August, 03 2016, 12:00am EDT
Antitrust Experts Warn Against Proposed Bayer-Monsanto Merger
Legal Opinion Questions the Legality of Bayer-Monsanto Merger on Antitrust Grounds, Outlines Risks Posed by Merger
WASHINGTON
A new legal opinion, written by two former Justice Department officials from the Antitrust Division, argues that a merger between Bayer and Monsanto would violate the Clayton Act, a law enacted by Congress to curb anticompetitive business practices.
According to the white paper, a Bayer-Monsanto merger would also be in direct violation of a 2008 court order, where Monsanto was forced to divest itself of certain cottonseed and cotton breeding assets, which were sold to Bayer. If the merger proceeds, Monsanto would re-acquire these anti-competitive traits, thereby violating the US Department of Justice's judgment.
The legal opinion points out that:
- The merger would eliminate direct competition between two of the largest players in the traited seed sector, with direct consequences for seed development, herbicide markets, and innovative and open research and development.
- A merger will mean the new Bayer-Monsanto conglomerate will control nearly 70% of the cotton acreage in the United States - unacceptably high by antitrust standards. It would also have unacceptable market concentration in wide swaths of commercial seed development and sales for other commonly used varieties, including traited canola, soybeans, and corn developed in North America.
- The new corporation would likely lead to higher input prices, with less choice and higher food prices for consumers, and fewer non-biotechnology options available to farmers and consumers.
"A merger between Bayer and Monsanto is a five-alarm threat to our food supply and to farmers around the world," explained Anne Isakowitsch, Senior Campaigner with SumOfUs. "This new mega corporation would be the world's biggest seed maker and pesticide company, defying important antitrust protections, giving it unacceptable control over critical aspects of our food supply -- undermining consumer choice and the freedom and stability of farmers worldwide."
SumOfUs, an international corporate watchdog, released the legal opinion as Bayer, a German chemical and pharmaceutical giant, increases its efforts to acquire Monsanto, one of the world's largest producers of chemicals and farm inputs.
More than 500,000 SumOfUs members around the world have signed onto a petition opposing the potential merger of Monsanto and Bayer.
VIEW THE PETITION HERE: https://actions.sumofus.org/a/stop-the-bayer-monsanto-mega-merger
The legal opinion was written by Maurice E. Stucke and Allen P. Grunes, counsels at the Konkurrenz group. Maurice Stuck is a law professor at the University of Tennessee, with twenty years of experience handling a range of competition policy issues in both private practice and as a prosecutor with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Allen Grunes spent more than a decade at the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division, where he led many merger and civil non-merger investigations in radio, television, newspapers, motion pictures, and other industries.
SumOfUs is a community of people from around the world committed to curbing the growing power of corporations. We want to buy from, work for and invest in companies that respect the environment, treat their workers well and respect democracy. And we're not afraid to hold them to account when they don't. Barely a day goes by without a fresh corporate scandal making headlines. From polluting the environment to dodging taxes - when left unchecked, corporations don't let anything stand in the way of bigger profits. In an age of multinational companies that are bigger and richer than some countries, it can be easy to feel powerless. But there is a chink in their armor. The biggest corporations in the world rely on ordinary people to keep them in business. We are their customers, their employees, and often their investors. When we act together, we can be more powerful than they are. Together, our community of millions act as a global consumer watchdog - running and winning campaign
LATEST NEWS
'There Will Be Many More': Citing GOP Medicaid Cuts, Rural Nebraska Clinic Announces Closure
"Republicans haven't passed their bill yet, but if you live in Nebraska you can thank them for making you less healthy," wrote Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.).
Jul 03, 2025
The devastating cuts to Medicaid contained in Republicans' budget bill have not yet gone into effect but are already having negative consequences for American healthcare.
Nebraska Public Media reports Thursday that the Curtis Medical Center, a clinic located in a rural Nebraska community with a population of under 1,000 residents, will soon shut down thanks in part to the expected impact the GOP's cuts to Medicaid will have on its finances.
Troy Bruntz, the president and CEO of Curtis Medical Center owner Community Hospital, said in a news release that the coming Medicaid cuts are tipping many financially challenged health clinics into insolvency.
"The current financial environment, driven by anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid, has made it impossible for us to continue operating all of our services, many of which have faced significant financial challenges for years," he explained.
Nebraska Public Media notes that the Curtis clinic is likely just the first domino in the state's rural healthcare system to fall thanks to the Medicaid cuts and it speaks to recent warnings from people like Jed Hansen, executive director for the Nebraska Rural Health Association, about how many other hospitals are in real danger.
"We currently have six hospitals that that we feel are in a critical financial state, three that are in an impending kind of closure or conversion over to the rural emergency hospital model," Hansen said earlier this week during an online forum about the state's crisis. "We would likely see the closures within a year to two years of once [the Medicaid cuts are] fully enacted."
Other experts have sounded similar alarms on the budget bill's impact on rural hospitals. Sharon Parrott, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote earlier this week that Senate Republicans' efforts to create a fund of money earmarked for rural hospitals would prove woefully inadequate to the problems these institutions will face in the coming years.
"Senate Republicans know the bill would hurt rural hospitals—that's why they added a face-saving temporary fund, but it won't rescue rural providers when the funding runs dry and the permanent cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage remain," explained Parrott. "This is particularly true because the revised Senate fund gives the Health and Human Services secretary significant discretion in how the funds would be allocated. Rural providers need people in their communities to have health coverage they can count on. Without that, more rural hospitals will close and more people with and without coverage will be cut off from care they need."
