RECENT complaints that Bermuda's international sector was attempting to influence local political affairs suggested that Progressive Labour Party members and activists making the complaints were out of touch with geopolitical realities.

Corporations have always had clout in governmental decision-making and increasingly global corporate interests are at an historical zenith in the projection of their influence.

According to local and international experts on corporate practice, an economic lobby like ABIC, the Association of Bermuda International Companies, communicating its views to Premier Alex Scott should be seen as routine: business as usual.

Compared to the often covert efforts of multi-nationals to interact with and influence governments which have the power to tax them, regulate their work practices, set accounting standards, and institute environmental regulations, the open and relatively understated advice from ABIC on Independence concerns was seen as unremarkable.

Bob Richards, managing director of Bermuda Asset Management, saw the relationship between Government and the international sector as one of mutual dependence.

"Bermuda has an investment in international business, and they have an investment in us," he said. "Both of those are long-term investments, so we are interested in each other's welfare. International businesses must be interested in what is going on in Bermuda. I know that, as a professional investor, I would be interested in what was happening in a country I invested in.

"People should realise that there is a common interest, because we all rise or fall together, Bermudians and the international companies based in Bermuda. We are all in the same boat, and it's appropriate for ABIC to enter the debate, particularly since the Premier asked for input, I think that's a key point.

"In a more general sense, corporations in other places routinely lobby governments to try to influence their actions, just as do, when the Bermuda Government makes its views known to other Governments and corporate interests, and by using the international sector network or representatives to make its views known to the US government. The ABIC letter is just the normal way business is conducted."

Charles Gosling, president of the Chamber of Commerce and managing director of Gosling Brothers Ltd., thought the comments made on the matter reflected a mix of naivet? and hypocrisy.

"While they are complaining about a loss of political Independence, we are losing our economic independence, as we are giving up our 60:40 ownership in particular market segments.

"It makes sense in today's market, but at the same time, we are giving up our economic independence piece by piece, which will eventually lead to us handing over what's left of our political Independence."

Mr. Gosling said he thought that in Bermuda, as in every other place, it was only to be expected that companies would defend their interests.

"I really think that it is one of the fundamental rights of any company or business organisation. Neither a Bermudian company nor an international company can vote, but that doesn't mean they can't go out and lobby for particular initiatives which they believe will be of some special political, economic or social benefit for them as companies or organisations.

"Any company, Bermudian or international, that contributes to Government coffers, should be able to influence or lobby Government. Also, under law, companies are viewed as individuals, and they should have the same fundamental rights as anyone on the island, in terms of freedom of speech. With rights come responsibilties, but I would say that with accountability comes rights."

SARAH Anderson has spent 12 years at the left-leaning Institute for Policy Studies, a "progressive" policy think-tank in Washington, which sees corporate influence on US government policy as something more negative and insidious. As director of the Global Economy Programme, she told the that she did a lot of work on trade policy, and it was an area which saw extensive corporate influence.

"Their heavy influence is visible at a number of levels," said Ms Anderson. "For example, our US trade negotiators are required by law to consult with outside 'advisory committees', which are heavily dominated by representatives of business.

"That's one way in which business has privileged access to the negotiators. Also, our trade representative's office has said that their job is basically to represent the interests of corporations, and not the general public.

"Trade is a very controversial issue in Congress, so votes on trade deals are often very tight, and we hear all sorts of anecdotes about corporate lobbyists making it plain to Congressmen that a vote the wrong way will mean not another dime in campaign contributions.

"During the debate around the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), a corporate lobby did one of the most ambitious campaigns ever, where they appointed CEO's of Fortune 500 companies in each of the 50 states to mobilise pressure on lawmakers to get that deal through.

"In the most extreme cases, and certainly under the Bush administration, there are many stories of corporate lobbyists actually writing pieces of legislation, for example the investment rules in NAFTA.

