An intrinsic part of getting the benefits of free markets is to make sure you don't end up with single companies that are too large. Beware the "socialism" that is just a cover for consolidating entire industries into one company.
My question is this: if officials at all levels of government are working in collusion with big-business, e.g. former finance executives making key decisions about fiscal policy and spending, who does the actual breaking? Those people will never be voted out, as those positions are usually filled by appointments. The irony is the government, as it stands, is the only entity capable of enforcing the "fair-play" necessary for a free market to function. Yet, if I recall, the government is the bane of free markets in the first place.
It needs power to break up monopolies, and a certain minimum size to be able to function effectively in this capacity, yes, but performing this function does not require massive staffs of bureaucrats making tons of regulations on every conceivable industry and thus being susceptible to capture in so many places. These two things are totally orthogonal; you can easily have either of "massive regulation" and "monopoly busting actions" without the other. Minimum size for monopoly busting would not be very large; monopolies aren't that tricky to detect.
Besides, historically speaking monopolies have existed in lieu of strong government regulation or involvement. Look at Germany in the late 19th-early 20th century, e.g. the Rhine-Westphalian Coal Syndicate or Bayer.