I don’t think it’s even close to a bill of attainder.
For one, it targets a class of companies operating from a collection of countries, not an individual person (and SCOTUS has never ruled on corporate personhood for the purposes of being a bill of attainder).
Secondly, the law in question does not declare a corporation guilty of any crime, it just offers restrictions on foreign control of certain businesses.
Third, the law targets non-American holdings, making it less likely that it could be considered a bill of attainder, since laws directly targeting foreign countries and agents thereof have been accepted in American law.
The whole idea of "corporate personhood" is a bit of a tortured way to describe Citizens United. It was introduced by the people (media and democrat lobbyists - the case was about a group that made a very negative documentary on Hillary Clinton) who had the most to lose from Citizens United and somehow stuck. There was never a ruling that corporations are people. The ruling in that case was more along the lines of "people don't lose fundamental rights by virtue of creating a corporation to exercise those rights." Calling that "corporate personhood" is a borderline misrepresentation, and leads to a lot of confusion when you think of other laws.
> people don't lose fundamental rights by virtue of creating a corporation to exercise those rights
No. That is even more manipulative way to put it. No one was "loosing fundamental rights", that part is a lie. What ruling did was to make corruption legal, if you create a corporation by virtue of corporate personhood.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. The people involved in Citizens United could have done exactly what they did as individuals with some contractual money sharing agreements, and both sides of the case acknowledged that. Signing one little extra piece of paper makes the whole thing illegal corruption?
The actual case of Citizens United had exceptionally bad facts for the camp that thinks it's a bad ruling. The DNC should never have pushed it as far as they did, because it came right back at them like a ton of bricks.
In contrast, bringing it back to this case, communication over the internet involves many different business agreements to get internet service, rent computing, etc. Those relationships are within the US's power to regulate and legislate, especially when they cross its borders.
While your words make sense to me, I cannot wrap my head around viewing it that way. It clearly makes them post facto guilty of the crime of owning the company (which is also not constitutional) and their punishment is either divestiture or shutdown -- which is an actual punishment given out by courts, not congressmen.
First, you could say something similar about many restrictions.
If there is one steel monopoly and you ban being a monopoly then we can apply the same logic you have there.
To be completely fair, the “illegal part” of being a monopoly is not generally in the existence of the monopoly itself, but in the monopolistic actions the company may take. However, those actions may be a fundamental part of the function of the company, and I’d argue that country of ownership is another property that should be eligible for restriction.
Second, and _far_ more importantly, it is not clear to me that it’s unconstitutional to make a law that a foreign company can’t operate a certain type of business in America.
I would argue this is a bad example because it will lead into a conversation about monopolies, which is off-topic.
Restrictions are fine, but they need to apply broadly -- this law was specifically targeted at a single US entity, owned by a foreign entity. To me, who has only coarsely read up on this due to his account being cut off because I originally signed up with a US phone number when I lived in the US; it seems as though a bunch of rich people got mad that someone else in another country was getting rich.
Keep in mind that I am just now even caring about this situation, so I'm coming in with fresh eyes and limited history. In any case...
> it is not clear to me that it’s unconstitutional to make a law that a foreign company can’t operate a certain type of business in America.
Of course they can. My only issue is that they are targeting a specific entity and punishing them for being owned by someone in another country, which seems unconstitutional. If they targeted all companies, big or small, it would be different. I may not like it, but it wouldn't be questionable.
For one, it targets a class of companies operating from a collection of countries, not an individual person (and SCOTUS has never ruled on corporate personhood for the purposes of being a bill of attainder).
Secondly, the law in question does not declare a corporation guilty of any crime, it just offers restrictions on foreign control of certain businesses.
Third, the law targets non-American holdings, making it less likely that it could be considered a bill of attainder, since laws directly targeting foreign countries and agents thereof have been accepted in American law.