Populist Antitrust and the 1927 Radio Act

  • Babette E. BoliekEmail author


In policy circles of Washington DC, in academia, and among advocates and lobbyists, there has been growing attention to the role of antitrust enforcement versus regulation in today’s economy (see, e.g., Shapiro in Int J Ind Organ 61:714–748, 2017). Various populist arguments seek an expanded role for antitrust law, as proponents seek to control the perceived political and free speech dangers associated with market concentration. These new populists are particularly interested in large, content-laden companies such as Google, Facebook, and broadcast and cable firms. Strong interest in content companies is, of course, not new. This essay explores different political, economic, and philosophical regimes at play when the United States chose to enact the Radio Act of 1927 and regulate, rather than leave to antitrust controls, the emerging radio industry. By examining antitrust at the dawn of the Radio Act of 1927, there are lessons to be learned for the political treatment of today’s social media, broadcast, cable, and telecommunications industry. In particular the story of the Radio Act of 1927 highlights two historically recurring political themes: (1) a longstanding, near-universal political goal to control content and (2) the tension between selecting an ex post antitrust enforcement regime versus an ex ante regulatory regime to control economic concentration and power. It is this second theme that is primarily explored here.


Antitrust Populist antitrust Radio act Communications act Broadband Open internet order Radio Cable Hazlett Herbert Hoover 



  1. Barnouw, E. (1966). A tower in Babel: A history of broadcasting in the United States to 1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benjamin, L. (1998). Working it out together: Radio policy from Hoover to the Radio Act of 1927. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 42(2), 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bittlingmayer, G. (2005). The 1920’s boom and the great crash and after, pp. 1–38. Retrieved January 1, 2019, from Research Gate database.Google Scholar
  4. Boliek, B. (2011). FCC regulation versus antitrust: How net neutrality is defining the boundaries. Boston College Law Review, 52, 1627–1686.Google Scholar
  5. Coase, R. (1959). The federal communications commission. Journal of Law and Economics, 2, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Sola Pool, I. (1983). Technologies of freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Feld, H. (2017). The DOJs case against ATT is stronger than you think—again. Wet machine blog. Last visited Nov. 28, 2017.
  8. Gilligan, T., Marshall, W., & Weingast, B. (1989). Regulation and the theory of legislative choice: The interstate commerce act of 1887. Journal of Law and Economics, 32, 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Godfrey, D. G. (1977). The 1927 Radio Act: People and politics. Journalism History, 4(3), 74–92.Google Scholar
  10. Godfrey, D. G. (1979). Senator Dill and the 1927 Radio Act. Journal of Broadcasting, 23(4), 477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodman, M., & Gring, M. (2000). The Radio Act of 1927: Progressive ideology. Epistemology, and Praxis, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 3(3), 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawley, E. W. (1989). Herbert Hoover and the Sherman Act, 1921–1933: An early phase of a continuing issue. Iowa Law Review, 74, 1067–1103.Google Scholar
  13. Hazlett, T. W. (1990). The rationality of U.S. regulation of the broadcast spectrum. Journal of Law and Economics, 33(1), 133–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Himmelberg, R. F. (1968). Business, Antitrust Policy, and the Industrial Board of the Department of Commerce, 1919. The Business History Review, 42(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krasnow, E. G., & Goodman, J. N. (1998). The “Public Interest” standard: The search for the Holy Grail. Federal Communications Law Journal, 50(3), 605–635.Google Scholar
  16. Lange, D. (1992). At play in the fields of the word: Copyright and the construction of authorship in the post-literate millenium. Law & Contemporary Problems, 55, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. May, C. (2002). The venetian moment: New technologies, legal innovation and the institutional origins of intellectual property. Prometheus, 20, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Messere, F. (2001). Encyclopedia of radio regulation.
  19. Shapiro, C. (2017). Antitrust in a time of populism. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 61, 714–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Winerman, M., & Kovacic, W. E. (2011). The William Humphrey and Abram Myers years: The FTC from 1925 to 1929. Antitrust Law Journal, 77(3), 701–747.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Pepperdine University School of LawMalibuUSA

Personalised recommendations