That doesn't really address the question they asked, which is more about whether or not it should be illegal rather than whether or not it is consistent. Your

That doesn't really address the question they asked, which is more about whether or not it should be illegal rather than whether or not it is consistent. Your earlier comment justified it being illegal on the grounds that US companies bribing foreign governments is anti-competitive against other US companies that do not do so. That's an economic justification, not a moral justification. But if we are considering it economically rather than morally then we do have to consider what happens in the case of a foreign country where bribery is common and there are companies other than US companies that are competing there. In that case not allowing US companies to bribe does indeed level competition among US companies--they all lose equally to non-US companies. Is that actually a better economic outcome than allowing US companies to bribe (and thus compete with foreign companies) in countries where bribery is normal? That's a complicated question. It also might be a national security question if we continue heading into a new cold war kind of world. Is it better to have US companies operating in countries the US would like to influence even if those companies have to bribe to do so, or for US companies to stay out and cede influence to companies from countries on the others sides of that cold war?