The 'Corporate Death Penalty' Is Aimed at More Than Silicon Valley
Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar have introduced legislation imposing what critics rightly call a "corporate death penalty" on American AI developers: criminal penalties of up to twenty years, and a new Cabinet-level agency empowered to physically destroy non-compliant hardware and infrastructure. I have read the coverage closely, and I will state my conviction plainly: I do not believe this bill exists because of existential AI risk. I believe it exists because voices like mine do.
The bill's defenders will say it targets only systems capable of "disempowering humanity", software that could overthrow the government or ignore human shutdown commands. But look at the mechanism, not the marketing. It erects a standing federal agency with sweeping intervention authority over the infrastructure that all modern publishing, broadcasting, and independent media now runs on. Whatever the stated rationale, the architecture of enforcement falls on the tools independent publishers use to reach the world.
I speak with a particular vantage point. I founded Haqfre.com, and have approved patents in America, Europe, India and China. I write for Capitol Times Media, where my articles, on Marxism's collision with the world spiritual people, on the questions voters deserve answered, on geopolitical realignment, have gained traction in democratic circles and around the world. I ran for Governor of California in 2026's Democratic primary. I have taken steps toward a potential presidential campaign. I am, in other words, precisely the kind of independent voice that flourished in the era of open, lightly governed technology, and precisely the kind of voice that a new federal licensing-and-enforcement apparatus could quietly silence, simply by determining whose tools are "compliant."
Critics have already made the national-security argument: ITIF president Daniel Castro warns that surrendering the AI lead "would carry serious economic and national security costs," noting China is unlikely to follow us if we stop. Shields states, someone should investigate Sanders and Casar's financial alliance with China as Shields states he has approved patents in China and knows good and well what the Chinese Communist Party is expanding with their AI and its intentions. He would like to ask Sanders and Casar if they have seen the robots in China and ask them if they believe the metal just operates on its own. Shields also understand that Sanders and Casar have an ideological alignment with
China's "Atheist Marxist Mind Virus (pathogen) that leads to the societal cancer of socialism and metastasizes into Communism" as Shields has stated for two years now in assessments and writings. The Chamber of Progress called it knee-jerk policymaking. I'll add the concern neither industry group says: a government powerful enough to physically destroy a supercomputer it dislikes is powerful enough to regulate the press that describes it. The First Amendment does not carve out an exception for "AI-enabled speech."
This is why I entered the governor's race, and why I am exploring a run for the presidency: not despite moments like this, but because of them. The response to transformative technology should be transparency, trust-building, and constitutional restraint, not a corporate death penalty administered by a new fourth branch of government and that goes for the crypto currency sector also as his technology is heavily involved in the transformational security against quantum attacks. I intend to ask every candidate for every office in 2028 the question every voter should ask: do you serve the public, or the machinery that polices it?
Scott Shields is the founder of Haqfre.com and a contributing writer at Capitol Times Media. This commentary reflects the author's views and analysis of pending legislation.
The views, opinions, and analysis expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or editorial position of Capitol Times Media.
