Comments (0)

By Elizabeth M. Lynch, January 31, 2010

China Law & Policy went live on the West Coast today, making our radio debut on Ian Masters‘ “Background Briefing” on KPFK 90.7.   A show that goes behind the headlines, we discussed the implications of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and the ability for foreign money to potentially influence U.S. elections.  Feeding off of our recent article in the Huffington Post, we paid special attention to Chinese corporations.

Click here to Listen to “Background Briefing” on China & Citizens United
Length: 19 minutes

Mr. Masters, a trained BBC-trained broadcast journalist, puts on a very engaging and informative show.  Those of you in the L.A. area can listen every Sunday from 11 AM – 1 PM PST on 90.7.  The rest of us can live stream through the KPFK website.

Thank you to Susan T for her superb audio splicing talents!

Comments (0)

By Elizabeth M. Lynch, January 30, 2010

On Sunday (1/31), China Law & Policy will make its radio debut.   I will be on Ian Masters show, “Background Briefing,” at 3:30 PM EST/12:30 PM PST discussing the international implications of Citizens United.

You can listen live over the web at: http://www.kpfk.org/listen-live.html

For those of you on in southern California (L.A. area), tune your dial to KPFK 90.7

Thanks!

Comments (1)

By Elizabeth M. Lynch, January 29, 2010

Originally Posted on the Huffington Post

In 1966, because of the fear of foreign influence in U.S. elections, Congress passed the Foreign Agents Registration Act.  Eventually incorporated in the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, the law prohibits foreign governments, foreign political parties, foreign corporations and individuals with foreign citizenship from contributing, donating or spending funds, either directly or indirectly, in any U.S. election.

What started it all - Hillary the Movie

While this law has been important to the functioning of our democracy, the Supreme Court, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, has moved perilously close to abolishing it and opening the U.S. political process to foreign money, influence and—given the structure of some multinational corporations—direct pressure from foreign governments.

This change stems from the majority opinion’s unprecedented elevation of corporations to equal status with individual citizens in the sphere of political speech.  For convenience’s sake, the law does periodically describe corporations as “legal persons” and “citizens” of the state in which they are incorporated.  But in Citizens United, the majority has taken this legal short-hand literally.  In the majority’s opinion, courts are no longer permitted to take into consideration elements such as limited liability, perpetual life and preferential tax treatment that distinguish a corporation from an individual citizen when analyzing a corporation’s rights, nor are courts allowed to treat corporations differently from actual persons (as they have been  doing since the country’s founding.)  After Citizens United, the law can no longer look behind the curtain of the corporate form: Citizens United commands that the law pertaining to political speech treat corporations exactly as individual citizens.  Simply put, distinctions between corporations and human beings are no longer permissible and limitations on corporations’ political speech are unconstitutional.

In treating corporations the same as individuals, Citizens United leaves the door wide open for foreign influence in our politics.  In the case of Chinese corporations, this also means foreign government involvement.  Most multinational Chinese corporations, like Haier, China Telcom, and China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCE), have U.S. subsidiaries.  These are companies incorporated in the United States: Haier’s U.S. subsidiary, Haier American Holding Corporation, China Telecom’s subsidiary, China Telecom Americas, and CSCE’s subsidiary, China Construction America, are all incorporated in Delaware.

Under Citizens United, all three of these subsidiaries are citizens of Delaware and enjoy the same political speech rights as any other citizen of the United States.  Citizens United does not permit us to look behind their corporate veil to see their relationship to foreign corporations.  But make no mistake: these subsidiaries are heavily influenced—if not outright controlled—by their Chinese parent corporations.  This is not unique to Chinese corporations.  In a parent-subsidiary relationship, especially for foreign corporations, there is a lot of overlap between the parent and its U.S. subsidiary; the parent usually owns a majority, if not all of the shares of the subsidiary; capital is often infused to the subsidiary from the parent; and directors from the parent’s board usually sit on the subsidiary’s board of directors.  This is the relationship that Haier, China Telcom, and CSCE all have with their U.S. subsidiaries.

What is unique to Chinese corporations is the scope of their government ties—indeed, some are controlled outright by the Beijing government.  Unlike in, say, Western Europe, places like China, Russia and Vietnam still have a fair share of government-run corporations.  Haier, China Telecom and CSCE are all officially government-run.  While the Chinese government does not meddle in the corporation’s daily affairs, it will exert its influence if it suits the government’s self-interest. For example, in 1994, Haier, a manufacturer of washing machines and refrigerators, was pressured by the Chinese government into acquiring a pharmaceutical company, a venture that ended badly.

