Im-Politic: Signs of Less Corporate Money in American Politics

Tags

Big Business, campaign finance, campaign finance reform, Center for Political Accountability, dark money, elections, free speech, Im-Politic, lobbying, money in politics, politics, Standard & Poor's 500, transparency

Although I’m hesitant for free speech reasons to support sweeping bans on corporate (or any special interest) money in politics, like many Americans, I suspect, I’d like to see a lot less of it. So I’m pleased to report some good news on this front: a study purporting to show that many of America’s largest companies (all members of the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index), are reducing and even actually halting various types of political spending (including on lobbying).

The study, from the non-profit Center for Political Accountability, claims that 14 members of the S&P 500 have adopted “clear policies that prohibited the use of corporate assets to influence elections and asked third parties not to use company payments for election-related purposes.” Among them are some real surprises (at least to me) – like Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs, big defense contractor Northrup Grumman, energy kingpins Hess and Schlumberger, and IBM from the tech sector. (The full list is on p. 56.)

Just as important, the authors state that since 2015, “there has been a steady rise in the number of S&P 500 companies that have placed prohibitions on election-related spending.” Specifically, the study reports, between 2015 and so far in 2021, the number of these large, publically held companies that has stopped what the Federal Election Commission calls “independent” expenditures (spending for or against specific candidates not made in coordination with any such candidates or their representatives or political parties) has more than doubled – from 83 to 176.

As for companies barring non-independent spending on candidates, parties, and committees, they’ve increased from 84 to 136. Companies no longer contributing to “527 groups” (see here for the definition) are up from 65 to 118. Businesses that have had it with spending for or against various ballot measures have increased from 50 to 75. Those not contributing to organizations responsible for triggering the flow of “dark money” into American politics now number 71, versus 31 in 2015, and the growth in the number not even funding trade associations is from 20 to 47.

The Center attributes these trends mainly to business’ mounting reluctance to expose themselves to backlash from customers and shareholders for taking political stances in the current national environment of “unrest and angry political conflict” and “hyper-partisan politics.” The report adds that one reason companies feel more vulnerable is that many have been making public ever more information about their political and policy spending.

That greater transparency is definitely welcome. But I’m happier about the overall pullback in political spending. Not that all such activities are intrinsically concerning (much less should be outlawed). After all, if Big Businesses are being affected by existing public policies, or are bound to be, why shouldn’t they be able to argue their case to politicians and the public (especially when they make such lobbying, and the funding it requires, public)?

As the study also makes clear, however, although fewer Big Businesses are engaged in political and policy spendings, many more keep opening their coffers. Moreover, the report doesn’t say anything about actual corporate spending levels. In theory, although fewer big companies are contributing resources, those that still are may be spending much more. So it’s not like the corporate sector’s influence is going to be eliminated, or even close, any time soon.

But despite the legality and/or legitimacy of corporate money in politics and policy, there can’t be any reasonable doubt that these enormous resources give companies the kind of power that most individuals – and most other interest groups – can’t hope to match.

Therefore, I can’t help but believe that the less corporate actors putting their thumbs on the scales throughout Washington, D.C. and state and local capitols, the fairer and more representative our politics and government will be – and that the Center for Political Accountability’s findings are an especially terrific Thanksgiving gift.

Advertisement

Im-Politic: The Near and Longer-Term Outlook for Trump-ism

Tags

2016 election, Bill Clinton, campaign finance, Cold War, Donald Trump, establishment, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Mikhail Gorbachev, Populism, Republicans, Ross Perot, Soviet Union

As of this afternoon, it’s hard to tell which current storm has been bigger – Hurricane Matthew, or the tempest whipped up by the release of a video showing Donald Trump making genuinely disgusting comments about women, and specifically about hitting on them as a big shot.

