I thought we were broadly in favor of free markets, which definitionally includes business spending. What happened to allowing mergers that merely made things better for the consumers?

This is very obvious cronyism, in support of Elon.

> "proposed consent decree would prevent the merged company from boycotting platforms because of their political content by refusing to place their clients' advertisements on them, according to two people briefed on the matter."

Isn't this literally covered by the first amendment ?

> "If advertisers get into a back room and agree, 'We aren't going to put our stuff next to this guy or woman or his or her ideas,' that is a form of concerted refusal to deal,"

This is an incredible stretch to claim, first you would have to prove that if the other company changed their political views that you would still refuse to deal.

Even from the FTC itself its explained that this "Refusal to deal" is centered to prevent monotpolizations.

> the focus is on how the refusal to deal helps the monopolist maintain its monopoly, or allows the monopolist to use its monopoly in one market to attempt to monopolize another market.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

What this WILL do will give the administration another tool to harass companies who vote with their wallet.

Mergers can distort competitive market functioning and conditions on them to ensure market operations are common.

So if a merger could create an excessive distortion in the advertizing space, this could be rational.

This is not imaginary as we have seen these collective boycotts happen before.