It's not about foreigners but foreign and state governments and those representing the governments. It's against the law to receive emoluments, which I view as backdoor bribes in substance. So if, say, Saudi Arabia makes a point to book Trump hotel rooms and we know it's to ingratiate themselves with POTUS and get favorable treatment, that should be illegal under the emoluments clauses. Same thing if, say, a delegation from the state of Tennessee books there for that purpose.
We don't know the reach of the emoluments clause, which is the point of the various lawsuits. What's a bit stunning is the 'conservative' view that all this is OK. If nothing else the problem is it creates an obvious and massive conflict of interest. We ought to be able as Americans to know that a foreign policy decision involving, say, China isn't based on the fact that the Chinese are buying lots of Trump condos, or booking 200 nights/year in his hotel in the high priced suites, but what's best for the U.S. The Chinese (or whoever) funneling money to POTUS through his various properties creates doubts. Surely you can admit that much.
Yes, it is stunning that conservatives, who just a few short years ago were screaming about draining the swamp, which I interpret to mean self-dealing insiders who profited from their connections in government by pulling strings for their own private benefit or profit, now think it's just fine for Kuwait to book the $20,000 a night room at the Trump Washington hotel for the purpose of influencing U.S./Kuwait relations. Yes, stunning.
This is exactly why the founders wrote the emoluments clause into the constitution.
According to the last ruling:
The Complaint sufficiently alleges that Plaintiffs compete directly with
9 Trump establishments and that the President’s allegedly illegal acts favor
10 Plaintiffs’ competitors. Specifically, it alleges that Plaintiffs’ establishments
11 are harmed in their competition with Trump establishments because, despite
12 being comparable in other relevant respects, the President’s establishments
13 offer government patrons something that Plaintiffs cannot: the opportunity,
14 by enriching the President, to obtain favorable governmental treatment from
15 the President and the Executive branch. It alleges that the marketplace is thus
16 skewed in favor of Trump businesses because of his unlawful receipt of
17 payments from government patrons. The Complaint, supported by expert
18 declarations, alleges that this unlawful market skew has caused Plaintiffs
economic harm in the
1 form of lost patronage from government entities, and
2 that such harm will continue in the future. For competitor standing, that is
3 sufficient.