It’s possible that this disclosure will finally doom the Republican presidential nominee’s already dimming chance of victory in November. But it’s not inevitable, Trump, after all, has been written off before, including following similar revelations, and as of yesterday’s pre-video tape polls, remained highly competitive (though behind) both nationally and in swing states. And even this late in the fall campaign, any number of outside shocks could tip the balance in his favor – including a foreign setback for the United States, a major act of terrorism abroad or even at home, and new information about Hillary Clinton’s own heavy personal and policy baggage.

At the same time, each new Trump outrage makes his chances of defeating his Democratic rival more and more reliant on events he can’t control. That’s a position no one, office-seeker or not, should ever want to be in.

It’s impossible to imagine influencing the main substantive debate that’s broken out over the Trump video – whether what has been learned (anew?) about him is worse morally than what is known about womanizing by former President Bill Clinton and some of his predecessors, along with Hillary Clinton’s own treatment of her husband’s victims. But I can’t resist one relevant observation: Nothing could be more revealing about the deeply divided state of American politics than noting how many Clinton backers who are up in arms about the Trump news dismissed Bill Clinton’s late-1990s critics as (among other descriptions) hopelessly backward prudes, and how many Trump backers were then all over the former president as a reprehensible pervert unfit to hold office.

Largely because they’re still so uncertain, to me the purely political ramifications and questions – especially longer term – are much more interesting and important.

First of course comes tomorrow night’s presidential debate, and how both candidates will handle the Trump revelations. Even before the new video was made public, the first such contest and the vice presidential debate made clear that the Democrats were still counting heavily on spotlighting Trump’s closely related character and qualifications issues. The newest Trump outrages would seem to make this strategy more appealing than ever.

But after a while (which could range from 15 minutes into the debate to the entire period preceding election day) will this look like piling on to significant numbers of voters? Or will repetition make many eyes simply glaze over?

And crucially, how will Trump respond? The smart approach would be to apologize again, at somewhat greater length, and then call for focusing the rest of the evening – and the campaign – on issues. If Clinton persisted, Trump could sadly accuse her of wallowing and resume discussing jobs and the economy, national security, or immigration etc. Trump might also consider shifting the discussion to the potentially damaging release of transcripts of Clinton’s Wall Street speeches and what they signal about her views of America’s top financiers, the desirability of open borders, and the like. Yet too quick a pivot could too easily be read as simple tactical desperation on his part, not as a valid effort to introduce a genuinely worthy subject.

The next time Trump displays such political intelligence, however, will be the first. Indeed, he had exactly this opportunity at the end of the first debate, and hit back with a reference to Bill Clinton’s misbehavior and then a sustained attack on a former Miss Universe.

Second, it looks to me like the mainstream, establishment Republicans who Trump routed in the primaries are looking at his latest crisis as gift from the gods that will boost their chances of recapturing the party in time to prepare for the 2020 elections. Their thinking could not be more obvious. A Trump presidency could consign the establishment to irrelevance for several electoral cycles – which would hurt not only politically, but financially, since as a class their incomes depend on their ability to peddle influence. And this observation applies both to establishmentarians who currently make a living lobbying or consulting for political candidates or media outlets, and to office-holders eagerly eyeing such jobs at some point.

Even a narrow Trump loss could threaten their positions and livelihoods. But a landslide defeat for Trump would enable them convincingly to tell a critical mass of conservatives and Republican-leaning independents, “I told you so,” and push populist impulses and figures to the political margins – at least until the next economic downturn or national security-related disaster.

So every time you read a report about such an establishment Republican denouncing Trump’s transgressions, or calling for his withdrawal from the ticket, keep thinking about all the reasons why their denunciations aren’t necessarily high minded.

The final (for now) political question also concerns the future. And one way to think about it in this respect to remember Mikhail Gorbachev. No need to Google him (right now, anyway). He was the 1980s era Soviet leader whose efforts at domestic and foreign policy reforms were followed by the USSR’s collapse and the end of the Cold War.