Citizens United allows for the very real possibility of the Chinese government’s direct influence in our elections through a Chinese corporation’s U.S. subsidiary.  While no official number exists about the number of Chinese companies with a U.S. subsidiary corporation, Dan Harris, a partner at the international law firm Harris & Moure and editor of the China Law Blog, believes that the number is substantial.  “My small firm represents a number of U.S. companies that are wholly-owned by Chinese companies or by Chinese citizens and that convinces me there must be thousands of such companies in the U.S.”  While certainly not all of these Chinese companies with a U.S. presence are directly owned by the Chinese government, there are likely many more than just Haier, China Telecom and CSCE.  And given China’s vast currency reserves ($2.4 trillion, the world’s largest), the Chinese government certainly has the money to spend on U.S. elections should it choose to do so.  Corporations in other countries, particularly oil-rich ones like Saudi Arabia and Russia, also own U.S. subsidiaries.  The threat of foreign involvement in our elections has been noted by the White House, as seen in the Obama’s critique of the decision during his State of the Union, and by Congress as it explores ways to nullify Citizens Untied.

This issue wasn’t completely lost on the majority in Citizens United—they simply chose not to deal with it.  While the majority hinted that there could be a compelling interest in preventing foreign nationals, foreign corporations or foreign governments from influencing the political process, the logic underlying Citizens United’s literal definition of the corporation as citizen prevents this.  After Citizens United, courts are no longer allowed to look behind the curtain of the corporate form to the realities of the situation or to distinguish between corporate citizens and individual ones; the majority opinion allows no leeway to examine the foreign origins of the shareholders.  For the purposes of political speech, one person’s U.S. citizenship, be it from a passport or from the documents of incorporation, is just as good as another’s; to draw distinctions would be discriminatory.

Given that the majority in Citizens United so easily overturned it previous rulings with regard to limitations on

Justice Samuel Alito

corporate participation in elections, one ought not expect the Court to maintain any consistency when a case involving political donations from a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation comes before it.  The Justices will want to reach the result that American subsidiaries controlled by foreign entities cannot provide support to political activities; Justice Alito, with his mouthing of the word “not true” during Obama’s State of the Union address, certainly signaled this.  Such a result, however, will require the Court to overturn the logic of the corporate citizen as equal to an individual citizen. A majority will likely call this an “exception.” In reality, it is more of an excuse.  In either case, such a ruling will likely prove difficult to enforce.

Many Chinese corporations have American subsidiaries that are private, i.e., are not subject to the same reporting requirements as publicly-traded ones.  In some states, such private corporations have no reporting requirements at all.  With a private corporation, it is difficult to determine share ownership, identity of officers or even names of the directors.  This difficult detective work will become the responsibility of the Federal Election Commission (FEC).  Ironically, the majority in Citizens United found that the campaign finance law’s requirement that corporations work through their Political Action Committees (PACs) during the law’s 30-60 day quiet period was too burdensome since it required copious amounts of paperwork.  Imagine the time, effort and money the FEC will be required to put into determining the ownership of any number of private corporations.

In equating corporate citizenship with individual citizenship, the Court does more than just disregard its own rules of precedent and stare decisis.  It also provides an image of a corporation completely disconnected from reality, does a grave disservice to our political process and jeopardizes our democracy.  And that, Justice Alito, is the truth.

Comments (0)

By Elizabeth M. Lynch, January 28, 2010

State of the Union addresses are mandated by the Constitution, and like most requirements in life, are often dull.

Barach Obama's first State of the Union

The speech usually turns into a laundry list of the President’s priorities with little rhetorical flair.  Often the most exciting part is when the TV cameras pan the audience and catch Senators and Congress members misbehaving.  This year it seems as if everyone Congress member was “tweeting” on their blackberry.

So to spice it up a bit, we at China Law & Policy decided to analyze President Obama’s first State of the Union address in terms of China.

Not surprisingly, President Obama’s speech focused mostly on the domestic agenda.  But China was mentioned twice, although both times only briefly.   China was first mentioned in regards to the technology behind its fast trains.  Similarly, when President Obama brought up China a second time, it was in regards to its technological advancement and that the U.S. must not fall behind.  In both instances, China was used more as a foil than anything else.

