The Financial Times recently reported that President Donald Trump has directed the Department of Justice to cease enforcement of a US anti-corruption law that prohibits Americans from bribing foreign government officials in order to secure business deals. This decision has sparked criticism from anti-corruption experts who believe that halting the enforcement of this law will ultimately harm US companies operating overseas.
In a previous discussion, I advocated for regulations that would prohibit corporations from paying ransomware demands, with severe penalties for those who violate the law. I argued that such regulations would not only deter cybercriminals but also make businesses less attractive targets for extortion. Despite objections to my stance, no compelling reasons were presented to refute my argument.
Interestingly, the Financial Times article provides evidence that supports my viewpoint. Richard Nephew, a former anti-corruption coordinator at the State Department, highlighted that most US companies view bribery as an unproductive cost and appreciate the regulations set forth by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) that enable them to resist engaging in corrupt practices.
Similarly, the issue of ransomware attacks parallels the concerns surrounding bribery. While there may be a preference for allowing overseas bribery over domestic bribery, it is essential to consider whether either form of corruption is beneficial for our society in the long run.
In a related development, Ken White recently reported that both President Trump and Elon Musk have resorted to filing lawsuits against organizations that criticize them. Trump has a history of using litigation as a tool to silence his detractors, while Musk has also pursued legal action against entities that report on hate speech issues.
Although these lawsuits are not classified as bribes in a legal sense, they serve as a means for corporations to influence government policymakers and secure favorable treatment. California has taken steps to address such practices by implementing anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws, which aim to protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits intended to suppress free speech on public issues.
In conclusion, the decision to halt the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, coupled with the trend of using lawsuits to silence critics, raises concerns about the influence of corporations and powerful individuals in shaping public discourse and policy. It is crucial for regulatory bodies and lawmakers to uphold transparency and accountability to safeguard against corrupt practices and ensure a fair and just society for all.
