1. The Thought Experiment: Imagining CPC Anti-Corruption Rules in U.S. Politics
The Thought Experiment asks us to imagine transplanting the Communist Party of China’s (CPC) strict anti-corruption and disciplinary regulations into the U.S. political system. These include the Eight-Point Regulation, the “Several Guidelines on Honest and Clean Governance for Leading Cadres,” the “Disciplinary Regulations of the Communist Party of China” (notably Article 82), and the 2022 “Regulations on the Management of Spouses, Children, and Their Spouses of Leading Cadres Engaging in Business and Running Enterprises.” Together, these rules are designed to enforce integrity, prevent abuse of official power, and limit any entanglement between public office and private economic interests.
Under this framework, officials and their families are prohibited from using political influence for personal gain. Post-government employment, consulting, or business activities that overlap with an official’s previous responsibilities or jurisdiction are tightly restricted. Even indirect advantages for relatives or associates that might create conflicts of interest are considered disciplinary violations. The rules are deliberately strict, aiming to ensure that government decisions are guided by public interest rather than private or familial profit.
The core of the thought experiment lies in its paradoxical contrast with U.S. norms. In the United States, politicians, former officials, and their families often engage in consulting, corporate boards, or lobbying without violating the law, and such activities are widely accepted—even celebrated—as legitimate uses of expertise and networks. By applying CPC rules to the U.S., behaviors that are routine, legal, and culturally valorized—such as leveraging influence for corporate consulting or allowing relatives to pursue business in overlapping sectors—would suddenly constitute serious disciplinary violations. This contrast highlights the fundamental differences in how centralized, discipline-focused systems and decentralized, market-oriented democracies manage the intersection of government and private power.
2. How U.S. Practices Contrast with CPC Anti-Corruption Standards
How U.S. practices contrast with the Communist Party of China’s strict anti-corruption rules is vividly illustrated in Isaac Stone Fish’s America Second. U.S. political and business elites routinely engage in activities that, under CPC regulations, would constitute serious violations. Former officials such as Henry Kissinger continue to consult for China-linked interests, while Madeleine Albright participates in paid speaking engagements and consulting that influence U.S.-China engagement. Families of senior officials, like Elaine Chao’s, serve on boards of major Chinese companies, including state-linked enterprises. Corporations such as Disney and Hollywood studios often self-censor or lobby to protect their access to Chinese markets. Beyond individual actors, broader networks—spanning political dynasties, business leaders, universities, media, and the entertainment industry—normalize engagement with China and moderate criticism.
These behaviors are legal and common in U.S. politics due to the country’s institutional structure and culture. Politicians are free to move between government, consulting, and private business, while their families can leverage connections without formal restrictions. Lobbying is constitutionally protected and central to policy-making, and individual profit and market access are prioritized over strict limitations on conflicts of interest. The U.S. system’s openness and decentralized nature allow for fluid interaction between government and private sectors, creating an environment where influence, networking, and strategic engagement are normalized.
The contrast with the CPC’s approach is stark. In China, the Party enforces centralized rules that strictly separate public office from private gain, restrict family involvement in business, and prohibit officials from leveraging influence for economic advantage. U.S. elites, in contrast, routinely operate in ways that would be prohibited or disciplined under CPC regulations. This highlights the fundamental institutional and cultural difference: where China enforces separation to protect state integrity, the U.S. embraces fluidity, transparency, and market-driven incentives—even when these same practices can create vulnerabilities or unintended influence favoring foreign interests.
3. Specific Violations Under CPC Rules
a. Political Leaders and Advisors with Business Ties: A Comparative Perspective
Political leaders and advisors with business ties illustrate the stark contrast between U.S. practices and the Communist Party of China’s disciplinary rules. Figures such as Henry Kissinger, after leaving his role as Secretary of State, continued to act as a consultant and power broker, helping U.S. companies access China while advocating engagement over human rights. Under CPC regulations, this type of post-government consulting would constitute a serious violation. The “Guidelines on Honest and Clean Governance” prohibit officials from creating conditions for businesses tied to their former influence, and Article 82 bars any indulgence or acquiescence to influence-peddling. The 2022 regulations treat consulting for foreign entities after leaving office as a conflict of interest. In the United States, these activities are celebrated as strategic networking; under CPC rules, they would be considered corruption enabling foreign influence.
Madeleine Albright presents a similar case. Her paid speaking engagements and consulting for China-related interests, which shape discourse and U.S.-China engagement, would also breach CPC rules. The Eight-Point Regulation and broader disciplinary framework forbid using one’s influence for personal gain, even indirectly, through shaping policy or public opinion. While U.S. norms treat such work as public service and a legitimate exercise of free speech, CPC discipline views it as undermining loyalty to the state and a violation of integrity standards.