It’s still an open question as to whether Gorbachev had a theoretically viable plan but simply ran out of time because the Soviet Union was so brittle economically and socially as well as politically that any serious talk of change at the top was bound to shake its foundations. There’s a powerful argument that Gorbachev actually was not nearly bold enough domestically, and foolishly tried to graft some free market practices onto an economy that he intended to remain fundamentally state-directed. Still others insist that the moment Gorbachev decided to allow Soviet bloc members to open their borders to the West, communism’s dominion over Russia and the rest of the USSR proper was finished. (Here’s a handy summary of many of the major pro and con arguments.)  

But what’s important here for the future of American politics was the question that dominated American foreign policy circles from the moment Gorbachev’s apparent ambitions became…apparent: Was Gorbachev “sincere”? Or more accurately, it was a question that flowed from this query: Could someone like Gorbachev, who rose up through the Soviet system, truly stand for ideas that could in theory of transform that system?

Trump’s obvious personal shortcomings raise the same kind of questions for me. Principally, is it reasonable to hope for politicians to come up through the current political system, and therefore learn how to avoid needlessly alienating or scaring much of the electorate, but who will champion thoroughgoing populist-type reforms a la Trump? Or does succeeding within the system require such heavy reliance on establishment funding (on both sides of the aisle) as to frustrate any truly populist inclinations – and leave that space open to outsider alpha types who have learned to place supreme, overweening trust in their own judgment and capabilities, with all the resulting eccentricities, or worse?

That is to say, can Trump-ism without Trump become a viable movement? Can it attract the necessary resources and talent from outside the establishment? Evidence for a “No” answer is the fact that neither Trump nor his immediate ideological forebear, Ross Perot, have so far been able to pass crucial confidence and reassurance tests with the U.S. electorate. It’s of course rarely a good idea to say “Never.” But this admittedly small historical sample suggests that for a new, improved version of populism to emerge, the aftermath of these 2016 elections will need to be as rule-breaking as the campaign itself.

Im-Politic: Speech Transcript Shows China Lobby’s Still Got a Friend in Bill Clinton

Tags

2016 election, Bilateral Investment Treaty, Bill Clinton, campaign finance, China, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, lobbying

Politico‘s Annie Karni has just gotten a very important scoop with potentially major implications for this year’s presidential election. She somehow got a hold of a transcript of one of the recent speeches that one of the Clintons has given recently to corporate groups in exchange for a handsome ($285,000 in this case) fee.

No doubt, the story will be seized upon by anyone engaged in or following presidential politics for the evidence it provides about questions that have been asked throughout the campaign: Why do businesses – especially big businesses – pay so much to listen to the Clintons in private? What do the former president and his presidential candidate spouse generally tell these corporate leaders behind closed doors? By extension, are the Clintons working to with these companies and industries to advance their agendas? If so, how energetically?

I found this transcript important for a related, but somewhat different, reason: what it reveals about Bill Clinton’s views nowadays about China, which has been an awfully high profile issue in the 2016 elections. Specifically, it sends a clear message that if voters expect a President Hillary Clinton to respond more effectively than her recent predecessors (including her husband) against Chinese economic and national security challenges, they’d better hope that she keeps the new First Gentleman as far out of the policy loop as possible. Because judging from this transcript, his views on the PRC are as dangerously unrealistic – if taken at face value – than when he occupied the Oval Office.

The transcript presents the remarks made by the former president at a “China-U.S. Private Investment Summit” held in Austin, Texas in March, 2015. The event described its purpose as “[bringing] together 50 Chinese Investor Delegates with over 300 US project sponsors, policy makers, entrepreneurs, trade associations, economic development groups, and professional service firms for the most important bilateral engagement program of the year” to “support the public interest through cross-cultural private investment” by deepening “understanding on the human motivations, market trends, deal models and structures, and key areas for growth in the coming year.”

