Matt Stoller is actively lobbying for Lina Khan on the Hill. He is an active advisor to JD Vance and Elizabeth Warren [0][1]. The NGO he his lobbying with is primarily funded by Soros and Omidyar [2] (former chairperson of Ebay, and the owner of The Intercept). He also used to work with her (along with Chopra and other ex-Warren staffers) at New America
This is not to say that he's a good guy or a bad guy, but his newsletter is just another of the hundreds that are published by Donor Organizations for lobbying related reasons. [3]
Edit: downvote me for tone, not for content. I'm a Democrat myself and I've helped people pass some legislation we all love when I worked on the Hill.
I would call it mostly the opposite (and have given detailed critiques of why before on HN, citing where he is eliding facts or just literally spouting nonsense).
I used to subscribe, and read carefully, for years, so this is not a drive by sort of view ;)
He certainly appeals to a certain group of people, but I would not call it particularly accurate or correct. He will frequently leave out facts to make a point, even when the facts literally point in the opposite direction. The more I dug, the more obvious this becomes, but it only really takes comparing a single opinion or two to his take on them to become disillusioned with his view.
I gave up completely when his view of why the DOJ keeps losing literally became "the judiciary is corrupt"
You see - it can't be that the DOJ is wrong, or sucked, that he's wrong, or that his theories are wrong, or anything like that. No, you see, it's everyone else that's the reason.
I think he's drunk a little too much of his own koolaid.
There are better newsletters if you are looking for a more objective view. If you want subjective but good, that's harder, but Matt ain't it.
> I gave up completely when his view of why the DOJ keeps losing literally became "the judiciary is corrupt"
Why is that your view if that is what literally happens in a court of law?
> The best way to explain Bidenomics is to listen to a judge Biden recently appointed to the D.C. district court, Ana Reyes, who was hostile to the Antitrust Division when they brought a case against two smartlock makers. Last month, Reyes sat on an American Bar Association panel where she attacked the idea of stronger antitrust enforcement, focusing specifically on her skepticism around labor-related claims. She bragged to the audience of defense attorneys that during the antitrust case she heard, she 'pranked' government lawyers by spending three minutes pretending to dismiss their key witness, before saying ‘April Fools. "I have never in my life heard stunned silence," she later said gleefully.
> Having a corporate lawyer bully turned judge appointed by Biden killing an antitrust suit brought by Biden officials is a great example of Bidenomics, because it shows the lack of coherence of this administration’s policy. I’m a big fan of Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, but another Biden judge - Jacqueline Corley - let through the largest big tech merger of all time, when Microsoft bought Activision, after Khan challenged the deal.
His journalism covering monopolies and related litigation is nothing short of phenomenal.
I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about how big business works to suppress employees customer and regulator power.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/