two different viewpoint re the subject.
NYTimes article:
these criminal networks have extended their operations far beyond drug trafficking and human smuggling. They are now embedded in a wide swath of the legal economy, from avocado farming to the country’s billion-dollar tourism industry, making it hard to be absolutely sure that American companies are isolated from cartel activities.
The foreign terrorist designation could lead to severe penalties — including substantial fines, asset seizures and criminal charges — on companies and individuals found to be paying ransom or extortion payments.
The guts of the argument has two pieces. One is that some industries so depend on cartel, erm, assistance that they can’t get rid of at any time soone except at high cost. So these activities fit the Ambrose Bierce definition of partners. From his The Devil’s Dictionary:
Partners: When two thieves have their hands so deeply plunged into each other’s pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third party.
The second leg is the ambit of the terrorist definition is so sweeping that parties that one ought to consider too removed could be swept up in it. That will result in innocents being harmed, with the Times of course being particularly concerned about innocent businesses.