More compelling were the points when China wasn’t named but perhaps should have been.  In terms of trade partners, President Obama stated that he wanted closer ties with Panama, South Korea and Colombia.  But this is likely less of a snub to China than the fact that the Obama Administration is waiting on Democrats in Congress to approve free trade agreements with these three nations.

China was also absent when President Obama discussed the nuclear threat from both North Korea and Iran.  In fact, no other nation was mentioned and while President Obama was very forceful in threatening the two countries with increased sanctions, his actions appeared rather unilateral.  This is in contrast to his predecessor; in George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, the President specifically mentioned China as necessary to reach a peaceful solution on the Korean peninsula.

Does this mean that the U.S. is not receiving China’s support on this front?  It’s hard to tell.  Given the American public’s focus on the economy, health care and the corruption culture of Washington, it’s not surprising that President Obama’s speech had very little focus on foreign policy.  To draw any conclusions from the little he did say is speculative, but at the same time is something to be aware of and to watch.

Click Here for a Transcript of the State of the Union Address

Comments (0)

By Elizabeth M. Lynch, January 24, 2010

Thomas Friedman

It is dangerous to use financial analogies to describe a non-financial event; the comparison usually misses the mark and often overly simplifies a complex issue.  Thomas Friedman fell into this trap last week when he recommended short selling the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in his op-ed.  In attempting to predict the CCP’s fall, Friedman failed to do his due diligence and realize that like most things in China, it’s not all black and white.

First, the metaphor of “shorting” non-financial products has to stop.  Or at the very least be explained.   For readers of this blog and Friedman’s column who are not day-traders, “shorting” is a specific financial term.  When you “short” a stock, you borrow shares of the stock from a third party and sell these borrowed shares on the assumption that the price will decline in the near future.  When the stock is trading lower, you purchase it and return the shares borrowed, thus making a profit.   In essence, “shorting” implies that the product is presently overvalued and the value will decrease in the near future.

While you can’t actually “short” a country or a ruling party, Friedman uses the analogy to imply that the CCP is currently overvalued and its value, or in this case its power, will eventually decline.  According to Friedman, the CCP’s power will decrease because of its insistence on suppressing the Chinese public’s freedom to information, specifically over the internet.  For Friedman, this pits two different segments of Chinese society against each other: “Command China” which he defines as “traditional state-owned enterprises” and other extensions of the CCP and “Network China” which is made up of “highly entrepreneurial” companies that feed off of the creative energy of a free internet.

In drawing this distinction, Friedman paints with too wide a brush.  If the Chinese business world could easily be divided into decrepit, state-owned industries run by the Party and vibrant, Silicon Valley-like companies that are independent of the Party, the CCP’s demise likely would have already occurred.

Network China is not as independent of the CCP as Friedman makes it out to be.  A company’s success in China, even a

Shorting the CCP?

small technology company, is often dependent on the owners’ connections with government officials.  The companies of Network China are not outsiders to the system; they are very much insiders and largely profit from good relations with the CCP.  Take for example Baidu, China’s homegrown search engine.  Although Google’s search engine is at least as good as, if not better than Baidu’s, due to Baidu’s close relations with the government, it has a much larger share of the Chinese market.  Government and Party connections are important assets on a company’s balance sheet and, at times, are instrumental to a company’s success.  The companies of Network China continue to profit from their connections; it is unlikely that they will be the ones to seek change.

Furthermore, Command China and Network China are inextricably linked.  The Chinese banks that provide loans to the start-up companies of Network China are state-run and members of Friedman’s Command China.  When it comes to loaning money, the Chinese leadership has more than a bully pulpit; it can out right force its banks to provide these loans, as it did for much of 2009 while banks in other parts of the world constricted their lending.  In many ways, the government’s control of the state-run banks has been a boon for Network China.  Why change it?

The Chinese government’s increasing censorship of the internet is troubling, and not just for those of us abroad.  The Chinese people themselves have been in an uproar about Google’s threat to leave China and realize the damage that a censored internet can have on their development.  Just don’t expect change to come from Friedman’s Network China; these companies are already co-opted by the system.  If change is to come, expect it to come from average Chinese netizens and expect it to be a long process; not exactly ideal for short selling.