[Draft]Addressing International Company Donations

[First Nightmare]

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the large influence internationally active companies have,
Aware of the detrimental influence lobbying and pressure by companies has,
Disturbed that some of these companies are so large that no nation can address them individually,
Wishing to curb this terrible influence from its nations,

Defines "international company" as a company that has economic activities in more than one nation,
Mandates the following:

1. International companies are banned from donating money to politicians, either directly or indirectly, giving them overly favorable contract conditions, employing former members of any legislative body comprising of less than 2% of the population, endorsing political campaigns.
2. Any international company willfully breaking these rules(willful to be interpreted as direct orders from leading officers of the company or failure to act upon violations by employees) has consented to be nationalized in every member state they are active in
3. Such consent is to be acted upon by either dissolving the company in that member nation or by taking over all its operations in that member state.
4. If a company is dissolved this way, all assets in that member state(not including natural persons, if any) may be seized by that state, or disposed of by that state.

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the large influence internationally active companies have,
Aware of the detrimental influence lobbying and pressure by companies has,
Disturbed that some of these companies are so large that no nation can address them individually,
Wishing to curb this terrible influence from its nations,

Defines:

1. "international company" as a company that has economic activities in more than one nation, or a company owned, in part or in full, by another international company,
   "Overly favourable contract conditions as contract conditions that are more favorable than a non-politician in a similar situation would get; these do not include contracts to nations, just to politicians,
   "Indirect action" as trying to convince someone to make an action, or encouraging it,

Mandates the following:

1. International companies are banned from donating money to politicians, either through direct or indirect action, giving them overly favorable contract conditions, employing former members of any legislative body comprising of less than 2% of the population or endorsing political campaigns.
2. Any international company willfully breaking these rules(willful to be interpreted as direct orders from leading officers of the company or failure to act upon violations by employees) has consented to be nationalized in every member state they are active in,
3. An employee, other than the leading officer of the company, who was not ordered to break these rules, and breaks them, shall not trigger consent as long as the company, upon gaining knowledge of these events, removes them from the company. This action of removal for these causes shall be legal in all member states, and employees breaking these rules shall be subjected to severe criminal punishment.
4. Such consent is to be acted upon by either dissolving the company in that member nation or by taking over all its operations in that member state.
5. If a company is dissolved this way, all assets in that member state(not including natural persons, if any) may be seized by that state, or disposed of by that state.
6. Shareholders and owners of international companies are banned from making donations to political parties in any member nation in excess of 2 times the median wage(in an entire election cycle) in that nation, per election cycle,
7. Such bans must be enforced by law, and violators shall be punished in the same manner as those in Clause 3.

[General TN]

Why do you hate fun?

[First Nightmare]

Why do you hate fun?

What are you trying to say?

[Canadianers]

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the large influence internationally active companies have,
Aware of the detrimental influence lobbying and pressure by companies has,
Disturbed that some of these companies are so large that no nation can address them individually,
Wishing to curb this terrible influence from its nations,

Defines "international company" as a company that has economic activities in more than one nation,
Mandates the following:

1. International companies are banned from donating money to politicians, either directly or indirectly, giving them overly favorable contract conditions, employing former members of any legislative body comprising of less than 2% of the population, endorsing political campaigns.
2. Any international company willfully breaking these rules(willful to be interpreted as direct orders from leading officers of the company or failure to act upon violations by employees) has consented to be nationalized in every member state they are active in
3. Such consent is to be acted upon by either dissolving the company in that member nation or by taking over all its operations in that member state.
4. If a company is dissolved this way, all assets in that member state(not including natural persons, if any) may be seized by that state, or disposed of by that state.

The Canadianersian Minister of Foreign Affairs walks into the room, straightening his tie with a steaming mug of coffee in hand. He takes a seat and straightens out a piece of paper in his briefcase. "While this resolution attempts to serve a noble cause, it comes with errors that Canadianers would like corrected before they could consider voting FOR. First of all, define "overly favorable contract conditions". Without this definition, nations could theoretically dissolve any international company that makes any contract with them. Second, this Act still allows national companies to heavily influence nations. This would allow for a major shareholder of an international company to make a separate but very similar company solely operating in a nation for the purpose of lobbying. Third, there are many grammatical errors in this text, (e.g, in Clause 1, no and). Fourth of all, what if a leading officer gives an indirect order to violate this Act? Now, I know this is an extreme example, but what if a singular employee of a company goes rogue and posts on social media that they endorse a specific party, which a government interprets as endorsement, thus nationalizing the company? The measure is too extreme and a blanket clause that does not account for the severity of the offence. This also severely infringes on national sovereignty; what if a nation is built on corporate rule, for example? As is, Canadianers would vote AGAINST for this Act due to the aforementioned." The Minister of Foreign Affairs walks out of the room, sipping a cup of coffee.

