Well sure they do, thank Citizens United and others for that. But that doesn't mean we can't appropriately categorize them as also hostile actors alongside russia, china, whoever.
It's undo influence over politics against the best interest of the American people that's the issue. Company, foreign nation, it doesn't matter.
Citizens United did a lot to effectively legalize foreign influence as well, since the mechanism is opaque transfer of money
But regardless, most people's threat models should discount based on geographic and political distance. All else being equal, chinese surveillance is a bigger threat to you if you're in china than if you're in the us, and vice versa
> Citizens United did a lot to effectively legalize foreign influence as well, since the mechanism is opaque transfer of money
Here's hoping Hawaii blazes a path forward.
https://natlawreview.com/article/hawaii-governor-signs-first...
So the Honolulu Star-Observer (a corporation, or “artificial person”) only has those rights & privileges that it has been granted by the State of Hawaii?
This is going to end up being a nice little windfall for the attorneys and otherwise just clog the Federal court system.
"the day the law goes into effect, it strips each Hawaii entity of the powers it held the day before. The new law asserts that “[t]he creation and continued existence of a corporation is not a right but a conditional grant of legal status by the State and remains subject to complete withdrawal at any time. All powers previously granted to corporations under the laws of this State are revoked in their entirety."(TFA)
The meaning is pretty clear, don't try to influence politics in favor of the corporation or you will go away. Simple as.
Transfer of money from whom to whom?
Citizens United was about spending money on electioneering communications, and whether there was a First Amendment right to do so even if you’re associating in a corporation like the New York Times Company or Apple or Citizens United or the Sierra Club.