First K Street, now MLB?
The Republicans seem to want to make sure that they only have to deal with other Republicans. First they pressured lobbying firms to hire Republicans, rather than Democrats, and now they're putting the screws on Major League Baseball.
MLB is looking for someone to buy the Washington Nationals, which has been owned and run by MLB for the last couple of years, until this season in Montreal. Now that the Nats have found a home in DC, MLB wants to sell the team. Several potential ownership groups have surfaced, but one possible investor raised some hackles on Capitol Hill.
Tom Davis, the Congressman from northern Virginia who chairs the House Committee on Government Reform, wants to reform more than government, evidently. He's not happy that George Soros, the billionaire who financed a campaign to defeat President Bush in the last election, might buy the baseball team in the nation's capitol. He hinted that Congress might act to remove baseball's antitrust exemption should Soros buy the team. Rep John Sweeney, R-NY, indicated that there wouldn't be any support for building a ballpark should Soros be the owner. Another unnamed Republican warned of a perception problem should MLB get involved with Soros.
Usually, MLB only worries about a perception problem with an owner if he's linked to gambling in some way. Now should they start applying political litmus tests as well? What happens when the opposition party gains power? If the Democrats took over, should MLB buy the Detroit Tigers from Tom Monaghan, a big contributor to anti-abortion causes?
I think it would be great to take away MLB's antitrust exemption. It's based on a strange court decision (Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs), in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that baseball was not interstate commerce. However, while the Court has upheld that stance in later rulings (Toolson v. New York Yankees, Flood v. Kuhn), it has declined to extend that privilege to any other professional sports league (Haywood v. National Basketball Association, Mackey v. National Football League). The antitrust exemption gives MLB more control over movement of franchises, which is one reason that Washington, DC has been without a franchise for so long. Tight restriction of the market makes it easier for baseball teams to hold cities hostage for public monies for stadia. Were the Oakland Raiders interested in moving to San Jose, the San Francisco 49'ers couldn't do anything to stop them, and wouldn't be compensated for the encroachment on "their" market, but if the Oakland A's look to San Jose, the San Francisco Giants can (and will) try to block them, because San Jose is part of "their" market.
So, I'm pulling for George Soros to own the Nats. If that makes the Republicans in Congress unhappy, so much the better.
MLB is looking for someone to buy the Washington Nationals, which has been owned and run by MLB for the last couple of years, until this season in Montreal. Now that the Nats have found a home in DC, MLB wants to sell the team. Several potential ownership groups have surfaced, but one possible investor raised some hackles on Capitol Hill.
Tom Davis, the Congressman from northern Virginia who chairs the House Committee on Government Reform, wants to reform more than government, evidently. He's not happy that George Soros, the billionaire who financed a campaign to defeat President Bush in the last election, might buy the baseball team in the nation's capitol. He hinted that Congress might act to remove baseball's antitrust exemption should Soros buy the team. Rep John Sweeney, R-NY, indicated that there wouldn't be any support for building a ballpark should Soros be the owner. Another unnamed Republican warned of a perception problem should MLB get involved with Soros.
Usually, MLB only worries about a perception problem with an owner if he's linked to gambling in some way. Now should they start applying political litmus tests as well? What happens when the opposition party gains power? If the Democrats took over, should MLB buy the Detroit Tigers from Tom Monaghan, a big contributor to anti-abortion causes?
I think it would be great to take away MLB's antitrust exemption. It's based on a strange court decision (Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs), in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that baseball was not interstate commerce. However, while the Court has upheld that stance in later rulings (Toolson v. New York Yankees, Flood v. Kuhn), it has declined to extend that privilege to any other professional sports league (Haywood v. National Basketball Association, Mackey v. National Football League). The antitrust exemption gives MLB more control over movement of franchises, which is one reason that Washington, DC has been without a franchise for so long. Tight restriction of the market makes it easier for baseball teams to hold cities hostage for public monies for stadia. Were the Oakland Raiders interested in moving to San Jose, the San Francisco 49'ers couldn't do anything to stop them, and wouldn't be compensated for the encroachment on "their" market, but if the Oakland A's look to San Jose, the San Francisco Giants can (and will) try to block them, because San Jose is part of "their" market.
So, I'm pulling for George Soros to own the Nats. If that makes the Republicans in Congress unhappy, so much the better.
