🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO ba.general - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <3B0A237F.FF6FBADB@quiotix.com> on Tue, 22 May 2001 01:29:51 -0700,
Jeffrey Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:

>> 1.  I don't think anti-trust laws would prevent such agreements among
>> sovereign entities (states).
>
>Immunity is waived when a soveriegn entity acts in concert with
>non-soverign entities.  Since states are not the only buyers (indeed,
>outside California, states are not significant buyers at all), a
>meaningful "buyer's cartel" could not exist without involving
>non-soveriegn entities.  

I sincerely mean no offense, but I disagree with both the interpretation
and the contention.

>> 2.  I don't think Congress needs to approve anything not preempted by
>> Federal law.
>
>Article I Section 10 Clause 3.  "No State shall, without the Consent of
>Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."

I believe that pertains to relationships between states, not states
acting in their common interest.  Otherwise all sorts of ongoing
cooperation (e.g., law enforcement) would be unlawful. 

>> 3.  As a practical matter California could simply announce its cap, and
>> other states could match it.  That would seem to be no more unlawful
>> than airline ticket pricing.
>
>Such an arrangement would not be very effective cartel.  ...

That remains to be seen.

>And it could also be subject to antitrust enforcement, just as some
>airline pricing practices have been.

Generally speaking, price leadership and price matching have been held
to be lawful; likewise buyers cooperatives.  In this general area only
price fixing (by sellers) has been held to be unlawful.

CAVEAT:  I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>