Some US companies, that are multinationals, have more employees overseas, like Apple at a ratio of 8 employees overseas to every one here, as reported by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, on NPR recently. Will Apple's political contributions and stance on issues help them with business here or is their desire to make sure business is easier there? Exxon, GM and others might be feeling the same thing. If Congress wants to pass a law that would benefit Joe Main Street but might hurt them doing business overseas, to what side of the issue will the money flow?
Who decides for Anheuser-Busch ("this Bud's for you!")? Is it the local executives? What if the execs at InBev, who own A-B from Belgium, don't like some laws or the stance of a particular candidate? Wouldn't they shift a pile of cash into the Super PAC that opposes him or her? What about Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Nestles and other foreign companies that have sites here? What about India's Tata, who owns a hotel and Eight O' Clock coffee? Oh, is it Chrysler talking or Fiat?
When the Supreme Court decided in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205 that corporations have the right to free speech in political campaigns, they failed to make some distinctions: 1) ownership in the US; 2) predominance of business or employment domestically or internationally; 3) decisions by CEO, Chairman, Board, Executive staff, shareholders, employees--just who decides which side to support? 4) types of corporations.
Florida, you're in the midst of the battle this week. "This Bud's for you" as you sort out who's saying what and whether those ideas are good for US, us and you and me, or good for Belgium, Japan, Italy, India or China.
No comments:
Post a Comment