Comment by ajsnigrutin
5 hours ago
I'm pretty sure those corporations have much more influence over american politicians, regulators, lawmakers, etc. than eg. russian or chinese ones.
5 hours ago
I'm pretty sure those corporations have much more influence over american politicians, regulators, lawmakers, etc. than eg. russian or chinese ones.
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...
2 replies →
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.