I'm not intimately familiar with the details of this issue, nor with the various "flavors of conservatism" mentioned in comments here, but this article makes a

I'm not intimately familiar with the details of this issue, nor with the various "flavors of conservatism" mentioned in comments here, but this article makes a strong argument for a few points that we can probably all agree on: SpaceX likely isn't responsible for pushing for the legislation in question (as some news outlets claim), but there does seem to be ample evidence of private influence on the government leading to proposed legislation with anticompetitive characteristics. If it does pass, SpaceX is expected to benefit as a result, so whether or not they are pushing for the legislation themselves, the end result may be just as worrying as if they had. Instead of debating labels or levels of political congruence among the various people who have brought up this issue, perhaps it would be more productive to discuss the possible ramifications of this legislation passing. Also worth considering is the topic of private influence over government (especially in defense, where it's largely just "the way things are done"), and whether or not business practices that benefit from such arrangements actually qualify as capitalism.