The law has been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge though, and will likely be overturned entirely on appeal.

What part of the constitution? Not American, don’t know how to find out, but quite intrigued.

The constitution grants the federal government enumerated powers. Since it's not an enumerated power, it's reserved to the states and is therefore unconstitutional.

It falls under the the foreign affairs and national security powers, the Commerce Clause, and the Taxing Clause (plus the Necessary and Proper Clause in support).

From FinCen's website at https://www.fincen.gov/boi. More can be found about the case by searching the title given below.

Red Alert

Alert: Notice Regarding National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)

Updated March 11, 2024

On March 1, 2024, in the case of National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.), a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division, entered a final declaratory judgment, concluding that the Corporate Transparency Act exceeds the Constitution’s limits on Congress’s power and enjoining the Department of the Treasury and FinCEN from enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the plaintiffs. The Justice Department, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, filed a Notice of Appeal on March 11, 2024. While this litigation is ongoing, FinCEN will continue to implement the Corporate Transparency Act as required by Congress, while complying with the court’s order. Other than the particular individuals and entities subject to the court’s injunction, as specified below, reporting companies are still required to comply with the law and file beneficial ownership reports as provided in FinCEN’s regulations.

FinCEN is complying with the court’s order and will continue to comply with the court’s order for as long as it remains in effect. As a result, the government is not currently enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act against the plaintiffs in that action: Isaac Winkles, reporting companies for which Isaac Winkles is the beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and members of the National Small Business Association (as of March 1, 2024). Those individuals and entities are not required to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.

Update [March 11, 2024]: This notice was updated on March 11, 2024, to reflect that a Notice of Appeal has been filed regarding this case.

Probably the First Amendment using the Citizens United precedent.

It looks like the judge that declared it unconstitutional has a history of being overturned by higher courts, and is another Trump judicial appointee with questionable qualifications. He also has a portrait of Confederate President Jefferson Davis hanging in his office, which has nothing to do with this case but everything to do with his judgment in general.

I'm skeptical. There are many laws on the books against illegal business practices. I doubt everyone looking to shield their corporate beneficial owners will go, "Curses! If only it wasn't for this new law!"

It's like KYC laws.

It's both preventative, and it also becomes another easy to prove charge against people circumventing it.

Probably backed by those who benefited from it, as another way to to screw young up-and-comers.

any anyone who understands how capitalism works would understand this will never change under capitalism

Why call it capitalism as opposed to a free market? 'Capital' stands for money but the 'market' pressure is why these dark patterns emerge.

Because it's not a free market with those with deep pockets manipulate the rules that get enshrined into law.

Which means there can never be a free market since there will always be people able to bribe and manipulate in order to get their way. It doesn't matter how much oversight and transparency you have, those things can be slowly chipped away overtime and replaced with laws that favor the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else. I'd love to be wrong about that, but I've never seen an example of a country where wealth had no power to influence law.

That's not capitalism or a free market, it's corrupt governance and was never an intended 'feature'

Because capitalism is an entirely different concept. Capitalism is an economic system of relations that prioritizes the right to exercise one's existing capital to accumulate more of it, hence the word capitalism. So-called "free markets" is a utopian concept that is not a requirement of capitalism and of course has never existed in any honest sense of the idea.

Free markets arguably exist in the plant and animal kingdoms.

Sure, I can accept that because it is a concept fundamentally at odds with civilization.

It's way better under socialism, where there are no up and comers.

This seems to presume that one's wealth is the only measure of individual value anyone cares about, which is just absurd. One can be wealthy beyond belief and still be an up-and-comer in many aspects of their life, and under socialism those aspects would almost certainly have more meaning. I would personally prefer wealth have less meaning and these other things have more, which makes socialism attractive to me.

In the Cold War communist bloc, individuals were wrapped up in materialism. All that mattered was things like who has a great cottage outside of town, nice apartment, or a good position in a government-owned corporation or institution, kids in a good school, .... Connections were important; they go you better cuts of meat or opportunities to shop in special stores for the elite with better (often imported) goods.

Socialism isn't communism, but it has the same fundamentals. The value of the individual is their ability to work and produce, and the individual belongs to the state for that reason.

Socialism is thoroughly materialistic. The socialist state regards itself as owning the productive capacity of its individuals, and tends to the distribution of wealth. The pariah in a socialist society is he who has the capacity for work, but instead lives off the state. Or he who dodges taxes.

Socialism is concerned with distribution of resources to satisfy human needs, and bring about an equitable society. But those needs are material needs, and the equality is material. It's not about redistributing spiritual or intellectual resources to make everyone equally spiritual or smart! It's purely about keeping everyone warm, dry, in good health and with a full stomach.

The only non-materialistic aspect of socialism is the meta level: choosing equitable materialism over inequitable. The idea that all people deserve to be reasonably well off is a different form of materialism from "I want me and my family to be well off, screw the rest" that represents much of capitalism. Socialists regard themselves as supremely virtuous due to clinging to this idea of equality. It is almost religious. There are obvious links between equality in socialism and in Christianity. The proper socialist is like a disciple of Jesus who has renounced everything spiritual, and just remembers the stories about healing the sick, feeding the multitude, and "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's".

Material sustenance predominates every other aspect of human society, so the socialists just seem to have their priorities in order when you put it that way.