Corporate Money – Foreign Influence in American Politics

 

With the world of politics clamoring about foreigners using social media to influence American politics, what’s interesting is the absence of any discussion about foreign influence through U.S. corporations. In a globalized economy, undoubtedly foreigners allowed to invest do so with enthusiasm in U.S. corporations. Ownership in a U.S. Corporation is clearly a backdoor way to America’s political system, and thereby, opportunity to influence those with the right to participate in the political system. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Citizens United case of 2010, pronounced corporate money as speech protected under the 1st Amendment. Foreign shareholders of U.S. Corporations, through the Citizens United ruling, gained 1st Amendment rights to participate in the American political system.

Any amount of foreign ownership in a corporation allowed to participate in the American political system should raise concern, one would think. Interestingly, however, only foreign individuals or foreign companies with at least 25% ownership interest must be reported to the IRS. Currently, a corporation may be held by any number of foreign shareholders without being disclosed, where none of the foreign shareholders individually hold 25% or more interest. U.S. communications and media corporations are increasingly being owned by foreigners, strengthened by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval in 2017 of 100% foreign ownership in U.S. broadcast stations, and as a specific example, allowing up to 49% foreign ownership in Pandora, which through ownership in another company, holds a U.S. radio station.

Consider a possible strategy of a supply company or media company that has foreign shareholders. A supply company would most likely lobby for, and support legislators willing to grant concessions, to the detriment of citizens, local businesses and economies. For example, lowering barriers for imports, and driving down wages, by dominating the local labor market, such as might be done by Amazon, Walmart and Home Depot, benefit corporate interests to the detriment of local services, trades and crafts people.

Foreign ownership in media companies, including television, journalism, as well as, technology companies like Facebook, Google, Netflix, and Microsoft, may strategize to influence the type of coverage provided on any number of issues to the benefit of foreign shareholders over the interest of American citizens. The corporate media has been known to miss the mark on unbiased reporting, deliberately withholding unflattering information about a politician or other party in the favor or control of the media company.

Shareholder influence on the lobbying and political support made by a corporation, even with just a single foreign shareholder, allows foreign influence, through a foreigner’s vote as shareholder in a U.S. corporation, and thereby, participation in America’s political system. To preserve America’s Democracy, eliminating corporate money in politics, in order to remove any foreign influence would seem logical. Unlike human citizens, corporations, and multinational corporations in particular, have no national allegiance, and often lobby interests counter to human citizens in industries effecting such areas as human development and quality of life; for example, the prisons and health insurance industries.

Whether the Supreme Court got it wrong with Citizens United is clear. The 1st Amendment rights of all corporations should not extend to political speech, noting that corporations are a legal fiction granted certain rights in order to operate, not the inalienable rights of human citizens. In the case of corporations with foreign shareholders, so as to avoid any possible foreign influence, the “one-drop rule” should apply to exclude corporations with any foreign ownership from political speech. The one-drop rule, from the Plessy vs. Ferguson Supreme Court case in 1895, held that any person with even one ancestor of African ancestry is considered Black. A corporation with any foreign shareholders, similarly, can be considered to be influenced by foreign interests, and thereby, directed to influence the lobbying and political activities of those corporations in which foreign ownership is held.

The transparency of ownership of a corporation would seem reasonable, at least where the corporation, through lobbying and political activities, adversely effects the lives of human citizens. Attempting to obtain corporate ownership information, however, is next to impossible unless one is a shareholder or a rare public disclosure is discovered. Corporations unwilling to make readily available to the public ownership by shareholder nationality, lobbying and political activities information should be excluded from lobbying and participating in any political efforts. Corporations with at least one foreign shareholder, moreover, may be reasonably excluded from political speech in any form in America.

Fix Capitalism for the betterment of human development and quality of life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.