It is our contention that Multinational Corporations that off-shore their profits: are 100% declaring themselves as foreign companies and therefore as foreign entities they may not make Political Campaign Donations, Lobby, or Create Political Action Committees.
Additionally, we contend that any components made off-shore and add to a finished product in the United States makes it a foreign product: therefore all United States earned income sold in the United States is 100% foreign income and again cannot be used for Political Campaign Donations, Lobbying, or Create Political Action Committees.
Finally, we contend on the basis of the Citizens United rulings that if Multinational Corporations are persons, that if the do all their financial business in foreign countries to keep from U.S. Federal Taxes they are foreign nationals and cannot make Political Campaign Donations, Lobby, or Create Political Action Committees.
Rulings:
Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
In Santa Clara County v.Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the court reporter, Bancroft Davis, noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.
We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment].
Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.
Finally, we contend on the basis of the Citizens United rulings that if Multinational Corporations are persons, that if the do all their financial business in foreign countries to keep from U.S. Federal Taxes they are foreign nationals and cannot make Political Campaign Donations, Lobby, or Create Political Action Committees.
Rulings:
Since at least Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819), the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts.
In Santa Clara County v.Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), the court reporter, Bancroft Davis, noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.
We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding, "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment].
Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times since.
Campaign Contribution Shell Games 2014
“Domestic Subsidiaries of Foreign Corporations (U.S. Federal Elections Commission)
In advisory opinions, the Commission has said that a United States corporation that is a subsidiary of a foreign corporation may sponsor a separate segregated fund which can in turn make contributions to federal candidates as long as:
- The foreign parent does not finance election related contributions or expenditures either directly or through the subsidiary.4
- No foreign national (including the foreign parent) participates in the operations of the separate segregated fund or in its administration (such as by appointing officers) or in any decision to make donations, contributions, disbursements or expenditures in connection with any federal or nonfederal election. See 110.20(i). See also AOs 2009-14, 2006-15, 2000-17, 1995-15, 1992-16, 1990-08 and 1985-03.” [2]
The above to us is complete foolishness, when you apply all federal laws of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. We therefore believe the following laws apply!
PROHIBITED SOURCES (U.S. Federal Elections Commission)
Corporations, Labor Organizations, National Banks
“Campaigns may not accept contributions made from the general treasury funds of corporations, labor organizations or national banks.
1 114.2(a), (b) and (d).
This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, including a non-stock corporation, a trade association, an incorporated membership organization and an incorporated cooperative.
Foreign Nationals
Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals.3 Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed, received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in connection with any election — federal, state or local. This prohibition includes contributions or donations made to political committees and building funds and to make electioneering communications.
110.20(b)-(g).
Furthermore, it is a violation of federal law to knowingly provide substantial assistance in the making, acceptance or receipt of contributions or donations in connection with Foreign nationals may not make contributions or donations in connection with any election—federal, state or local—either directly or through any other person.
110.20(b).
PROHIBITED CONTRIBUTIONS
General and non-federal elections to a political committee, or for the purchase or construction of an office building.
110.20(h).
This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, acting as a conduit or intermediary for foreign national contributions and donations.
110.20(g) and (h).
A person acts knowingly for the purposes of this section when he or she has: • Actual knowledge that the funds have come from a foreign national; • Awareness of certain facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that there is a substantial probability that the money is from a foreign national; or • Awareness of facts that should have prompted a reasonable inquiry into whether the source of funds is a foreign national.
110.20(a)(4).
Pertinent facts that satisfy the “knowing” requirement include knowledge of: • Use of a foreign passport or passport number; • Use of a foreign address; • A check or other written instrument drawn on an account or wire transfer from a foreign bank; or • Contributor or donor living abroad.
110.20(a)(5)(i)-(v).
Definition of Foreign National
A foreign national is:
- An individual who is: not a citizen of the United States and not lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(20)); or
- A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. §611(b). Section 611 defines a foreign principal as a group organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country. The statute specifically mentions foreign governments, political parties, partnerships, associations and corporations. 110.20(a)(3).” [2]
It is our contention that large portions of the following contributions were by foreign corporations and therefore must be repaid to the donating Multinational Corporations within 60 days; per Campaign Finance Laws!
2013-2014 Campaign Contributions (Many Multinational (Foreign Corporations)
Rank
|
Sector
|
Amount
|
Total to Parties & Candidates
|
Dems
|
Repubs
|
1
|
$507,293,955
|
$344,462,927
|
37.40%
|
62.40%
| |
2
|
$352,307,982
|
$234,117,472
|
50.10%
|
49.70%
| |
3
|
$269,772,347
|
$233,142,184
|
53.30%
|
46.30%
| |
4
|
$228,470,048
|
$181,637,580
|
38.20%
|
61.50%
| |
5
|
$151,364,481
|
$140,347,046
|
65.20%
|
34.60%
| |
6
|
$141,183,350
|
$131,294,451
|
43.00%
|
56.80%
| |
7
|
$140,673,002
|
$60,569,731
|
88.90%
|
10.90%
| |
8
|
$116,180,306
|
$90,669,840
|
59.90%
|
39.80%
| |
9
|
$114,892,278
|
$88,722,472
|
21.00%
|
79.00%
| |
10
|
$76,802,912
|
$64,138,661
|
24.90%
|
74.70%
| |
11
|
$67,453,027
|
$59,761,486
|
28.40%
|
71.40%
| |
12
|
$60,893,210
|
$56,552,762
|
28.30%
|
71.60%
| |
13
|
$25,312,610
|
$25,228,585
|
40.10%
|
59.80%
| |
Totals:
|
$2,252,599,508
|
$1,710,645,197
|
Note: Source is OpenSecrets
It is our contention that the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Department of Justice needs to take additional actions (Maximum Fines of all profits for 2013-2014 & Imprisonment of Chairs of Boards, CEO's, and Elected Officials)!
