Are Foreign Based Corporations People Here In The U.S.?.....

[global1]

Think about it - if a corporations is foreign based should it have the rights Citizens United in this country?

Compare a foreign corporation to a foreigner living in the U.S.

Now if a foreigner becomes a citizen in this country and is naturalized - they are Americans and have the benefits.

But a foreign corporation that is based overseas to take advantage of tax laws. Come on. Should such a corporation have any influence here?

I would like to hear from people here on DU as to whether or not I'm on to something here.

[pennylane100]

1. You may well be.

It is an interesting point. Would need second cup of coffee before checking but probably there is some info on some civil rights sites. ACLU, PFAW come to mind.

[pennylane100]

2. I forgot CREW,

They also do a great job of investigative reporting.

[hughee99]

3. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.

Which benefits to foreign based companies have that they should not? (That you'd still support keeping for American based companies).

[global1]

5. I Guess I'm Reacting To What I Heard About Walgreens.....

they are contemplating a move overseas for tax purposes. So 'ok' - if they move overseas and become a foreign based corporation - then they shouldn't have any rights as "people" in the Citizens United way - to use their money and weight as a corporation to influence elections, etc.

They want to be foreigners - treat them like foreigners. If they want to become a naturalized corporation the stay or become a U.S. based corp and pay taxes, etc.

This is what I was trying to get at.

[hughee99]

9. Ah, okay.

Money always finds a way to influence people. As a "foreign company", they won't be able to create their own PAC anymore, if I understand correctly, but they will still have other avenues to use their money.

If they create a US Subsidiary, that subsidiary will be treated as a us corporation even if the parent company is from elsewhere, and that seems to happen a lot.

[global1]

11. Close That Loophole.....

The main company is still foreign based.

If I was a foreigner coming to the U.S. I have to have a green card or get some sort of approval to live, stay and work here.

So make a U.S. Subsidiary jump through some hoops in order to function here.

[FarCenter]

4. First Amendment and "Foreign-Controlled" U.S. Corporations: Why Congress Ought to Affirm Domestic

First Amendment and “Foreign-Controlled” U.S. Corporations: Why Congress Ought to Affirm Domestic Subsidiaries’ Corporate Political-Speech Rights

Political spending in the modern-day, prolonged election cycle continues to exceed historic proportions. With money equated to speech, whether the First Amendment entitles certain contributors to engage in this political activity remains an open question. Unlike France and Israel, which prohibit corporate contributions, and Canada and the United Kingdom, which turn to public funding for campaign finance, the United States has pushed candidates to rely on political party contributions, personal wealth, and the generosity of individuals, political action committees, and corporations. Concerns about corporate and foreign influence on politics have been especially salient during this lengthy economic downturn, as shown by the prominence of the nationwide Occupy Wall Street protests. Those who trumpet restrictions on so-called ““foreign”” corporate political influence are concerned with infringements on U.S. sovereign independence and citizens’’ political self-determination. This Note responds to the uproar against corporate and foreign influence in the wake of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, arguing the debate in Congress and, thus, the law, ought to distinguish between domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations and foreign corporations themselves. Under the current legal regime, no distinction between U.S. corporations and domestic subsidiaries exists; despite proposed legislation to the contrary, it should remain this way.

Paper available as PDF at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/Friedman-FINAL.pdf

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_foreign_corporation for taxation implications of foreign control.

Lastly, there are restrictions on exporting "munitions" to them, and they are restricted from some types of government contracting.

[KamaAina]

6. Yes, but they're immigrants.

And real 'Murkins hate immigrants!!

[global1]

8. Right - Do You See Why I'm Confused?....

I can't quite put my finger on it - but there are contradictions and hypocrisy working in this.

We treat foreign immigrants one way - and we treat foreign corporations another way.

I'm just saying - if Citizens United is saying that corporations are people - then foreign corporations are foreign people.

Shouldn't they be treated that way?

[librechik]

7. are they adults? do they have voting rights? are they included in the census?

what nonsense. Get corps out of politics. Period.

[global1]

10. I Totally Agree With You On That But......

SCOTUS left us with this pile of dung. I'm just trying to go along with their ruling as we have to deal with it now and take it a step further as to how 'foreign based' corporations should be dealt with it under Citizens United.

If a corp wants to move overseas for tax advantages - then they should be treated as a foreigner and not given the rights of people under Citizens United. Yes - if we have to call them that - they are 'people' - but they are foreigner's and should not be treated like citizens of the U.S.

Am I making any sense?

[librechik]

12. absolutely--it's a huge gas bag

that will need to be pierced with many arrows.