Halliburton moves = Contracts with U.S. Gov't Void

Just a thought: if congressional Dems really want to show some cojones, why not have them draft a bill that states the following:

If Halliburton moves its headquarters and financial roots to the United Arab Emirates, all contracts said company has with the United States government shall be null and void.

Granted, it doesn't stand a chance of being signed by the numbskull in the White House, but it would be a start.  

And fine: let Waxman and Co. have their protracted (and warranted) investigation; but show that we, the people, don't want to be fleeced by tax evading weasel companies, either.

Any thoughts?

•  It would be unconstitutional...

  ...in that it would violate the equal protection clause of the Fifteenth Amendment. Congress would have to pass a general law regarding all companies like Halliburton.

  by wiscmass on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:27:59 PM PDT

  •  NO US gov't contracts

    to foreign companies would be a good start.  That would go for all companies incorporated outside of the US.  One of two things would happen.  Either the war would be over yesterday or we'd see a rush of companies looking to move back.

    by DisNoir36 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:34:27 PM PDT

    •  Unintended consequences

      that would, for example, forbid the hiring of Iraq-based companies to do reconstruction work there.

      From what I understand, Halliburton is (at this time) just planning to move their headquarters offices to Dubai, but not transferring their corporate registration.  Unless they do the latter, they're still a US company and have to pay US taxes.

      by ebohlman on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:53:53 PM PDT

      •  Not so

        If the US is not in Iraq, we can't dictate who the Iraqis hire.  Frankly we shouoldn't even be dictating anything there anyway.

        As for Haliburton, I believe they're moving their HQ to Dubai.  I was under the impression it was for tax purposes (officially.  Unofficially we know it's to try and run away from investigations and gov't scrutiny) which would mean transferring corporate regs as well.

        by DisNoir36 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:02:12 PM PDT

    •  bingo

      I don't believe there would be an equal protection violation.

      The law could be narrowly tailored to defense/national security related contracts.

      NO defense/national security related contract to ANY company headquartered outside the US.  You can even put in a few exceptions, of course Halliburton would not fit any of them.

      by davefromqueens on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:07:15 PM PDT

      •  That's what I'm saying, but...

        ...that's different from what the diarist is saying. The diarist is advocating for a bill that specifically targets Halliburton. No objective reading of the Constitution would permit you to call that anything other than an equal protection violation.

        by wiscmass on Tue Mar 13, 2007 at 11:05:09 AM PDT

  •  But wouldn't there be some kind of clause

    for companies that move overseas in the middle of the contract and avoid paying U.S. taxes and/or hire cheaper foreign labor? After all Halliburton was awarded the contract partly because they are an American company. Now that that will change, the government has no recourse? Doesn't seem right somehow...

    by frankzappatista on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:39:57 PM PDT

    •  Again...

      ...any such bill would have to apply to all similar companies. A bill that only applies to a single company in a punitive way is by definition unconstitutional.

      by wiscmass on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:44:16 PM PDT

      •  What I'm saying is that

        it would seem like such a standard would already be in place applicant to all such contracts.

        by frankzappatista on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:50:43 PM PDT

        •  It isn't...

          ...and that's not what the diarist is talking about anyway. The diarist is advocating for a bill to punish a single company specifically, without treating similar companies taking identical actions in the same way. That's unconstitutional.

          by wiscmass on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:00:20 PM PDT

      •  disagree

        We are dealing with national security.  The bill simply has to relate to that and it passes constitutional muster.

        by davefromqueens on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:08:14 PM PDT

        •  That's not the way it works and you know it

          And we should be ashamed of ourselves if we even consider taking that route. Leave that crap to the Republics.

          by wiscmass on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:09:59 PM PDT

  •  Not to Mention the WTO.

    by LunkHead on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:06:06 PM PDT

•  Halliburton is spinning off

  KBR, which has most of the gov't contracts, per Olbermann tonight. No idea where KBR will be based.

  by Elwood Dowd on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:35:27 PM PDT

•   Who is next to Dubai, Exxon?

  If Halliburton can relocate over to Dubai as an American energy company, what would stop Exxon from following?  They will be lining up for the Iraq oil grab.  They can't plant themselves in the oil fields of Iraq right now because there's no security, so they'll just operate out of Dubai till they can get on the ground in Iraq safely.

  I think this is the beginning of an energy company exodus.

  by bunny99 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:37:37 PM PDT

•  Besides, DOD outsourcing to...

  foreign companies is big business.

  Here's a list of foreign entities doing business with the Pentagon. It was compiled by the Center for Public Integrity.

  They found that "nearly 100 of the Pentagon's top 737 contractors are foreign companies."

  Wow, I guess that U.S. manufacturing base might have come in handy for something, huh.

  by The Eyewitness Muse on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 06:43:58 PM PDT

•   A Global Economy without the American worker

  Wait until the North American Alliance is in full swing.  Millions more Americans will become empoverished on a huge scale or if they have a job they will become a cheap labor force in order to compete with the human resources that become available to the corporate masters.

  by bunny99 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:04:14 PM PDT

•  stole my thunder

  I was going to diary this tomorrow and offer the same proposal.

  ZERO military contracts with any company headquartered in Dubai.

  Dems need to push this.

  by davefromqueens on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:04:54 PM PDT

•  I propose a 2001 Space Odyssey law

  Any defense contractor who's first 3 letters are HAL can not move out of the country.

  by phild1976 on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 07:42:44 PM PDT