Everyone vs. Bonta: How California’s attorney general united Newsom, Hollywood unions, and Republicans

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has achieved a rare feat in today’s polarized political climate: He has united Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, business leaders, Hollywood unions, theater owners, and a growing number of Republican attorneys general.They are all pushing back against Bonta’s politically charged and economically destructive crusade to derail the Paramount merger and have the government dictate the future of the American entertainment industry.Bonta portrays his lawsuit as a principled defense of competition and California’s antitrust laws. But the more that emerges, the more his case looks less like serious antitrust enforcement and more like a political favor for a handful of powerful special interests and Democratic megadonors. The U.S. Department of Justice reviewed and cleared the transaction. Regulators around the world have approved it. Yet, Bonta and 11 other Democratic attorneys general have appointed themselves the nation’s movie moguls, going so far as to suggest that politicians and regulators should determine how many films a studio produces each year.That is not antitrust enforcement. It is central planning, Sacramento-style.These attorneys general confront no shortage of crime, fraud, public corruption, and consumer abuse in their own states. Yet, they have chosen to devote their offices’ resources to micromanaging Hollywood’s production schedules.If Bonta were genuinely concerned about competition, where was he while Netflix, Amazon, and Apple amassed enormous influence over the future of American entertainment? Paramount argues that the merger will produce a stronger competitor to these streaming giants. Bonta’s lawsuit, by contrast, could help preserve the very market dominance he claims to oppose.The political connections surrounding the case also deserve criticism.Patty Quillin, the wife of Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, has contributed heavily to Smart Justice California, an organization that supported Bonta, and has contributed personally to his campaign. That does not prove improper conduct. But it creates an unmistakable appearance problem when Bonta advances a legal theory that could protect Netflix’s commanding market position while preventing two traditional Hollywood enterprises from joining forces to challenge it.The resistance to Bonta is now coming from inside his own political house.Newsom, Bass, and gubernatorial candidate Becerra have all encouraged Bonta to settle. They understand that prolonging this lawsuit creates uncertainty, and that Paramount could ultimately decide California is no longer worth the trouble.That possibility should alarm anyone who cares about the state’s economic future.California has already driven away an extraordinary roster of major employers, including Tesla, Oracle, Chevron, Hewlett-Packard, and McKesson. Losing one of Hollywood’s most iconic studios would be more than another corporate relocation. It would strike at the heart of California’s cultural identity and threaten thousands of jobs and businesses that depend on the entertainment industry.Industry leaders are also rejecting Bonta’s theory of harm. Entertainment unions, including the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and the Directors Guild of America, have pushed for a resolution. Bonta claims the merger would harm movie theaters, yet the nation’s three largest theater chains — AMC, Regal, and Cinemark — support the transaction. Cinema United has also called for a settlement.If this case proceeds, Bonta may discover that finding actual victims willing to support his theory is considerably harder than issuing a press release.Now this ill-conceived campaign against the merger has taken an especially loathsome turn.Actor Mark Ruffalo, who was closely associated with organized opposition to the merger before Bonta announced his lawsuit, sought to inject Israel into the dispute. He attacked the Ellison family over Oracle’s unrelated work with Israel and invoked incendiary accusations of “genocide” and “apartheid.” He also suggested that the merger would allow a small group of powerful Jewish “oligarchs” to gain greater control over Hollywood, language that Jewish leaders across the political spectrum condemned as antisemitic.Jewish advocacy groups have since demanded records of communications between Bonta’s office and Ruffalo.Whatever one’s views about Israel, an American antitrust case must turn on competition law, not the religion of corporate owners, their political views, or the ideological campaigns directed against them.Free markets are not protected by allowing politicians to pick winners and losers. Competition is not strengthened by preventing established companies from assembling the scale necessary to challenge dominant technology platforms. And California’s economy will not be revived by threatening another iconic employer with years of politically motivated litigation.HOW TRUMP CAN STOP BIG LABOR FROM STEALING $100 MILLION FROM DISABLED CAREGIVERSBonta now finds himself on an ugly island of his own making. His legal theory is rejected by regulators, industry workers, theater owners, business leaders, and prominent members of his own party. His political backing raises disturbing questions about appearances, while activists associated with the opposition have dragged the debate into deeply troubling territory.The attorney general should end this destructive crusade. Every day he refuses to do so strengthens the impression that this lawsuit is less about protecting competition than protecting political allies.Steve Forbes is chairman and editor-in-chief of Forbes Media.