[General TN]

Why do you hate fun?

What are you trying to say?

That your attempts to try and limit corporations political rights is not cool. They are equal (if not higher) than the average citizen, and I assume you wouldn’t try to limit their political rights?

And beyond that, these companies earned their money honesty and should be allowed to spend it on what and who they please.

[Velabruck]

What are you trying to say?

That your attempts to try and limit corporations political rights is not cool. They are equal (if not higher) than the average citizen, and I assume you wouldn’t try to limit their political rights?

And beyond that, these companies earned their money honesty and should be allowed to spend it on what and who they please.

You never fail to make me chuckle.

Also this feels extreme. How would this even be implemented if member nations were to not follow through?

[Ci Arovannea]

What are you trying to say?

That your attempts to try and limit corporations political rights is not cool. They are equal (if not higher) than the average citizen, and I assume you wouldn’t try to limit their political rights?

And beyond that, these companies earned their money honesty and should be allowed to spend it on what and who they please.

larp.

[First Nightmare]

The World Assembly,

Cognizant of the large influence internationally active companies have,
Aware of the detrimental influence lobbying and pressure by companies has,
Disturbed that some of these companies are so large that no nation can address them individually,
Wishing to curb this terrible influence from its nations,

Defines "international company" as a company that has economic activities in more than one nation,
Mandates the following:

1. International companies are banned from donating money to politicians, either directly or indirectly, giving them overly favorable contract conditions, employing former members of any legislative body comprising of less than 2% of the population, endorsing political campaigns.
2. Any international company willfully breaking these rules(willful to be interpreted as direct orders from leading officers of the company or failure to act upon violations by employees) has consented to be nationalized in every member state they are active in
3. Such consent is to be acted upon by either dissolving the company in that member nation or by taking over all its operations in that member state.
4. If a company is dissolved this way, all assets in that member state(not including natural persons, if any) may be seized by that state, or disposed of by that state.

The Canadianers Minister of Foreign Affairs walks into the room, straightening his tie with a steaming mug of coffee in hand. He takes a seat and straightens out a piece of paper in his briefcase. "While this resolution attempts to serve a noble cause, it comes with errors that Canadianers would like corrected before they could consider voting FOR. First of all, define "overly favorable contract conditions". Without this definition, nations could theoretically dissolve any international company that makes any contract with them. Second, this Act still allows national companies to heavily influence nations. This would allow for a major shareholder of an international company to make a separate but very similar company solely operating in a nation for the purpose of lobbying. Third, there are many grammatical errors in this text, (e.g, in Clause 1, no and). Fourth of all, what if a leading officer gives an indirect order to violate this Act? Now, I know this is an extreme example, but what if a singular employee of a company goes rogue and posts on social media that they endorse a specific party, which a government interprets as endorsement, thus nationalizing the company? The measure is too extreme and a blanket clause that does not account for the severity of the offence. This also severely infringes on national sovereignty; what if a nation is built on corporate rule, for example? As is, Canadianers would vote AGAINST for this Act due to the aforementioned." The Minister of Foreign Affairs walks out of the room, sipping a cup of coffee.

We thank you for this valuable insight. It will take some time, however, to correct those problems.

[First Nightmare]

This has been updated.

[Zetaopalatopia]

We feel it would be better to punish the politicians who accepted such a donation than to punish the company. Assuming we are considering the topic from the stand point that transactional politics a bad thing, which we do not.

And what would be the actions taken should the donation be made anonymously? No international company to punish if none show up on the list of donators. Also, the WA I do not believe has authority over companies in non adopting nations or non WA nations. So if the donation comes from an international company based in a non adopting nation or non WA nation, they can not be made to dissolve, and or a nation may simply choose not to nationalize or otherwise punish them. The proposal does not address these entirely possible edge cases.

[Heavens Reach]

Uh, well, it's certainly creative. I'm pretty sure you mean multinational company, but that's really the only actionable advice I can give. I think the entire idea is DOA. I could potentially see something passing with regard to political donations, but not the piecemealing of a corporation and the nationalization of the pieces as punishment for it.

That your attempts to try and limit corporations political rights is not cool. They are equal (if not higher) than the average citizen, and I assume you wouldn’t try to limit their political rights?

And beyond that, these companies earned their money honesty and should be allowed to spend it on what and who they please.

larp.

PolSim RP in an RP forum of a PolSim? Ludicrous.