Referred to the House Committee on Small Business.
This bill (Main Street Competes Act) amends the Small Business Economic Policy Act to require the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to report, every two years, to the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy on how their antitrust enforcement affected small businesses. The Office of Advocacy must analyze those reports, disaggregate data by industry, evaluate harms and successful actions, and provide administrative and legislative recommendations.
Liberals see transparency as a path to stronger antitrust enforcement
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting measure that clearly defines objectives, responsible entities, timelines, report contents, and statutory definitions, but it omits key operational supports such as funding, data confidentiality measures, and enforcement or quality controls.
This bill (Main Street Competes Act) amends the Small Business Economic Policy Act to require the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to report, every two years, to the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy on how their antitrust enforcement affected small businesses.
The Office of Advocacy must analyze those reports, disaggregate data by industry, evaluate harms and successful actions, and provide administrative and legislative recommendations.
The bill also updates the statute’s policy language to explicitly link small business policy to antitrust enforcement and adds definitions for key terms.
Content is narrow, administrative, and low-cost so historically plausible to pass, but committee priorities, procedural hurdles, and stakeholder pushback introduce uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting measure that clearly defines objectives, responsible entities, timelines, report contents, and statutory definitions, but it omits key operational supports such as funding, data confidentiality measures, and enforcement or quality controls.
Liberals see transparency as a path to stronger antitrust enforcement
Liberals see transparency as a path to stronger antitrust enforcement
Likely supportive: sees the bill as a practical step to make antitrust enforcement more accountable and visible for small businesses.
Views data collection and regular analysis as tools to strengthen enforcement, curb market concentration, and produce targeted fixes.
Cautiously favorable: views the bill as a reasonable, evidence-driven oversight measure that improves information for policymakers.
Concerned it could create redundant reporting or modest administrative costs without guaranteed enforcement changes.
Skeptical or oppositional: views the bill as a step toward expanded antitrust scrutiny that could chill business efficiencies and increase regulatory burdens.
Concerned reporting may presage activist enforcement or litigation that harms investment.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow, administrative, and low-cost so historically plausible to pass, but committee priorities, procedural hurdles, and stakeholder pushback introduce uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals see transparency as a path to stronger antitrust enforcement
Content is narrow, administrative, and low-cost so historically plausible to pass, but committee priorities, procedural hurdles, and stakeh…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified reporting measure that clearly defines objectives, responsible entities, timelines, report contents, and statutory definitions, but it omits key o…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.