SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Why the Panama Papers Should Be a US Election Issue
Whether US politicians are named or not, the kind of arrangements that allow the global super-rich to hide their wealth only exist with our leaders’ consent
Apr 06, 2016
he massive fallout from the Panama Papers investigation - the largest leak of documents in history, which has exposed the tax affairs of the world's most powerful people - is being felt globally. (The investigation has already captured its first head of state, in the prime minister of Iceland, who resigned on Tuesday.) Yet, so far, the reaction in the US has been muted.
It shouldn't be. While the investigation has not named any well-known US citizens - though "just wait for what is coming next", as one of the lead editors said - the scandal should be a critical issue in US presidential election. This is especially true in the Democratic primary, where the story once again calls into question free trade agreements which the party's elite have been pushing on its rank-and-file for years.
What makes this story particularly relevant is that it was partly predicted by Bernie Sanders when the Obama administration signed the Panama free trade agreement in 2011.
At the time, Sanders gave a prescient speech warning of the exact kind of scandal exposed by the Panama Papers. As Congress was debating the deal, Sanders said on the Senate floor: "Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. And the Panama free trade agreement would make this bad situation much worse." (The speech is now going viral on Facebook.)
The Panama free trade agreement, of course, ended up being implemented, in large part due to strong support by Barack Obama and then secretary of state Hillary Clinton. As David Sirota has reported, the emails of a Clinton aide show that the State Department knew of the concerns that Panama would become even more of a tax haven that it already was but continued to push for the deal anyway.
But with or without the Panama free trade deal, using foreign tax havens to store vast amounts of wealth has been an American tradition for decades. And as Glenn Greenwald wrote, much like the Snowden revelations, the true scandal of the Panama Papers is not what's illegal, but what has been legalized.
The Justice Department is reportedly reviewing the leak for any potential leads. A Treasury spokesman said on Tuesday: "The US Department of Justice takes very seriously all credible allegations of high level, foreign corruption that might have a link to the United States or the US financial system." But one wonders what the chances of any actual prosecution are, given that, in many cases, US individuals and corporations already have the green light to do exactly what much of the world's public is so upset about right now.
As Vox's Matt Yglesias wrote on Monday: "Incorporating your hedge fund in a country with no corporate income tax even though all your fund's employees and investors live in the United States is perfectly legal. So is, in most cases, setting up a Panamanian shell company to own and manage most of your family's fortune."
It remains to be seen whether any well-known US politicians will end up caught in the Panama Papers' web. But individual corruption is really beside the point. Politicians are complicit in this scandal whether they are named or not. For years, they have accepted campaign donations from the country's largest corporations and wealthiest individuals, who have a vested interest in preserving tax havens. In return, they've made sure that any wealth parked overseas stays far out of the reach of US law enforcement.
In every election, there is vague talk of "closing" tax loopholes and ending offshore tax hideouts. Soon afterward, however, those issues are conveniently forgotten. This time it should be different - not least because there is a candidate campaigning to be president who warned of exactly this scenario.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Guardian
Trevor Timm
Trevor Timm is a co-founder and the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He is a writer, activist, and legal analyst who specializes in free speech and government transparency issues. He writes a weekly column for The Guardian and has also contributed to The Atlantic, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Harvard Law and Policy Review, PBS MediaShift, and Politico.
he massive fallout from the Panama Papers investigation - the largest leak of documents in history, which has exposed the tax affairs of the world's most powerful people - is being felt globally. (The investigation has already captured its first head of state, in the prime minister of Iceland, who resigned on Tuesday.) Yet, so far, the reaction in the US has been muted.
It shouldn't be. While the investigation has not named any well-known US citizens - though "just wait for what is coming next", as one of the lead editors said - the scandal should be a critical issue in US presidential election. This is especially true in the Democratic primary, where the story once again calls into question free trade agreements which the party's elite have been pushing on its rank-and-file for years.
What makes this story particularly relevant is that it was partly predicted by Bernie Sanders when the Obama administration signed the Panama free trade agreement in 2011.
At the time, Sanders gave a prescient speech warning of the exact kind of scandal exposed by the Panama Papers. As Congress was debating the deal, Sanders said on the Senate floor: "Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. And the Panama free trade agreement would make this bad situation much worse." (The speech is now going viral on Facebook.)
The Panama free trade agreement, of course, ended up being implemented, in large part due to strong support by Barack Obama and then secretary of state Hillary Clinton. As David Sirota has reported, the emails of a Clinton aide show that the State Department knew of the concerns that Panama would become even more of a tax haven that it already was but continued to push for the deal anyway.
