Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

Question: What does the United States gain by disallowing US companies to bribe government officials outside the United States? From a purely logistical standpoint, it seems like it would make more sense for those other countries to police these activities, or for the US to give the information they have to those governments to fine the companies as they see fit in their own countries.

Why does the US fine US companies for illegal behavior outside the US? Is it just moral reasons? Or is there a diplomatic reason for it? Or a treaty that requires us to do so?

View on HN

Moral and economic reasons. Without making it illegal for US companies to do it, there would be strong competitive pressures for companies to engage in bribery abroad, and honest US companies couldn’t compete.

Stepping back and thinking about the bigger picture, the FCPA is an example of a law that enforces economically beneficial morality. One of the things that makes America a good place to live, and economically successful, is that it’s not a bribe-based society. Bribery is a tax on economically productive activity, and it’s good for the economy as a whole to stamp it out.

Citing wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Ac...

>In response to these high profile revelations, Congress enacted the FCPA to bring a halt to the bribery of foreign officials and to restore public confidence in the integrity of the American business system.

Because it doesn't look good - like it makes us look like an imperial nation - when we go around buying up governments through our corporations.

Yea it seems stupid now, but there was a time when America looked at the history of Europe and thought "that doesn't look like a good idea".

The US was the first country to make this illegal in 1977, eventually other countries did as well and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention was eventually established.

The original 1977 law arose in response to investigations in the wake of the Watergate scandal and public outcry over corruption.

Beyond the public perceptions of corruption, there were significant foreign policy impacts. The US gov was actively working against communists in many countries, but those communists were sometimes being funded by bribes from US companies.

When the law was passed, the goal was to push other countries into implementing and enforcing similar laws to reduce any negative impact on US companies.

Hard to complain about foreign companies bribing people in your own government, if you are happy for your own companies to do that to other governments. It would be hypocritical.

<sarcasm> It would be like the U.S. having nuclear weapons and then complaining about other countries trying to develop them. Or if the U.S. promoted democracy but then used the C.I.A in South America to overthrow democracies. </sarcasm>

The US is also fining foreign companies that are involve in bribery scandals but does business in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com