is it possible for the government to create a law preventing companies from owning more than 2% of a national media company to avoid ‘big money’ control, or is this something they can’t do legally?
This might be a First Amendment issue since it could mean restricting someone from publishing content if they exceed a certain size. Essentially, the rule would force them to sell off most of the company.
Yes, anti-monopoly laws already exist, so limiting ownership stakes could be possible.
Clara said:
Yes, anti-monopoly laws already exist, so limiting ownership stakes could be possible.
Restrictions on media ownership were much stricter before 1996.
How would it even work for companies like CNN? CNN itself is a company, so how would you handle a rule like this?
Terry said:
How would it even work for companies like CNN? CNN itself is a company, so how would you handle a rule like this?
CNN is owned by Discovery, so the rule would mean Discovery could only own 2% of CNN, with the rest owned by other entities.
@Kyle
If large funds hold shares on behalf of others, this rule would impact retirement and pension accounts.
Oak said:
@Kyle
If large funds hold shares on behalf of others, this rule would impact retirement and pension accounts.
The limit would apply to the ultimate owner of the stock.
Highly unlikely. Laws would need to demonstrate that harm would occur without the restriction, which is a tough argument here. It would also fall under strict scrutiny since it could restrict speech, raising First Amendment concerns.
They could try to pass it, but the law would need to survive any constitutional challenges.
Not sure if it would work now. How would you define ‘media company’? Are social media platforms included?
Couldn’t someone just set up multiple companies to each own 2%, creating a network of ownership?