Offshore Shell Games 2014 (The Use of Offshore Tax Havens by Fortune 500
Companies)
Executive Summary
“Many large U.S.-based multinational corporations avoid paying U.S. taxes by using accounting tricks to make profits made in America appear to be generated in offshore tax havens—countries with minimal or no taxes. By booking profits to subsidiaries registered in tax havens, multinational corporations are able to avoid an estimated $90 billion in federal income taxes each year. These subsidiaries are often shell companies with few, if any employees, and which engage in little to no real business activity.
Congress has left loopholes in our tax code that allow this tax avoidance, which forces ordinary Americans to make up the difference. Every dollar in taxes that corporations avoid by using tax havens must be balanced by higher taxes on individuals, cuts to public investments and public services, or increased federal debt.
This study examines the use of tax havens by Fortune 500 companies in 2013. It reveals that tax haven use is ubiquitous among America’s largest companies, but a narrow set of companies benefit disproportionately.
Most of America’s largest corporations maintain subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. At least 362 companies, making up 72 percent of the Fortune 500, operate subsidiaries in tax haven jurisdictions as of 2013.
All told, these 362 companies maintain at least 7,827 tax haven subsidiaries.
The 30 companies with the most money officially booked offshore for tax purposes collectively operate 1,357 tax haven subsidiaries.
Approximately 64 percent of the companies with any tax haven subsidiaries registered at least one in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands—two notorious tax havens.
Furthermore, the profits that all American multinationals—not just Fortune 500 companies—collectively claim were earned in these island nations in 2010 totaled 1,643 percent and 1,600 percent of each country’s entire yearly economic output, respectively.
Six percent of Fortune 500 companies account for over 60 percent of the profits reported offshore for tax purposes. These 30 companies with the most money offshore—out of the 287 that report offshore profits—collectively book $1.2 trillion overseas for tax purposes.
Only 55 Fortune 500 companies disclose what they would expect to pay in U.S. taxes if these profits were not officially booked offshore. All told, these 55 companies would collectively owe $147.5 billion in additional federal taxes.
To put this enormous sum in context, it represents more than the entire state budgets of California, Virginia, and Indiana combined. Based on these 55 corporations’ public disclosures, the average tax rate that they have collectively paid to other countries on this income is just 6.7 percent, suggesting that a large portion of this offshore money is booked to tax havens.” [1]
It was not possible to put a table showing that $2 trillion of profits are currently off shored by multinational corporations and that the lost tax revenue is over $692 Billion dollars! The data is available at Citizens for Tax Fairness.
Foot Notes:
1. Acknowledgments
Richard Phillips, Citizens for Tax Justice; Steve Wamhoff, Citizens for Tax Justice; Dan Smith, U.S. PIRG Education Fund
The authors thank Phineas Baxandall and Michael Russo of the U.S. PIRG Education Fund for their thoughtful comments and editorial support. The authors bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendations are those of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund and Citizens for Tax Justice.
The U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Citizens for Tax Justice are grateful to the Open Society Foundations for making this report possible.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders.
2014 Citizens for Tax Justice and U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License.
To view the terms of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0.
U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund (U.S. PIRG Education Fund)
With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, U.S. PIRG Education Fund offers an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. U.S. PIRG Education Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization, works to protect consumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public, and offer Americans meaningful opportunities for civic participation.
For more information about U.S. PIRG Education Fund, please visit http://www.uspirgedfund.org.
Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ)
Citizens for Tax Justice, founded in 1979, is a public interest research and advocacy organization focusing on federal, state and local tax policies and their impact upon our nation. CTJ’s mission is to give ordinary people a greater voice in the development of tax laws.
Against the armies of special interest lobbyists for corporations and the wealthy, CTJ fights for fair taxes for middle and low-income families, requiring the wealthy to pay their fair share, closing corporate tax loopholes, and adequately funding important government services.
For more information about CTJ, please visit www.ctj.org
.
2. Federal Election Commission Washington, DC 20463
Commissioners:
Lee E. Goodman, Chairman
Ann M. Ravel, Vice Chair
Caroline C. Hunter
Matthew S. Petersen
Steven T. Walther
Ellen L. Weintraub
Staff Director:
Alec Palmer
Prepared by the Information Division of the Office of Communications
Greg J. Scott, Director
Zainab S. Smith, Editor
