with each other in the future. These actions further demonstrate your Congressional capability to the public, again assisting in your reelection.

  • Fundraising Through Position-Taking: Although you would primarily be taking a position of support for telehealth substance abuse treatment, you would also be taking a position of bipartisanship in the foreground of the current tumultuous political climate. This demonstrates to the public that bipartisanship is still attainable, and you are a leader who can achieve it. These bipartisan and progressive healthcare positions would ultimately, with proper advertisement, boost fundraising from super PACs run by medical interest groups, such as the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Research Interest Group, as well as individuals within these groups. These donations would likely be transferred from the intended donations of another less bipartisan member of Congress to yourself, in order to see further similar collaborative action. 

Steps to Pass the House 

1. Sponsorship: In order for this bill to attain the benefits of bipartisanship, you must recruit members from both parties as cosponsors. 

   • Republicans: Possible cosponsors include moderate Republicans like Rep. Marc Molinaro (NY-19) and Rep. Jen Kiggans (VA-02), who both have histories in promoting bipartisan healthcare legislation. Other useful cosponsors include Republicans from rural districts with low access to telehealth, as well as Republicans from districts who suffer from the Opioid Epidemic. Such Republicans include Rep. John Rutherford (Fl-05), who in September sponsored bipartisan legislation to fight the Opioid Pandemic, as well as Rep. Randy Feenstra (IA-04), who in November introduced bipartisan legislation to fight the rural mental health crisis. Your prospects of achieving these cosponsors are high, especially due to your own history of bipartisanship.  

   • Democrats: Within your own party, you would have many more opportunities for cosponsors. Securing Democratic cosponsors would be relatively easy, but maintaining balance between parties is key to promoting bipartisanship.

2. Committee: Once your companion bill has been returned from the Office of Legislative Counsel and named, it will be sent to committee for consideration. This bill would most likely be sent to the Health Subcommittee within the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Here, the committee will debate your bill and potentially hold hearings before deciding whether or not the bill will be placed on the Floor calendar. Due to Republican Chairman Brett Gunthrie (KY-02), the prospects of this bill getting through committee are not high, but this obstacle should be fairly simple to surmount. 

   • Obstacle: Republican Chairman Brett Gunthrie

3. Floor: If sent to the Floor, this companion bill would be debated and amended before its passage, as enforced by the special rules determined by the House Rules Committee. Closed rules and relatively short debate times are most favorable in order to pass this bill, however the stacked Republican House Rules Committee (9 Republicans, 4 Democrats), with Chairman Tom Cole (OK-04), is unlikely to do this. Most likely is the committee’s rejection to grant special rules for the bill, rejecting the possibility of Floor debate outright. Alternatively, the committee may pass unfavorable rules allowing poor debate time, unwanted amendments, and more negative obstacles, again making the prospect of this bill’s passage much more difficult. However, though difficult, the bill’s passage through the Rules Committee is not impossible. 

   • Obstacle: House Rules Committee

Overcoming Obstacles

1. Brett Gunthrie (KY-02): You should gain Gunthrie’s support for your companion bill such that remaining opposing Republicans on the Health Subcommittee follow suit and send it to the Floor. To do this, demonstrate the companion bill’s bipartisan compatibility, and the credit-claiming opportunities this bill presents for him due to his district being 42.47% rural. Convince Gunthrie that this legislation is something that the rural parts of his district desperately need, and his constituents will thank him for it through reelection. Tell him that with bipartisan support already secured for the bill, any anger Republican leadership may have due to the permittance of the billing of Medicare for audio-only telehealth services, or other issues, would be divided mainly among the Republicans who cosponsored the bill, rather than the committee. Whether this is true or not, convince Gunthrie of this, such that he believes minimal, if any blame would fall upon him. 

House Rules Committee: When determining special rules, the House Rules Committee would likely reject the granting of a special rule entirely, or grant unfavorable rules, possibly on the behest of Republican leadership, or their own complaints regarding billing or other issues. The heavy rightward lean of this committee and its chairman would not be as malleable as Gunthrie, such that your best options include attempting to get ⅔ of the House to vote in order to suspend the rules or filing a discharge petition. Due to the high likelihood of bipartisan support on this bill, acquiring ⅔ of the House vote to suspend the rules, in order to bypass the House Rules Committee, is fairly possible. You should use the same strategy you used to acquire Gunthrie’s support in order to guarantee these votes. Alternatively, if the ⅔ vote is too much, but a majority remains in support of the bill, you should attain and file a discharge petition with the majority’s signatures and wait the allotted amount of time to file a motion to consider the discharged bill on the Floor. Follow these strategies, and your companion bill should receive passage.