Translation into plain English: It was a gathering of Americans trying to make money by doing business in China, and Chinese trying to promote their country’s investment in America. Nothing inherently wrong with the first aim (although in practice it has too often resulted in the offshoring of valuable American production, technology, and jobs). That second objective, though, is much more problematic, both because China’s government exercises complete effective control over all aspects of China’s finances, including the channeling of capital abroad; and because no one has ever adequately explained why expanding the U.S. footprint of a communist economic system benefits the U.S. economy on net in either the short run or the long run.

And some essential context: As Karni reported, the speech took place a bare two weeks before Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for president. Indeed, she “was already scouting campaign office space….” As Karni did not report, however, the United States and China at the time were neck deep into negotiations to conclude a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) that the Austin attendees obviously supported strongly, but which is bound to encounter strong opposition whenever it’s submitted to Congress. So it’s anything but unreasonable to suppose that the conferees viewed their payment to Bill Clinton as a great way to boost the odds that a Hillary Clinton presidency would fight for the agreement. (The Wall Street firms that have paid comparable amounts for her speeches love the BIT, too.)

Moreover, given the controversy the BIT is bound to spur simply because China policy has become so contentious, it’s noteworthy that Bill Clinton’s speech mentioned virtually none of it. Nothing about job loss due to offshoring and Chinese protectionism, nothing about the tightening squeeze Beijing is placing on U.S.-owned firms that are invested there, nothing about multiplying Chinese cyber-attacks on American targets, and scarcely anything about China’s intensifying challenges to declared American national security interests in the Asia-Pacific region (which at one point he seemed to attribute to “the rise of Japan” under its current nationalistic Prime Minister Shinzo Abe).

In fact, the former president set the tone art the very beginning: “[W]e all know what the problems are, but I want to talk about the opportunities and why I think it’s so important that you’re here.”

As implied above, Clinton’s appearance at this meeting sent the at least equally important message to the conferees that “he was here” – for them. But his determinedly rose-colored-glasses view of U.S.-China relations and their upside also arguably served another crucial purpose: morale building.

After all, surely Clinton’s audience knew better than most how troubled U.S.-China relations are. And surely Bill Clinton knew that as well. As a result, chances are, like everyone who has a stake in preserving the China policy status quo, these American investors in particular were feeling pretty discouraged even back then, since their road to success had become so much rockier.

As a result, whether or not they believed their own propaganda about possibilities for cooperation or not, the Austin attendees surely needed their spirits lifted. For even many who recognize themselves to be greedy and shortsighted often need reassurance that they’re genuinely devoted to seeking the greater good despite all appearances. It will certainly take the sting out of writing the new series of checks to American lawmakers that any upcoming BIT lobbying campaign will require. And who better to deliver this feel-good message than an engaging, popular former president?

It’s also entirely possible that the emotionally needy Clinton needed to convince himself again that his own China policies, which are now coming under such fire, ultimately advanced the Lord’s work. So much the better to get paid megabucks in the process.

Im-Politic: So Why Not Trump-Sanders? (Or Vice Versa?)

Tags

2016 elections, abortion, Bernie Sanders, campaign finance, Democrats, Donald Trump, Im-Politic, Immigration, New Deal coalition, politics, realignment, Republicans, Trade, Wall Street reform

As long as we’re in this political Annus Bizarricus (or whatever the Latin-ism would be), why not take it one pattern-shattering one step further.  Why not make the case for a Trump-Sanders (or Sanders-Trump) fusion ticket?

I’m not saying that it’s likely to happen, or that it’s even possible. Nor am I saying that it should necessarily happen for the good of the country. What I am saying is that it’s nothing less than stunning at how strong a case can be made for this merger, at least on paper.

Clearly, there’s a vast stylistic gap between the two candidates. Real estate tycoon Donald Trump flaunts his jet set, billionaire lifestyle. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders clearly is proud of his Ben-and-Jerry set Sixties roots. The core Trump and Sanders constituencies seem dramatically different, too – downwardly mobile, socially and culturally traditional older middle class and working class white men and women for the former, college-educated, relatively affluent younger whites, and aging Baby Boomers who remain socially and culturally young at heart for the latter.