"This more covert form of influencing government actions is something that should be extremely disturbing to all Americans, especially at a time when Halliburton is getting billions of dollars of taxpayer money for non-competitive contracts in Iraq.

"It should have been a bigger issue in the Presidential campaign, because people have to be made more aware of the extent of corporate influence over our political system. It affects taxes, and the integrity of the politicians who are too dependent on corporate money."

Asked whether she shared the view that corporate interests were entitled to be heard in the halls of political power in proportion to their contributions to GNP or the general economic good, Ms Anderson responded in the negative.

"There are many who believe the old line that 'what is good for General Motors is good for America', and that may have been true in the 1950s when companies were more rooted in their communities and native countries, creating jobs instead of slashing them, and there are still many who believe that the earnings of profitable corporations will 'trickle down' to the benefit of everyone, but there are incentives for them to throw their weight around and to manipulate policies in their interests, and until people stand up and challenge them, and the rules change, that is what we can continue to expect.

"Through globalisation lifting barriers to trade and investing, companies have gained much more power to make threats that if conditions don't suit them in one jurisdiction, they will simply move to another.

"Kerry promised to try to use some tax incentives to stop the outflow of jobs to low-wage countries, but they are not likely to address the overwhelming incentives that there are for companies to be globe-trotters.

"It will take a sea-change in our perspective here in the US, and it's not likely to happen with the re-election of the President and a stronger Republican House and Senate."

Bob McIntyre, director at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-partisan research and education organisation, said that corporate interests would always attempt to influence governments according to their interests.

In a research paper, he noted that the clearest sign of the level of US corporate influence on the re-elected Bush administration was the plummeting levels of corporate tax rates on his watch, and the explosion of 'tax breaks'.

"Loophole-seeking corporations and accounting firms found eager allies among our political leaders on Capitol Hill and the White House," he wrote.

"In early 2002, Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation hugely expanding corporate tax breaks, and then extended and expanded those tax breaks in 2003 . . . As a result of those actions and inactions by our government, corporate income taxes in fiscal 2002 and 2003 fell to their lowest sustained share of the economy since World War Two.

"From 2001 to 2003, the Commerce Department reports that pre-tax corporate profits grew by 26 per cent. But over that same period, corporate income tax payments to the federal government fell by 21 per cent."

The study enumerated the specific success of corporate lobbying of the US government on tax matters.

"In 2002 and 2003, the top 275 of US Fortune 500 companies reported to their shareholders that they earned $739 billion in those two years, but paid taxes on only $363 billion."

Mr. McIntyre and co-author Coo Nguyen pointed to various tax shelters and breaks as the explanation. They reported that the recipients of the largest "tax breaks" were General Electric, SBC Communications, Citigroup, IBM, and Microsoft.

On the other side of the political divide, the Cato Institute encourages limited government and taxation. A review by the Wof the "Cato Handbook for Congress: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress", summed up their credo: "A soup-to-nuts agenda to reduce spending, kill programmes, terminate whole agencies, and dramatically restrict the power of federal government."

Chris Edwards, Cato's Director of Tax Policy Studies, saw the question of corporate influence on government policy in terms that emphasise freedom of action.

"If a government imposes taxes on a corporation or otherwise takes or proposes actions that could have a serious effect on them, of course corporations should have the right to lobby that government to ensure that they are not adversely affected or bear some unfair burden."

Asked whether an organisation which represented some 70 per cent of an economy should have the right to make their views known on issues which could affect its members, Mr. Edwards was unequivocal.

"Absolutely. Presumably the members of that organisation employ people who live in the country or community, and they should have the right to defend their interests."

Dr. Norbert Michel, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, said that the Foundation viewed the issue in terms of freedom of speech.

"We have a problem with language that refers to 'corporate interests' or 'corporate behaviour' because that language obscures the fact that these are just legal entities, and they are run by people, and people have a right to be involved in politics.

"The people who represent or work for companies are entitled to be heard on matters that affect them or their companies. That's politics."