But with or without the Panama free trade deal, using foreign tax havens to store vast amounts of wealth has been an American tradition for decades. And as Glenn Greenwald wrote, much like the Snowden revelations, the true scandal of the Panama Papers is not what's illegal, but what has been legalized.
The Justice Department is reportedly reviewing the leak for any potential leads. A Treasury spokesman said on Tuesday: "The US Department of Justice takes very seriously all credible allegations of high level, foreign corruption that might have a link to the United States or the US financial system." But one wonders what the chances of any actual prosecution are, given that, in many cases, US individuals and corporations already have the green light to do exactly what much of the world's public is so upset about right now.
As Vox's Matt Yglesias wrote on Monday: "Incorporating your hedge fund in a country with no corporate income tax even though all your fund's employees and investors live in the United States is perfectly legal. So is, in most cases, setting up a Panamanian shell company to own and manage most of your family's fortune."
It remains to be seen whether any well-known US politicians will end up caught in the Panama Papers' web. But individual corruption is really beside the point. Politicians are complicit in this scandal whether they are named or not. For years, they have accepted campaign donations from the country's largest corporations and wealthiest individuals, who have a vested interest in preserving tax havens. In return, they've made sure that any wealth parked overseas stays far out of the reach of US law enforcement.
In every election, there is vague talk of "closing" tax loopholes and ending offshore tax hideouts. Soon afterward, however, those issues are conveniently forgotten. This time it should be different - not least because there is a candidate campaigning to be president who warned of exactly this scenario.
Trevor Timm
Trevor Timm is a co-founder and the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He is a writer, activist, and legal analyst who specializes in free speech and government transparency issues. He writes a weekly column for The Guardian and has also contributed to The Atlantic, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Harvard Law and Policy Review, PBS MediaShift, and Politico.
he massive fallout from the Panama Papers investigation - the largest leak of documents in history, which has exposed the tax affairs of the world's most powerful people - is being felt globally. (The investigation has already captured its first head of state, in the prime minister of Iceland, who resigned on Tuesday.) Yet, so far, the reaction in the US has been muted.
It shouldn't be. While the investigation has not named any well-known US citizens - though "just wait for what is coming next", as one of the lead editors said - the scandal should be a critical issue in US presidential election. This is especially true in the Democratic primary, where the story once again calls into question free trade agreements which the party's elite have been pushing on its rank-and-file for years.
What makes this story particularly relevant is that it was partly predicted by Bernie Sanders when the Obama administration signed the Panama free trade agreement in 2011.
At the time, Sanders gave a prescient speech warning of the exact kind of scandal exposed by the Panama Papers. As Congress was debating the deal, Sanders said on the Senate floor: "Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. And the Panama free trade agreement would make this bad situation much worse." (The speech is now going viral on Facebook.)
The Panama free trade agreement, of course, ended up being implemented, in large part due to strong support by Barack Obama and then secretary of state Hillary Clinton. As David Sirota has reported, the emails of a Clinton aide show that the State Department knew of the concerns that Panama would become even more of a tax haven that it already was but continued to push for the deal anyway.
But with or without the Panama free trade deal, using foreign tax havens to store vast amounts of wealth has been an American tradition for decades. And as Glenn Greenwald wrote, much like the Snowden revelations, the true scandal of the Panama Papers is not what's illegal, but what has been legalized.
The Justice Department is reportedly reviewing the leak for any potential leads. A Treasury spokesman said on Tuesday: "The US Department of Justice takes very seriously all credible allegations of high level, foreign corruption that might have a link to the United States or the US financial system." But one wonders what the chances of any actual prosecution are, given that, in many cases, US individuals and corporations already have the green light to do exactly what much of the world's public is so upset about right now.
As Vox's Matt Yglesias wrote on Monday: "Incorporating your hedge fund in a country with no corporate income tax even though all your fund's employees and investors live in the United States is perfectly legal. So is, in most cases, setting up a Panamanian shell company to own and manage most of your family's fortune."
It remains to be seen whether any well-known US politicians will end up caught in the Panama Papers' web. But individual corruption is really beside the point. Politicians are complicit in this scandal whether they are named or not. For years, they have accepted campaign donations from the country's largest corporations and wealthiest individuals, who have a vested interest in preserving tax havens. In return, they've made sure that any wealth parked overseas stays far out of the reach of US law enforcement.
In every election, there is vague talk of "closing" tax loopholes and ending offshore tax hideouts. Soon afterward, however, those issues are conveniently forgotten. This time it should be different - not least because there is a candidate campaigning to be president who warned of exactly this scenario.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.