But odd couple pairings as such are hardly unknown in American politics. Think Obama-Biden. Or Reagan-Bush. Or Carter-Mondale. Or JFK-LBJ. Nor is it unknown for voting blocs that appear to have nothing in common suddenly to link arms to transform the political landscape. Think “New Deal coalition” – which ruled American politics for decades thanks to southern Democrats joining with Catholic workers from the big northeastern cities. And the modern Republican party has succeeded largely by appealing to a wide variety of conservatives who lately seem increasingly and deeply resentful of each other: one percenters and other “country club conservatives,” those downwardly mobile middle- and working-class whites, evangelical/cultural conservatives, and libertarians.

And think of the issue stances that Trump and Sanders themselves have in common – which include the hottest-button subjects of the present campaign. Both plainly have it in for Wall Street and its unearned and often destructive privileges. As a result, both obviously want an end to a campaign finance regime that favors the plutocrats and other moneyed special interests. Both strongly opposed the second Iraq War. (Although Trump has promised to defeat ISIS militarily, mainly with American power, he’s also hinted at a more standoffish approach, at least at first.  Sanders has suggested that Middle Eastern countries themselves should do the heaviest military lifting.) Both have been outspoken critics of America’s current, offshoring-happy trade policies. And although Sanders has recently sought to assure Democratic Hispanic voters of his Open Borders bona fides, his earlier stance on immigration issues made clear his grave – and Trump-like – concerns that mass influxes of poorly skilled and educated newcomers in particular would kneecap American workers’ wages.  

Moreover, largely as a result of these broad areas of agreement – and potential agreement – both are suspect partisans in the eyes of many Republicans and Democrats – and for entirely understandable reasons.

It’s even easy to see, at least in theory, where certain stretches of Trump-Sanders common ground could foster consensus in areas where they don’t appear to see eye to eye. For example, fighting climate change has been one of Sanders’ major political passions. Trump has said little on the subject. But trade measures that significantly cut imports from China would limit total global greenhouse gas emissions and pollution levels by slowing the growth of China’s appallingly filthy manufacturing sector. And by doing so, it would enable domestic manufacturers to accept stricter regulations on their own emissions etc without losing global competitiveness, and/or feeling greater pressure to send production to China and other pollution/greenhouse havens.

Another example (though not remotely such a no-brainer): Sanders is strongly pro-choice. Reacting to charges that Planned Parenthood has engaged in and even profited from trade fetal tissue, Trump has been highly critical of the organization and the government subsidies it receives. Yet abortion clearly isn’t an issue that excites Trump one way or the other. So if he really is a master deal cutter, he would surely be open to some kind of compromise.  

One possibility;  He emphatically endorses the essence of Roe vs. Wade and the principle of women controlling their own bodies – and futures – in exchange for a wrist-slap for Planned Parenthood and even a promise by the organization to steer widely clear of the body parts business (in a way that skirted the issue of its actual record, which is as yet unclear). In turn, it’s possible that supporters of both candidates have become so trusting in their apolitical instincts, and so tired of the dueling talking points of more conventional politicians on both sides, that a deal along these lines could pave the way for a stronger national consensus on the issue.

In fact, the main obstacles to this “Dream Ticket” arguably are personal. And, as The Donald might put it, “Yuuuuuuge.” Who would get top billing? Could they work out some kind of co-presidency deal (which would need to be informal due to Constitutional issues)? Could they exchange the presidency and vice presidency after two years?

I’m sure that readers will be able to think of many more pro- and anti-arguments – and I hope you’ll bring them up in comments! But I also hope that the skeptics in particular will keep two points in mind. First, although America’s major political parties in their current forms make sense in many other respects, in many others, they’re completely illogical and inconsistent – as is being made clear by the strength of “outsider” candidates, and in particular by many Republican voters’ lack of interest in Trump’s ideological purity. Second, American politics has seen major realignments before, and generally within the two-party framework.

