Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporations. Show all posts

Thursday, June 29, 2017

CONYERS Statement for the Hearing on “Recent Trends in International Antitrust Enforcement” Before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) today delivered the following remarks during the Regulatory Reform, Commercial, and Antitrust Law Subcommittee hearing on “Recent Trends in International Antitrust Enforcement.”

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
Today’s hearing presents an important opportunity to consider international antitrust enforcement. 

Given the increasingly interconnected economic relationships among nations, American firms depend on the fair enforcement of antitrust and competition laws by other countries as a critical factor with respect to their ability to do business abroad.

Yet some American firms believe that certain countries do not consistently apply their competition laws in a sound, non-discriminatory manner.

They allege a lack of due process and transparency when these firms have become the target of antitrust investigations by competition authorities in those countries.

Accordingly, we should keep the following points in mind as we discuss foreign antitrust enforcement practices.

My greatest concern is whether and to what degree these problematic foreign antitrust enforcement practices impact American jobs.

To the extent that foreign antitrust enforcement actions unfairly disadvantage American firms, and to the extent this results in American companies going out of business and American workers losing their jobs, I am deeply concerned.
           
The witnesses should provide us guidance on just how real and extensive a problem this is.

That being said, however, there are and should be limits to what we can insist on from other countries.

When it comes to antitrust and competition policy, divergences in outlook and philosophy are not always rooted in a desire to protect national champions or to discriminate against American firms.

Various countries may be at different stages of development, with laws shaped by cultures and historical circumstances that differ from ours.

Where complaints about other countries’ laws simply reflect such differences -- rather than concerns about discrimination, due process or transparency -- we should be careful about overstating our criticism and reaction.

Finally, we must be careful not to provoke retaliation against American businesses with any effort to penalize or pressure other countries to change their enforcement practices.

Many helpful recommendations have been made regarding how to address the concerns of American businesses about foreign antitrust enforcement practices.

The best ones emphasize dialogue, multilateral standards and agreements on best practices, and the promotion of cooperation among international antitrust enforcement agencies.

 An excessively punitive approach, however, may ultimately prove counterproductive and be harmful to American interests in the long run.

I thank the witnesses and look forward to their discussion.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

House Amendment to Reverse Citizens United Ruling Meets With Mixed Support

House Amendment to Reverse Citizens United Ruling Meets With Mixed Support

by: Britney Schultz, Truthout | Report
In the wake of the landmark Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld that corporations were "persons" and that their deep-pocket political expenditures were a constitutionally protected expression of their free speech rights, much resistance to the decision has sprung up, from the grassroots to the halls of power in Washington.
Last month, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Maryland) and Judiciary Committee ranking member John Conyers (D-Michigan) reintroduced an amendment to the US Constitution, HJ Res. 78, which called for a reversal of the Citizens United case by limiting corporate contributions in elections. The bill is cosponsored by 18 US representatives.
Representative Edwards expressed initial hesitation to amending the Constitution, but said that the Supreme Court left her with no other choice after its ruling in Citizens United
"Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United threatened 'to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation,' and how right he was," said Edwards. "Since that flawed ruling was issued, campaign spending by outside groups including corporationssurged more than four-fold to reach nearly $300 million in the 2010 election cycle." 
According to a poll conducted last year by Hart Research, an overwhelming majority of American voters agree that corporate spending has more to do with buying influence in Washington than with exercising free speech; 95 percent of those polledagreed that, "Corporations spend money on politics to buy influence/elect people favorable to their financial interests." 
The proposed amendment targets corporations' First Amendment "political speech rights," but does not include corporations' commercial "free speech rights." Rep. Edwards said that Congress has other routes of "policing" corporate marketing.
While HJ Res. 78 is praised by some activist groups, such as Free Speech for People, others regard the bill as it is written with skepticism, pointing out that it is not a comprehensive solution for groups actively working against the larger issue of corporate personhood.
According to Move to Amend organizer David Cobb, "It is a mistake to oppose Citizens United only on the basis of campaign finance reform." Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, also from Move to Amend, told Truthout that, because the bill legitimizes corporations' status as "persons" within the Constitution, it would actually make it harder for groups against corporate personhood to get their agenda through.
Rep. Edwards told YES! Magazine she has faith in passing the amendment: "We've amended the constitution 27 times, and this 28th amendment is no different. Some constitutional amendments have gone rapid-fire through the Congress, and I think that we have the potential for that kind of momentum here."
Creative Commons License

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©