Family connections further illustrate the contrast. Elaine Chao’s relatives serving on boards of Chinese state-linked companies, including the Bank of China and China State Shipbuilding Corporation, intersect with her official jurisdiction in transportation and infrastructure. Under the 2022 CPC regulations, such involvement by relatives is prohibited, and the 1998 CPC order forbidding children of senior officials from foreign companies would apply analogously. While in the U.S. these family business ties are legal, disclosed, and socially accepted, in China even the appearance of such conflicts constitutes a red-line violation. Collectively, these examples demonstrate how U.S. political and advisory elites routinely engage in activities that would be considered serious breaches of discipline under CPC rules.
b. Corporate Lobbying and Economic Dependence: U.S. Practices vs. CPC Standards
Corporate lobbying and economic dependence highlight another dimension of contrast between U.S. norms and CPC regulations. In the United States, corporations often leverage government connections to influence policy in ways that favor foreign markets. For example, lobbying to oppose tariffs on China allows companies to protect access and profits. Under CPC rules, however, such activities would be violations of the Eight-Point Regulation, particularly when linked to officials’ influence. The 2022 regulations also treat lobbying that benefits relatives or associates’ business as a disciplinary offense. What is considered a constitutional right and standard practice in the U.S. would, in the CPC framework, be interpreted as subversive collusion undermining state interests.
Entertainment and media industries illustrate the irony further. Disney’s use of Henry Kissinger to repair relations in China, combined with Hollywood studios’ self-censorship to preserve market access, would also breach CPC rules if executives had political ties. The Eight-Point Regulation opposes privilege-seeking, and disciplinary provisions penalize profit-making activities involving foreign entities. In the U.S., these actions are seen as adaptive capitalism, strategic engagement, and market prudence; in China, the same conduct would be categorized as corruption and compromising national integrity. The juxtaposition underscores how corporate lobbying and economic dependence, while legal and normalized in the U.S., would be treated as disciplinary violations under CPC anti-corruption standards, revealing the structural differences in managing the intersection of government, business, and foreign influence.
c. Broader Networks of Influence: U.S. Elites and CPC Standards
Broader networks of influence demonstrate how U.S. political, business, and cultural elites operate in ways that would be impermissible under CPC regulations. Political dynasties like the Bush family, together with corporate figures such as Bob Iger, play significant roles in normalizing engagement with China through their combined political stature and business ties. Under the 2022 CPC regulations, relatives of officials are prohibited from working in foreign-invested sectors overlapping with policy scopes, and actions that downplay criticism of foreign interests violate Article 82’s anti-indulgence clause. In the U.S., such networks exemplify elite mobility and strategic engagement, whereas the CPC restricts these connections to prevent the state from being influenced or captured by private or foreign interests.
The broader ecosystem—including media, universities, and sports—further illustrates the contrast. Networks that moderate public discourse, self-censor, or align behavior to preserve economic ties to China would constitute wholesale violations of the Eight-Point Regulation’s anti-privilege ethos. CPC rules require full reporting, forbid influence-seeking, and strictly prohibit foreign-linked activities, reflecting a centralized approach to preventing corruption and elite capture. In the U.S., individualism and market incentives allow such influence to be pervasive and normalized, whereas in China, the system enforces strict separation to protect state authority and integrity. The comparison underscores how elite networks in the U.S. can inadvertently advance foreign interests in ways that would be disciplined as corruption under CPC standards.
4. Core Irony: U.S. Elites Under CPC Standards
The core irony becomes clear when imagining U.S. political and business elites judged by CPC-style rules. Figures such as Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright, whose post-government consulting represents the classic “revolving door,” would be seen as monetizing public power. Elaine Chao’s family, holding positions on boards of Chinese state-linked companies, would violate regulations prohibiting business activities of relatives. Corporate lobbying and media self-censorship, designed to maintain market access or influence policy, would be interpreted as improper collusion and influence-seeking. Even broader networks, including the Bush political family and elite actors in universities, media, and sports, would fall under scrutiny as “naked officials,” threatening state integrity and raising red flags for conflicts of interest.
The irony lies in the role reversal: behaviors that are legal, normalized, and often celebrated in the U.S.—as strategic engagement, free enterprise, or public service—would be disciplined as corruption or breaches of state loyalty in China. What Stone Fish critiques as U.S. elites inadvertently strengthening China through economic and political ties would, under CPC rules, be punished as violations endangering national interests. This comparison underscores the fundamental institutional and cultural differences in how each country manages the intersection of government power, private gain, and foreign influence.
5. Conclusion: Broader Cultural and Institutional Contrast
Conclusion: Broader cultural and institutional contrast highlights the fundamental differences between the U.S. and China in regulating the intersection of government, business, and influence. In China, centralized rules prioritize state authority, anti-corruption, and the strict separation of public power from private gain. Family connections, post-government activities, and foreign ties are tightly monitored to prevent conflicts of interest or threats to national integrity. Officials and their relatives are subject to clear, enforceable restrictions designed to preserve loyalty to the state and maintain discipline across the political system.
In contrast, the United States operates within a decentralized, open, and commercialized framework that emphasizes individual initiative, career mobility, and private profit. Conflicts of interest are often legally permissible and culturally tolerated, allowing political and business elites to leverage their positions and networks without formal penalties. The ultimate irony emerges from this contrast: behaviors that are legal, celebrated, and strategically advantageous in the U.S.—the very actions that critics argue have strengthened China—would be strictly forbidden under CPC rules. This role reversal between U.S. “freedom” and Chinese “discipline” underscores the profound institutional and cultural divergence in how each nation manages power, influence, and loyalty.
References
- America Second: How America’s Elites Are Making China Stronger. Isaac Stone Fish. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. 2022
- One Billion Customers: Lessons from the Front Lines of Doing Business in China. James L. McGregor. Free Press. 2007