So even if Trump and Sanders won’t or can’t pull this revolution off, it still might simply be awaiting a different, more ideological and temperamentally compatible, and more imaginative group of leaders. Which is to say, it might simply be awaiting a better generation of politicians.  

Im-Politic: Republicans Happy to Trust Obama When He Pushes Offshoring

Tags

Boehner, campaign finance, Darrell Issa, fast track, Im-Politic, Immigration, Iran, Jeb Bush, Obama, Paul Ryan, TPA, Trade, Trade Promotion Authority, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP

That’s some stunningly contradictory message leading Republicans have been sending lately regarding President Obama’s negotiating skills. On the one hand, they portray him as a bumbling naif on issues like normalizing ties with Cuba and eliminating the Iran nuclear weapons threat. And on the other hand, they’re happy to grant him sweeping Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to negotiate history’s biggest trade agreements.

This incoherence was most recently displayed by likely presidential candidate Jeb Bush. The former Florida governor told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that the Obama Cuba diplomacy that began to reestablish diplomatic and economic relations amounted to “bad negotiations.”

According to Bush, “[W]e got nothing in return. We traded a guy who was held hostage, Alan Gross, an aid worker for no reason. He was allowed in the country, he was held hostage and he was languishing in prison, and, in fact, his wife believed that if he stayed much longer, he was going to die, for spies that were convicted in our American judicial system.

“That was not an equal trade. We opened up additional mounts of travel, so many of you may have gone as — like, I say in quotes, education trips. And now that those have been expanded the president has that authority to do so. And nothing in return.”

Yet in the same speech, Bush endorsed the president’s request for a near-blank check from Congress to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and any other agreements he – and possible Democratic successors – might pursue over the next five years.

The disconnect arguably is wider on Iran. House Speaker John Boehner is so worried that President Obama will ultimately cave in and accept an agreement that will enable Iran to develop nuclear weapons that he’s bent Washington protocol and created a firestorm by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to address Congress to warn against such appeasement. Moreover, speaking about Mr. Obama’s executive action on immigration, Boehner has declared, “There’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our law.” Yet Boehner’s only criticism of the president’s trade policies is that Mr. Obama hasn’t worked hard enough to win Democrats’ support.

Regarding Iran, Wisconsin’s Paul Ryan emphatically agrees with Boehner. The Ways and Means Chair has insisted that “The president’s policies with Iran have bipartisan concern. A huge bipartisan majority in both the House and the Senate are very worried about the handling of these negotiations.” But he’s tried to justify his enthusiasm for “fast tracking” Mr. Obama’s trade deals through Congress by insisting that “I am not saying to enhance our leverage we have to enhance the administration’s power—far from it. What I’m saying is this bill would enhance Congress’s power. TPA empowers Congress.” What Ryan has not explained is why he thinks the president is more likely to follow the law on trade than he’s been on immigration.

But at least Ryan doesn’t descend into the outright schizophrenia displayed by Rep. Darrell Issa. The California Republican, a fierce Obama critic, told the Washington Post, “This president has earned our distrust, but having said that, I still support TPA. I still want to have the trade team be able to go forward and make good offers.”

One explanation for these seeming inconsistencies may be these Republicans’ belief that bad trade deals are much less likely to damage important U.S. interests than are bad national security deals – though that will be a tricky argument to make during an economic recovery with which few Americans are happy. Or maybe most Republican leaders think that, although President Obama’s terrible instincts on economics become excellent once matters go international? That’s a contention that looks too clever by half.

Instead, these clashing Republican positions seem best explained by the role of Big Money in politics. America’s offshoring lobby has told these lawmakers to jump. And their only uncertainty is “How high?”

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Needlessly Paralyzing Multinational Myths

Tags

campaign finance, globalization, multinational companies, Trade, {What's Left of) Our Economy

The next time someone tells you that multinational companies all around the world are in cahoots with each other to shaft workers everywhere, and that they, rather than protectionist foreign governments, are mainly responsible for keeping the world trade system such a dangerous mess, tell them to look at General Electric’s just-concluded takeover of the French industrial giant Alstom. Ditto the next time someone tells you that multinational companies totally dominate the world economy and that national governments can no longer control them even if they wanted to.

The GE-Alstom deal importantly reminds us how effectively but also how needlessly each of these widespread – and sincerely held – beliefs has unwittingly undercut efforts to overhaul U.S. trade policies.

This past Saturday, GE finally completed its $16.8 billion takeover of the energy businesses of Alstom. The deal was no cakewalk, and the usual financial brinkmanship had little to do with the twists and turns. Instead, the biggest obstacles were created by the government of France’s Socialist President Francois Hollande.

Among Hollande’s main concerns? Jobs. Paris refused to OK the purchase until GE promised to hire 1,000 new French workers. This number per se probably didn’t spook the U.S. conglomerate – its total global workforce is 305,000. But companies seeking mergers rarely create net new jobs. Usually, they’re hoping to add job consolidation to the greater efficiencies expected from their deals.

But did GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt stand on ceremony and tell Hollande to faire une promenade? Far from it. He agreed to pay a 50,000 euro penalty for every job out of the promised 1,000 it fails to create. For good measure, Immelt also agreed that French shareholders – including the French government – would control half of several other Alstom businesses it acquired, and that Paris would hold veto power over key business decisions.

And if you think that GE’s timidity is an outlier, think again. As documented in my book The Race to the Bottom, foreign governments both stronger and weaker than France’s (including from the developing countries so often portrayed by avowed progressives as prime globalization victims) dictate to multinational companies all the time, forcing them to use certain amounts of parts and components from a particular country, to export a certain share of their output, to transfer technology to local partners, and imposing numerous other requirements as the cost of doing business within their borders.

The most prominent exception? The United States. It both permits multinationals to enjoy all the advantages of selling in the huge, lucrative U.S. market while dodging many of the tax obligations needed to finance this market’s upkeep; and typically stands by as foreign governments make these firms turn cartwheels at the expense of the American economy and U.S. workers.

My two big takeaways: First, American trade policy critics who aren’t focusing like laser beams on foreign protectionism – including in the third world – are neglecting the paramount trade-related threat to the U.S. economy, to American living standards, and to global financial stability – which remains endangered by the kinds of trade-fueled imbalances that helped trigger the last crisis.

Second, Washington could control multinationals the world over just as effectively as foreign governments. But it’s tough to imagine the needed backbone emerging without not just campaign finance reform, but a campaign finance revolution.

After all, as explained in this Library of Congress primer, France’s campaign finance regime means that Hollande simply doesn’t have to care what Immelt or any other one-percenter thinks. Contributions from entities outside political parties or groups are simply banned, and although wealthy individuals can support their favored office-seekers, they need to stay under very modest caps. Even better, total campaign spending is limited to chump change by American standards (about $20 million per presidential candidate, for example), helping to prevent any office-seeker from depending too heavily on any particular fat cat or gang of fat cats.

France is hardly a stranger to official corruption. But its campaign finance system unmistakably undercuts the potential of corruption intended explicitly to send productive industry offshore and drive wages – and therefore living standards – down to third world levels.

More’s the tragedy, then, that the Supreme Court’s recent McCutcheon ruling has moved the American campaign finance system in exactly the opposite direction, greatly magnifying the already outsized role of money in politics, and therefore in policymaking. Yes, important and complicated free speech-related issues need to be resolved. But as the GE- Alstom story shows, reversing the trend strengthened by McCutcheon must become an even higher priority for American trade policy critics of all stripes. In the meantime, they could still do themselves, the country, and the planet a world of good by remembering the other important lesson of GE’s Alstom takeover: If they don’t put the interests of the domestic economy and their own compatriots first, no one else will.