SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us congress
Congress Must End Ticketmaster’s Monopoly
When a company gains too much control over essential critical goods and services, the government has a responsibility to step in and restore competition.
Jun 06, 2026
If you’ve ever been to a concert or sporting event, you’ve probably dealt with Ticketmaster.
And if you have, you’ve probably overpaid.
Ticketmaster is the closest thing the live events industry has to a monopoly. It controls the ticketing market at most major American venues and has used that power to squeeze fans with higher prices and limit competition, ultimately making live entertainment more expensive for everyone.
That is why recent legal action against Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation, was so encouraging. A jury ruled in April that it is an operating illegal monopoly. Remedies will follow; the question is when.
Fans should not have to skip seeing their favorite band, team, or performer because a monopolistic corporation has found another way to extract money from them.
For millions of Americans who have watched ticket prices climb due to hidden fees, service charges, and processing costs, this ruling felt like long-overdue accountability.
But one court case alone will not fix a broken marketplace.
The larger problem is not just one company’s conduct in one courtroom. It is a business model built around control. Live Nation and Ticketmaster dominate ticketing, promotion, venues, and resale in ways that make it harder for competitors to enter the market and harder for consumers to find alternatives.
Fans see the results every day. A ticket advertised at one price suddenly costs far more at checkout. Consumers are pushed into one platform with few other options. Artists and venues face enormous pressure to work within the same closed system. The result is a marketplace where one corporation can act as gatekeeper for much of American live entertainment.
That is not how a competitive market is supposed to work.
Of course, Ticketmaster and Live Nation are fighting to protect their monopolistic practices. Company executives have already made clear that they oppose a breakup and intend to challenge court efforts to unwind their power. In all likelihood, the monopoly’s legal challenges will lead to a lengthy appeals process that could lead to consumers not seeing remedies for years.
A breakup of Live Nation and Ticketmaster may ultimately be necessary, because one big player will ultimately squeeze out any competitors in the marketplace.
America has taken similar action before when monopolies became too powerful and too harmful to consumers. Two perfect examples are Standard Oil and the Bell Systems, and the lessons from each are clear: When a company gains too much control over an essential critical goods (like oil) and services (communications), the government has a responsibility to step in and restore competition.
But even before the courts finish their work, Congress can take action right now.
The most important step is to attack the exclusivity arrangements that keep Ticketmaster in control.
Today, venues and artists are locked into deals that leave fans with limited options. If you want to see a major concert or sporting event, Ticketmaster is frequently the only choice—even before the sale begins.
That gatekeeping power is the foundation of Ticketmaster’s monopoly.
Congress should require an open ticket marketplace. Fans should be able to buy tickets through the platform of their choice, not be forced into one company’s ecosystem.
Of course, much of the modern economy already functions this way. Consumers can compare flights, hotels, rental cars across competing platforms, just to name a few. The ticketing industry should work the same way.
Open distribution will give consumers more choice, put downward pressure on fees, and create room for competitors to challenge Ticketmaster’s dominance. It would not be a full breakup, but it would deliver the same benefits while courts continue to consider broader remedies.
Congress should also keep its promise to pass the bipartisan TICKET Act, which would require ticket sellers to display the full price upfront and guarantee refunds for canceled events. Consumers deserve transparency before they buy, not surprise charges after they have already committed.
Fans should not have to skip seeing their favorite band, team, or performer because a monopolistic corporation has found another way to extract money from them.
However, this issue is about more than Ticketmaster. Congress is willing to stand up to concentrated corporate power when it harms consumers.
The live events marketplace should reward competition, transparency, and choice. Right now, it rewards control.
Congress has an opportunity to change that and put fans first. It should take it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘The People of Lebanon Can’t Wait,’ Says Tlaib After Dem Leaders Join With GOP to Vote Down War Powers Resolutions
"Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion."
Jun 04, 2026
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries helped Republicans tank Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s war powers resolution to limit US military involvement in Lebanon on Thursday, holding up the effort to curb the conflict for at least another several weeks.
Despite Israel’s invasion of Lebanon pushing deeper, with more than 3,500 people killed and 1.2 million displaced since early March, the Michigan Democrat's resolution was defeated in a 324-92 vote, with a large number in her own party joining Jeffries (D-NY) and the Republican majority against it.
In a joint statement shortly ahead of the vote on Tlaib's resolution, House Minority Leader Jeffries of New York, along with Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), said: “We stand with the Lebanese people, the government of Lebanon, and the Lebanese Armed Forces in their efforts to live peacefully and defeat Hezbollah." The statement included no mention of Israel.
The lawmakers said they’d support a different resolution introduced by Tlaib on Wednesday, which was crafted in tandem with Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
That resolution likewise required President Donald Trump to remove US forces “from any hostilities in Lebanon” within seven days of passage. But it also added the caveat that it could not be construed to "prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces."
Jeffries, Clark, and Aguilar said, "There are no US servicemembers involved in combat operations or hostilities in Lebanon."
However, supporters of Tlaib's original measure have noted that the US military is heavily involved in Israel's actions in the country without having boots on the ground.
"The US is actively cooperating with Israel on coordinating strikes, intelligence sharing, and planning, including Trump green-lighting major attacks on Lebanon multiple times," Janet Abou-Elias, a researcher at the Democratizing Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Common Dreams.
While the resolution's passage wouldn't "end US involvement overnight," she said, "it fundamentally changes the landscape of accountability" by giving opponents of US collaboration a legal mechanism to conduct oversight.
And while the resolution would not cut off US military aid to Israel, Abou-Elias said Israel could continue its occupation "only for a limited period of time" without US assistance.
"Israel would be absorbing losses while also draining its broader manpower and firepower reserves," she said. "At some point, the cost-benefit of continuing their occupation without US support would shift."
Because war powers resolutions are privileged, they can be forced to a vote even without approval from the Republican majority.
However, committees are given 15 days to act before a resolution is forced onto the floor, followed by three days for a House vote. This means it could take until June 21 for the new version to pass. The Senate would also have to pass it, and it would then take another week to go into effect.
"The people of Lebanon can't wait another month for Congress to act," Tlaib said on social media following news that the proposal would be voted down. "Every day that we do nothing, 11 more Lebanese children are killed or injured by the Israeli military in this US-supported invasion. Congress must pass today's Lebanon war powers resolution."
Abou-Elias said that despite the setback, Tlaib's introduction of the measure was not a wasted effort.
"Even if the resolution doesn't pass today, the vote forces every representative on record on the US participation in the attacks on Lebanon," she said. "That alone has value."
Though resolution failed, proponents of the measure championed the 92 lawmakers who did vote in favor.
“Congress’s failure to act has thus far enabled multiple Israeli invasions of Lebanon and war crimes against Lebanese civilians,” said Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, in a statement. “Tonight’s vote demonstrated that a growing block of members of Congress are beginning to listen to their constituents. Americans don’t want the US involved in atrocities against Lebanese, Palestinians, Iranians, or anyone. This vote is just the beginning, and we will continue to organize until all of Congress acts to end these atrocities.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Raskin Introduces BLANCHE Act to Destroy Trump DOJ's Plot for 'Super Pardon' of President and His Family
"If the administration and its allies in Congress are truly walking away from the $1.8 billion criminal enrichment fund, they should have no problem joining us in banning it outright," the Maryland Democrat said.
Jun 04, 2026
Though acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche has said President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion “weaponization” slush fund is now “dead,” Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin on Thursday unveiled draft legislation that would eliminate what he describes as a “super pardon” buried in the Department of Justice settlement reached last month.
While Blanche—whom Trump said he plans to nominate for a full term as attorney general—has backed off the fund that would allow the DOJ to disburse taxpayer money to Trump allies and January 6 insurrectionists amid bipartisan backlash, a news release from Raskin’s (D-Md.) office on Thursday said the acting AG has done nothing to rescind “the mother of all sweetheart deals he tucked into his unprecedented settlement with Trump.”
The settlement, created in exchange for Trump dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for improperly leaking his tax returns, gives Trump, his entire family, and all their business ventures total and permanent immunity for “any matters currently pending or that could be pending” not only before the IRS, which Trump sued in the case that led to the settlement, but also before “other agencies or departments.”
The Maryland Democrat also said that despite retreating on the "weaponization" fund, the DOJ is still using its Judgment Fund to improperly reward the president's allies.
According to the Washington Post, as of April, the DOJ had already paid $8.5 million to prominent Trump allies who claimed to have been wrongly targeted by the Biden administration, even though no court formally determined that they had been.
“If the administration and its allies in Congress are truly walking away from the $1.8 billion criminal enrichment fund, they should have no problem joining us in banning it outright,” Raskin said. “But no one should be fooled by Trump and Blanche’s tactical pause: Nothing has been dismantled, and nothing has been renounced. Trump’s scheme to raid the Judgment Fund, bankroll political allies using taxpayer cash, and score a sweeping Super Pardon is alive and well and remains a clear and present threat to our constitutional order.”
Raskin, who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a new legislative package on Thursday, aiming to destroy the remaining vestiges of the DOJ deal and ensure that future presidents can never use federal settlements to reward themselves.
The Block Lawless Agreements and Nullify Corrupt Handouts and Emoluments (BLANCHE) Act, bars sitting presidents from entering settlements for money damages with the federal government and requires independent judicial oversight of any such agreements, including ones that grant the president "super pardons" like the one granted to Trump by the DOJ.
“My legislative package would end the slush fund, outlaw collusive settlements, and make clear that no president can use taxpayer dollars to cut partisan loyalty reward checks,” Raskin said.
He also introduced the Constitutional Rights Defense Act, which would allow individuals to file suits against the federal government when their rights are violated by agents of the state.
In contrast with the January 6 Capitol riot participants who have been claiming compensation under the fund, Raskin said his bill "ensures that all people who have actually had their constitutional rights violated by the government will have access to justice."
Raskin has previously introduced legislation that would block the use of federal funds to finance the Trump IRS settlement and prohibit payouts to January 6 Capitol riot participants and other Trump allies, including family members.
"Congress must act with urgency to shut down this presidential plunder once and for all,” Raskin said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular