Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for monopolies, worker power, CEO pay, and the rules that govern corporate America.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares corporate power approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
American corporations have never been more powerful — or more concentrated. Just four companies control 80% of the U.S. beef market. Three pharmacy chains fill 80% of prescriptions. Two companies dominate home internet for most Americans. Since the 1980s, two-thirds of all U.S. industries have become more concentrated, while wages as a share of GDP have fallen to historic lows. The gap between CEO pay and median worker pay has grown from 21:1 in 1965 to over 340:1 today. Corporate profits are at record highs. Corporate tax revenue as a share of GDP is near record lows.
The three major approaches to corporate power differ fundamentally. Democrats support targeted enforcement actions and incremental reforms — more funding for regulators, some new rules for Big Tech, and modest tax increases. Republicans argue that less regulation produces more growth and that market competition is the best check on corporate behavior. The Common Good Party proposes structural reform: breaking up monopolies, requiring worker representation on corporate boards, capping the CEO-to-worker pay ratio for companies that receive public benefits, and banning corporate PAC contributions to candidates.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for workers, consumers, small businesses, and the economy. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the issues that matter most for corporate accountability and economic fairness.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Antitrust enforcement | Increased funding, targeted actions | Light-touch, market-driven | Mandatory breakups, tripled FTC budget |
| Stock buybacks | 1% excise tax (IRA) | No restrictions | Restricted unless workers paid living wage |
| CEO pay | Disclosure requirements | No regulation | 50:1 ratio cap for public-benefit companies |
| Worker board seats | Some proposals, not enacted | Opposed | Mandatory codetermination (1,000+ employees) |
| Corporate tax | Raise to 28%, close loopholes | Maintain 21% or lower | 25% minimum, no offshore shelters |
| Lobbying rules | Modest disclosure reforms | Minimal regulation | Ban corporate PACs, 2-year cooling-off |
| Merger policy | Case-by-case review, updated guidelines | Permissive, pro-consolidation | Presumptive denial above market-share threshold |
| Big Tech regulation | Antitrust suits, privacy bills | Section 230 reform focus | Common carrier rules, interoperability mandates |
| Shareholder vs. stakeholder | Stakeholder rhetoric, limited action | Shareholder primacy | Structural stakeholder governance |
| Monopoly breakups | Selective, litigation-based | Generally opposed | Mandatory for consumer-harm monopolies |
Sources: Federal Trade Commission, Open Markets Institute, Economic Policy Institute, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats have taken a more aggressive stance on corporate power in recent years, particularly under the Biden administration's FTC leadership. Key proposals include increased antitrust enforcement funding, targeted lawsuits against major tech companies, a 1% excise tax on stock buybacks (enacted in the Inflation Reduction Act), raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, and new disclosure requirements for CEO-to-worker pay ratios. Democrats have also introduced legislation for a federal data privacy standard and have supported some forms of worker representation in corporate governance.
The renewed focus on antitrust is overdue and welcome. The FTC's updated merger guidelines represent the first major rethinking of competition policy in decades. The buyback excise tax, while small, established the principle that share repurchases should not be tax-free wealth transfers. Democrats have also been stronger on corporate transparency, requiring companies to disclose their pay ratios, political spending, and climate risks. These are meaningful steps toward accountability.
Incremental enforcement within the existing framework cannot solve a structural problem. The Democratic Party still accepts millions in corporate PAC contributions, creating a fundamental conflict of interest. A 1% buyback tax has not meaningfully reduced buyback volume — companies spent over $800 billion on buybacks in 2023 alone. Antitrust lawsuits take years, cost millions, and often result in settlements that do not change market structure. Without structural reforms like mandatory codetermination, lobbying bans, or automatic breakup triggers, the Democratic approach is a stronger version of the same regulatory whack-a-mole that has allowed concentration to increase for four decades.
For more on the regulatory framework, see the full corporate power explainer.
The Republican approach to corporate power emphasizes deregulation, lower taxes, and faith in market competition as the primary check on corporate behavior. Key proposals include maintaining or lowering the 21% corporate tax rate established by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, reducing regulatory burden on businesses, opposing new antitrust standards that could restrict mergers, and using Section 230 reform rather than antitrust to address Big Tech concerns. Republicans generally oppose mandatory worker board representation, CEO pay caps, and buyback restrictions, viewing these as government overreach into private enterprise.
Excessive regulation can genuinely burden small businesses and startups more than the large corporations it targets — big companies can afford compliance departments that small ones cannot. Republicans are correct that some regulations create barriers to entry that protect incumbents rather than consumers. The emphasis on reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses specifically is well-placed. Republicans have also been right to question whether existing antitrust frameworks are well-suited to digital markets, even if they disagree about the solution.
The theory that deregulation and tax cuts trickle down to workers has been tested extensively and has failed. After the 2017 corporate tax cut from 35% to 21%, 60% of the savings went to stock buybacks and dividends, not wages or hiring. In the absence of antitrust enforcement, market concentration increases — and concentrated markets do not produce the competition that the theory requires. When four companies control 80% of a market, there is no competitive pressure to lower prices or raise wages.
The Republican approach also does not address the political dimension of corporate power. When corporations can spend unlimited amounts on lobbying and political contributions, they write the rules in their own favor — including the deregulation that Republicans propose. This is not a free market. It is a rigged market, where the largest players use political influence to maintain their dominance. Without addressing corporate money in politics, deregulation simply removes the remaining checks on that power.
For a deeper analysis of market concentration, see our corporate power explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes structural reform of corporate power, not just better enforcement of existing rules. Our plan includes: mandatory breakup of monopolies that demonstrably harm consumers through higher prices or reduced quality; codetermination requiring worker representation on the boards of companies with 1,000 or more employees; a 50:1 cap on CEO-to-median-worker pay ratios for companies receiving federal contracts, tax incentives, or subsidies; a 25% minimum corporate tax rate with no offshore sheltering; restrictions on stock buybacks unless all workers are paid a living wage; a ban on corporate PAC contributions to candidates; common carrier rules for dominant tech platforms; and a two-year revolving door cooling-off period for government officials.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan does not try to regulate corporate behavior from the outside while leaving the underlying power structures intact. Worker board seats change how decisions are made inside the company. Pay ratio conditions change the incentive structure for executives. Lobbying bans change the political dynamic. Unlike the Republican approach, the CGP plan recognizes that concentrated markets are not free markets — and that the "competition" Republicans invoke cannot exist without active antitrust enforcement. The CGP approach is pro-market and pro-competition precisely because it is anti-monopoly.
Germany has required worker board representation since 1976. German companies have higher productivity, lower executive pay ratios, and stronger wage growth than comparable American firms. When AT&T was broken up in 1984, long-distance prices dropped over 90% and innovation surged — producing the competitive telecom market that gave rise to the modern internet. Countries with stronger antitrust enforcement — including the EU, Japan, and South Korea — consistently show lower consumer prices in concentrated industries. The evidence is clear: structural checks on corporate power produce more competitive markets, not less.
The Common Good approach is not anti-business. It is anti-monopoly, anti-corruption, and pro-competition. Small businesses thrive when monopolies cannot crush them. Workers thrive when they have a voice. Markets thrive when the rules are fair. That is what this plan delivers.
Corporate power isn't abstract — it affects what you pay, what you earn, and whether your business can compete. Here's what the Common Good plan would look like for real people.
Want to see how CGP economic policies affect your household finances? Try the tax calculator to see your personal impact.
Open the Tax CalculatorCommon questions about how the three approaches compare on corporate power.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full corporate power explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into corporate power policy with these pages.
Monopolies raise prices, crush small businesses, and rig the rules in their favor. Read the full plan for how to build an economy that works for everyone — not just the biggest corporations.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.