In an analysis released last month, the American Hospital Association (AHA) estimated that 1.8 million individuals in rural communities would lose their Medicaid coverage under the Republican Party's plan while rural hospitals would receive $50.4 billion less in Medicaid funds over the next decade, putting many of them at severe risk of shutting down completely.
"The Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would devastate rural hospitals across the country" if the bill became law, warned AHA president and CEO Rick Pollack. "Many rural hospitals would be forced to choose between maintaining services, keeping staff and possibly closing their doors. Patients would be forced to travel hours for basic or emergency care, and communities would suffer."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) cited the story about the Nebraska clinic on X Thursday morning and predicted it was just the beginning of bad things to come for rural hospitals.
"Republicans haven't passed their bill yet, but if you live in... Nebraska you can thank them for making you less healthy," he wrote. "There will be many more."
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the GOP budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would result in more than 10 million Americans losing their health insurance coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump White House Lies About Budget Bill's Tax Cuts as US Public Opposes Giveaway to Rich
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt misleadingly touted tax deductions for overtime and tips—while neglecting to mention the bill's much larger tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations.
Jul 03, 2025
As the Republican reconciliation bill barrels toward final passage in Congress, the Trump White House is misrepresenting the measure's tax provisions in an attempt to paint the unpopular legislation as a boon for workers and ordinary seniors rather than a massive handout to the wealthiest Americans.
In an X post late Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declared that any lawmaker who opposes the 887-page bill is voting against "no tax on tips," "no tax on overtime," and "no tax on Social Security" benefits.
Leavitt's post was sufficiently misleading as to draw a "community note" on the Elon Musk-owned platform, which clarified that the Republican bill "does not fully eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, or Social Security as claimed; it offers limited deductions with caps (e.g., $25,000 for tips, $12,500 for overtime) and excludes high earners, with no provision to remove taxes on Social Security."
As Axios reported Thursday, the Republican legislation does include "an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older," but the benefit "leaves out the poorest seniors" and expires in 2028, when President Donald Trump is set to leave office.
The tax deductions for overtime and tips also expire in 2028.
That's unlike the major tax breaks for the wealthy that are included in the legislation, which extends soon-to-expire provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax law. For example, the new Republican bill would permanently raise the estate tax exemption, allowing ultrawealthy individuals and married couples to give their heirs up to $15 million or $30 million without paying any federal taxes.
"A married couple worth $30 million where both spouses die in 2026 would pay some $6 million less under the bill compared with current law," The Wall Street Journal observed.
Brendan Duke, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, estimates that the GOP reconciliation bill's tax breaks for the richest 1% are roughly 10 times larger than the tax deductions for tips and overtime combined.
You left something out. https://t.co/LwMFX2nbyM pic.twitter.com/9Dn2FoBZNH
— Brendan Duke (@Brendan_Duke) July 3, 2025
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) noted in a recent analysis that the Senate-passed legislation also "includes permanent corporate tax breaks (involving more generous versions of tax rules for bonus depreciation, research, and limits on interest deductions) that lawmakers have attempted to enact in recent years."
Contrary to the Trump White House's characterization of the reconciliation bill as a historic "middle- and working-class tax cut," ITEP found that "the richest 1% of Americans would receive a total of $117 billion in net tax cuts in 2026."
By contrast, according to ITEP, "the middle 20% of taxpayers on the income scale, a group that has 20 times the number of taxpayers as the richest 1%, would receive less than half that much, $53 billion in net tax cuts that year."
"The effects of President Trump's tariff policies alone offset most of the tax cuts for the bottom 80% of Americans," the group added. "For the bottom 40% of Americans, the tariffs impose a cost that is greater than the tax cuts they would receive under this legislation."
Survey data released Wednesday by Data for Progress shows that the Republican legislation is unpopular with a majority of likely U.S. voters. The new poll, conducted between June 27 and July 1, found that 62% of Americans are either somewhat or very concerned about the bill's "cuts to income taxes on wealthy Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abrego Garcia’s Attorneys Say He Faced Beatings and ‘Psychological Torture’ in El Salvador Prison
While the prisoners were kneeling, guards allegedly kept watch over them and would physically strike anyone who fell over from exhaustion, allege attorneys representing Abrego Garcia.
Jul 03, 2025
Attorneys representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant whom the Trump administration wrongly sent to El Salvador's infamous Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), are alleging that he and other detainees at the site were subjected to physical abuse and psychological torture.
In a court filing published on Wednesday evening, Abrego Garcia's attorneys write that their client "was subjected to severe mistreatment upon arrival at CECOT, including but not limited to severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture."
The filing describes Abrego Garcia and approximately 20 other inmates "being struck with wooden batons" after arriving at the facility as they were frogmarched to their cell, where guards would subsequently force them to kneel from 9:00 pm until 6:00 am While the prisoners were kneeling, guards allegedly kept watch over them and would physically strike anyone who fell over from exhaustion. The complaint adds that "during this time... Abrego Garcia was denied bathroom access and soiled himself."
The complaint alleges officials at the prison would repeatedly threaten to transfer Abrego Garcia to cells that contained gang members who would "tear" him apart. These threats were made more menacing, the attorneys state, because "Abrego Garcia repeatedly observed prisoners in nearby cells who he understood to be gang members violently harm each other with no intervention from guards or personnel. Screams from nearby cells would similarly ring out throughout the night without any response from prison guards on personnel."
During Abrego Garcia's first two weeks at the facility, the attorneys write, he lost approximately 31 pounds.
The Trump administration last month complied with a Supreme Court order to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to United States after it acknowledged months earlier that he had been improperly deported to El Salvador. Upon his return, the United States Department of Justice promptly hit him with human smuggling charges to which he has pleaded not guilty.
President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi have also accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the gang MS-13, although they have produced no evidence to back up that assertion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular