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
corporate power
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
'Pay-to-Play Loyalty Program': Trump Ballroom Donors Have Been Handed $50 Billion in Federal Contracts
"Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom," said Rep. Jason Crow. "Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars."
Jun 05, 2026
Sen. Elizabeth Warren suggested President Donald Trump is running a "pay-to-play loyalty program for wealthy donors" after a report on Thursday revealed that more than half the companies that contributed to his White House ballroom project have been awarded government contracts over the last six months, totaling over $50 billion.
Examining the 27 publicly known corporate donors to the president’s $400 million gold-plated vanity project, the watchdog group Public Citizen found that 14 of them—more than half—had received either new or expanded contracts over the past six months after donating millions to the ballroom and appearing at a lavish White House banquet in October as Trump prepared to demolish the building's East Wing.
Over two-thirds, 19 of the 27 companies, received government contracts since fiscal year 2021, totaling over $338 billion. At least 16 out of 27 are also either facing federal enforcement actions and/or have had them suspended by the Trump administration.
“These giant corporations aren’t funding the Trump ballroom fiasco out of the goodness of their hearts. They have massive interests before the federal government, and they hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration,” said Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger, an author of the report.
By far the biggest monetary beneficiary has been the military contractor Lockheed Martin, which received a $43.8 billion in new or expanded contract funding over the past six months after it pledged $10 million to fund the dance hall last fall.
Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting company that serves military and intelligence agencies and pledged at least $5 million to the project, received $4 billion in contracts over the same period.
Meanwhile, Palantir—the data-mining surveillance giant with deep ties to the Trump administration—reaped over $1 billion in contracts after giving its own $5 million donation.
"Millions to fund Trump’s bizarre fever dreams are nothing compared to the billions they’re getting back in contracts and favorable government enforcement decisions," Golinger said. "The American people are paying the price.”
Other ballroom benefactors that have brought in more than $100 million worth of contracts over the past six months include Microsoft, Amazon, HP, and Caterpillar, while T-Mobile, Google, NextEra Energy, and Comcast have all brought in more than $10 million.
Public Citizen noted that while the White House has publicized some of the ballroom donors and others have been revealed by news organizations, not all of the companies that have contributed to the project are publicly known, since the secret funding agreement obtained by the group through a Freedom of Information Act request allows their identities to remain private.
In a statement to The Washington Post, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle suggested that critics should be grateful that Trump was soliciting donations from the wealthy for this very important undertaking.
“The same critics who are alleging fake conflicts of interest would also complain if American taxpayers were footing the bill for these long-overdue renovations,” he said, ignoring the fact that Trump has previously pressured Republicans in Congress to appropriate hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding to secure the ballroom.
Ingle added that “the donors for the White House ballroom project represent a wide array of great American companies and generous individuals, all of whom are contributing to make the People’s House better for generations to come.”
But several Democratic members of Congress have pointed to it as evidence of Trump selling out the government "to the highest bidder."
“Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.). “Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars.”
“Wild coincidence or taxpayer-funded corruption?” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “You be the judge.”
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said that “the part that should make your blood boil” is the fact that many of the companies identified in the report “were facing federal enforcement actions, antitrust reviews, labor cases, [or] securities charges.”
"Many of those cases have been quietly dropped or scaled back since Trump took office. You write a check, your legal problems disappear," Levin said. "That’s not a coincidence."
“You cannot afford to donate to Trump’s ballroom, so he does nothing to improve the quality of your life,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “But for those who can, there are billions in government contracts.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Pathetic Legacy': Democratic Colorado Governor Vetoes Landmark Surveillance Pricing Ban
"Polis had an opportunity to stand with working Coloradans, but instead chose to side with the dominant corporations using invasive surveillance data to pick their pockets.”
Jun 03, 2026
Colorado's Democratic governor faced backlash on Wednesday after vetoing legislation that would have cracked down on surveillance pricing, an increasingly common practice whereby corporations use personal data to set individualized prices on groceries and other goods.
Gov. Jared Polis, who is term-limited and thus not up for reelection, said in his veto letter that he "appreciate[s] the intentions" of the legislation, which advocates described as the strongest surveillance pricing proposal in the US. But Polis claimed the bill passed by state lawmakers is overly broad and would have had unintended consequences, echoing industry objections.
Pat Garofalo, director of state and local policy at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement Wednesday that "Polis had an opportunity to stand with working Coloradans, but instead chose to side with the dominant corporations using invasive surveillance data to pick their pockets."
"The legislators who sponsored this bill worked hard to craft strong, fair protections for Colorado families, and we look forward to continuing to support them in the future," said Garofalo.
Colorado State Rep. Javier Mabrey (D-1), one of the lead sponsors of HB 1210, vowed that "we’ll be back next session" to revive the proposed surveillance pricing ban.
"The question for the Dems running to be our next governor is simple: Will you sign it, or side with the companies using our data against us?" Mabrey wrote on social media.
Gov. Polis is vetoing our bill banning surveillance pricing, allowing corporations to keep using your personal data to set prices. We’ll be back next session. The question for the dems running to be our next governor is simple: will you sign it, or side with the companies using… pic.twitter.com/HLXAogDfDy
— Rep. Javier Mabrey (@javier_mabrey) June 2, 2026
The Denver Post noted that HB 1210 "was the latest in a slew of pro-tech and pro-business vetoes by Polis in recent years." Last year, Polis vetoed legislation that would have banned rent-setting algorithms that corporate landlords have used to push up housing costs across the US.
A recent survey found that nearly 70% of Americans support banning surveillance pricing, fearing that the practice drives up the costs of basic necessities, harming unwitting consumers while lining the pockets of corporations. Public anger over surveillance pricing has spurred legislative and regulatory action in states across the US.
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, wrote in response to Polis' veto that "his career will be over soon, and our work is just beginning."
"Polis might have the most pathetic legacy of any outgoing Dem governor," Hepner added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular