United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill
Source:
The Gauardian
URL Source: http://www.theguardian.com/business ... aid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp
Published: May 27, 2015
Author: Two real reporters; C Robert Gibson and
Post Date: 2015-05-27 17:12:44 by BobCeleste
Keywords: None
Views: 3630
Comments: 40
A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax and as Congress hotly debates the biggest trade deal in a generation, its backers have turned on the cash spigot in the hopes of getting it passed. “We’re very much in the endgame,” US trade representative Michael Froman told reporters over the weekend at a meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum on the resort island of Boracay. His comments came days after TPP passed another crucial vote in the Senate. That vote, to give Barack Obama the authority to speed the bill through Congress, comes as the president’s own supporters, senior economists and a host of activists have lobbied against a pact they argue will favor big business but harm US jobs, fail to secure better conditions for workers overseas and undermine free speech online. Those critics are unlikely to be silenced by an analysis of the sudden flood of money it took to push the pact over its latest hurdle. Fast-tracking the TPP, meaning its passage through Congress without having its contents available for debate or amendments, was only possible after lots of corporate money exchanged hands with senators. The US Senate passed Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) – the fast-tracking bill – by a 65-33 margin on 14 May. Last Thursday, the Senate voted 62-38 to bring the debate on TPA to a close. Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by the world’s most well-heeled multinational corporations with just a handful of holdouts. Using data from the Federal Election Commission, this chart shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business Coalition for TPP made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate: The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received. Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway. “It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” said Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their reelection campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist. “How can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, and lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests?” Gidfar said. “As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
This can mean only one thing. Republican Whores are more expensive than whores of the party of the democrat.
Nope. No Republican voted against it. Not one. Only 12 Democrats voted for it, and they're identifiable party leaders in safe seats (like Feinstein). 53 Republicans voted for, none against. What it means is that the Republican Party, as a group, supported Fast Track, and the Democrat party opposed it. And it means that well-heeled lobbyists knew that the Republicans were their allies, and so lavished money on them to reward them, but gave Democrats short shrift. Obama wanted fast track, so the loyalists were going to vote with him. It shows corruption, and in particular the corruption of the Republican Party on this issue.
Yep. And that's ALL it means. (By the way, back in 2002 the Republican Party, as a group, supported Fast Track for President Bush and the Democrat party opposed it.) Yawn.
No, Mister White, it means a great deal more. The Republicans support free trade, strongly, to the detriment of American manufacturing. Finance does well, but the factories shut down and American workers are put onto the dole...which the Republicans are keen to cut (to keep the taxes down on the financiers). Meanwhile, the Republicans keep that Border wide open, and squash dissent within their own party to close it. Jobs that can't be exported are to be filled here by cheap, exploitable illegal labor, labor that doesn't have legal recourse because it is illegal. The Republican game is completely transparent. Retired folks who "got theirs" like it. People who have to work and provide for their families don't. And that's what gives the Democrats a persistent electoral advantage over time. The Republicans used to have the Christians, but they've divided that group and now they don't. They used to have the Reagan Democrats. No more. Now they've got financiers, who, naturally, pay the Republicans to enact free trade legislation: good for them, bad for most Americans. They don't care. That's ALL it means. It means that the Republicans are the party of the rich, and acting perfectly in character. But time was that they had large contingent of duped rubes: religious, military, nationalistic and, even workers (who thought they'd protect them against foreign dumping and illegals. But the GOP has given the finger to all those groups. They've dwindled in ranks to the rich and elite, and they're going to start losing election after election on account of it.
Can't tell the difference any more. Both parties are equally corrupt and evil.
You tell 'em, Comrade. Keep voting Democrat and we all can be like Baltimore, Detroit, Camden, New Orleans, etc. Yea, three cheers for the Democrat vision for the U.S. and the miracle of liberalism.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Too many ersatz corporate CEOs are in a hurry to destroy this country for the sake of temporary profits and bogus fleeting reputation as money makers with the help of members of congress. The country be damned.
i do not vote Democrat. They're babykillers.
My wife asked me one day as we were driving across the country and were looking at the Chem trails. She asked "Don't they know they are killing their won kids too?" I'll tell you the same thing I told her. "they don't care, all they care about is money, power and having 11 to 13 year old boys and girls available for their sexual pleasure."
Meanwhile, the Republicans keep that Border wide open, and squash dissent within their own party to close it. Jobs that can't be exported are to be filled here by cheap, exploitable illegal labor, labor that doesn't have legal recourse because it is illegal. The Republican game is completely transparent. Retired folks who "got theirs" like it. People who have to work and provide for their families don't. And that's what gives the Democrats a persistent electoral advantage over time. The Republicans used to have the Christians, but they've divided that group and now they don't. They used to have the Reagan Democrats. No more. Now they've got financiers, who, naturally, pay the Republicans to enact free trade legislation: good for them, bad for most Americans. They don't care. That's ALL it means. It means that the Republicans are the party of the rich, and acting perfectly in character. But time was that they had large contingent of duped rubes: religious, military, nationalistic and, even workers (who thought they'd protect them against foreign dumping and illegals. But the GOP has given the finger to all those groups. They've dwindled in ranks to the rich and elite, and they're going to start losing election after election on account of it. All of that is in the Fast Track Authority given to Obama? Wow! OK. I give up. What's in Obama's trade agreement that you don't like? What's that? You say the agreement hasn't even been written yet? Well then, WTF are you rambling about?
Well then, WTF are you rambling about? That's right, it's all there. Crony capitalists lard money into Republican pockets to give expedited and secret (and easier) political passage to secret treaties that will ultimately put Americans out of work, just like all of the other treaties of this sort have in our lifetimes. We all know this. But Republicans like you try to play games and pretend that we don't know. Oh, but we DO know, and we're on to your games. All we need to do is look to see how much money was larded on Republicans to vote for tricky trade legislation, and how they moved as a bloc. We know from experience with Republicans since the administration of Ulysses S Grant to this very day that Republicans are corrupt crony capitalists. It's who they are. It's what they do. So we know, without reading the secret treaty, that it's in their interest, and not in ours, because it NEVER is.
Ooooooh. A secret treaty. Really? Congress is going to vote on a treaty that's a secret?
Yes. When you boil it all down to its essence, that's exactly what they're going to do.
Once negotiations are finished, the trade agreement will be written up as a bill which must be introduced to Congress as soon as they're in session. They have 60 days to vote on it as is -- up or down. During this time, the bill will be in the public domain, and you can let your representatives know how you feel. Now, what in hell are you talking about -- Congress voting on some secret trade deal. What's wrong with you?
During this time, the bill will be in the public domain, and you can let your representatives know how you feel. The Senate is a body that requires supermajorities to pass things. There are plenty of provisions of this trade deal already cooked, but this is all kept secret from the public for now. Instead, Congress goes ahead and removes supermajority voting from it, and grants blanket authority to the President, all so a trade deal that would be blocked in the Senate will pass. It's a shell game played by crony capitalists. We've seen this game before. It's what Republicans do.
Yes. According to current Senate rules. It hasn't always been that way, and nothing requires it to be that way. "There are plenty of provisions of this trade deal already cooked" On a bill that can't be amended, wouldn't it be smart for the President and Congress to agree to as many things ahead of time as possible? "all so a trade deal that would be blocked in the Senate will pass." Are you a Democrat or are you feeling sorry for Democrats? They're the ones who don't want this.
Yep. And that's ALL it means. (By the way, back in 2002 the Republican Party, as a group, supported Fast Track for President Bush and the Democrat party opposed it.) Yawn. That's not all it means. The constitutional requirement for ratification of treaties is a two thirds vote in the Senate. This "Fast Track" BS changes that to a simple majority. You cannot change the Constitution by writing a law. The Constitution would have to be amended for this crock of shyt to be legal.
We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
Yes. According to current Senate rules. It hasn't always been that way, and nothing requires it to be that way. except for the U.S. Constitution.
We used to be a land where we gave up our lives to protect our freedom. Now we give up our freedom to protect our lives.
Only at certain times. The rest of the times the Senate makes their own rules.
If the trade agreement was a treaty, yes. But trade agreements are almost always passed as Congressional-Executive Agreements, which only require a simple majority in both houses.
I am not a Democrat. But the Democrats are dead right on wanting to block the export of American industrial jobs abroad, and they've been right about it all along.
Agreements with foreign nations are treaties. In order to evade the Constitution, we've made up names for some treaties, pretending that if we don't call them "treaties", they aren't. We've done the same thing with "war". The last "war" America fought was World War II. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Terror? Not "wars", because we didn't "declare them". "Police actions", "Overseas Operations", "Armed Interventions"...all sorts of clever words...all intended to evade the Constitution. We've been very effective at doing that: evading the Constitution through artful constructions of language, which then let us do whatever the hell we please. Unfortunately for us, we're not all that smart. All of those "police actions" ended up costing us about $2 trillion dollars, 100,000 lives and 500,000 limbs, for nothing. Evading the treaty provisions evades the people's ability to resist bad agreements, so our industrial base has been severely damaged, and the welfare and food stamp rolls have exploded. You are free, of course, to go ahead and ridicule me all you like. Truth is, we're living in a nest that was fouled by game-players like you. To me, words mean things, and the intent of the Constitution on both war and treaties was clear: to make them hard to do, because you have to openly discuss them, and get large majorities of the public to agree. The public has to see the need. And the public WOULDN'T have agreed to most of our police actions, or to most of the treaties that are foisted off as "executive agreements" to evade the Constitution. And the public was right all along. The police actions and executive agreement treaties have all ended up damaging the nation.
Then why do they support unions, which drive up the cost of manufacturing here? Why do they support oppressive EPA regulations? OSHA regulations? Affirmative action and quotas? A "living" wage? High corporate taxes? Our horrible tort laws? Illegal immigration? Democrats want to impose all these things on local manufacturers AND block them from escaping. If the Democrats really wanted to keep jobs here they'd change our laws to make manufacturing here attractive.
Stick with trade and make a point, huh? Next time you wander off and go on a tirade about "police actions" or somesuch, I'm not going to respond. A) Congress has an opportunity to vote on the trade bill the President presents. We'll all see it, and we can tell our representatives how we feel about it. Also, their votes will be public. B) Rather than just 2/3 of the Senate approving a treaty, Obama needs 51% of both the House and the Senate -- currently controlled by Republicans -- to pass a congressional-executive agreement. C) Since this is an executive trade agreement and not a treaty, it expires when Obama leaves office -- if that's what the next President chooses to do. It has nowhere near the solidity of a treaty. Admit it. You don't care about constitutionality. You simply don't like the trade bill -- despite not knowing what's in it.
It's been fun to watch Obama and Warren argue over this bill in press conferences and such on TV. Warren is claiming that the details of this bill are secret making to hard to debate them in public, which she really means is to turn public opinion against it over certain details. Obama is just denying her specific claims are about it. It sounds like when they are released to debate publically it will be like OBamacare, few will know what's in it until after its passed. Senate GOP working with Obama on this.
Warren sounds like a woman scorned, a woman cast aside for a guy.
Because before unions, employers oppressed people horribly, and the law - being provided by legislatures bought and paid for by crony capitalists - did nothing. So workers banded together collectively to protect themselves. That's why we have things like weekends and maximum working hours, regular vacations, workers compensation for injuries and the like. Employers never gave those things voluntarily. and the government was as corrupt as ever. That's why Democrats support Unions. And so do I.
You promise?
Obama called her a 'politician' on TV in smacking her down on her criticism of this bill. He played the same holier than thou act he plays against Republicans. Its nice to see libs fight each other for change.
The point is the same: government is corrupt, and it is manipulated by powerful crony capitalist interests to suit the wants of narrow minorities at the expense of the good of the general public. It's been true with trade and war. The point is the same.
THAT I will admit. I don't care about constitutionality much. The Constitution has never been protective of the rights of vast numbers of people, and its application has been so uneven and corrupt that it's essentially a cypher - an empty shell into which arguments are fit. As far as not liking the trade bill - you're right. "Free" trade has been a disaster for working people. And this is going to be more of the same. If it were not, the whole Republican Party in Congress would not have been so heavily bribed to pass fast track.
That explains the formation of unions 100 years ago. It does not justify their existence today. Unions across the country are destroying jobs and forcing manufacturers out of the country. The Teamsters put 19,000 people out of work at Hostess, forcing them into Chapter 11 bankruptcy. They were then bought, emerged from bankruptcy, and re-opened plants -- non-union. And that's in the private sector. Public sector unions are forcing cities (and soon, states) into bankruptcy.
Then argue one.
Voting Republican is voting for Democrats. The Republican party wants to import tens of millions of Democrat voters, it is an evolutionary dead end because it engages in suicidal behavior. Just like a species that turns queer, and then goes extinct out because it fails to reproduce.
Free trade points out what happens when consumers have a choice. I don't want to spend $2,500 for an iPhone built in the U.S. by some union thug making $60 an hour in wages and benefits. Maybe he can afford it. I can't.
Yes, but, Warren sounds like a woman scorned, a woman cast aside for a guy.
You would not spend $2500. It's a ridiculous number. You would spend more on consumer goods, and less on welfare, food stamps and Medicaid taxes, because the people who get those benefits would, instead, be working and paid out of the profit on the more expensive phone. Instead, we put the workers out, spend a fortune on welfare to provide for them, and put profits in the hands of Chinese exporters, who use them to build aircraft carriers and offshore islands to fight us. The phone that cost you $150 would probably cost you $275 if it were made in the USA, and your tax bill would be lower. And the Chinese wouldn't have their fleet. Net-net, you're better off to look after your own people first. If you hate your fellow Americans and would rather enrich Chinese Communists, well, that's why you're a Republican.
I am. I am arguing what the subject is ultimately all about: jobs and shifts of money and power. You want me to stay confined onto the narrow, sterile little battlefield you've chosen. And if you got to set the rules in the world, that's where we would fight it out. But you don't. So you argue on your chosen ground, and I'll argue mine. On a mostly Republican website, most people will agree with you. Stepping out into the real world of America, most Americans see my point and agree with me. But what most Americans want is not what rules the roost in America. The corrupt, bought-and-paid-for government does that.
No, the subject is about "how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill." You want to talk about something else, start another thread.
Bingo! Now you understand.
#2. To: BobCeleste (#1)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
"What it means is that the Republican Party, as a group, supported Fast Track, and the Democrat party opposed it."
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
#5. To: BobCeleste (#1)
Republican Whores are more expensive than whores of the party of the democrat.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#6. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite, All (#4)
But time was that they had large contingent of duped rubes: religious, military, nationalistic and, even workers (who thought they'd protect them against foreign dumping and illegals.
#7. To: BobCeleste (#1)
(Edited)
# Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 “yea” votes. # The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters. # The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.
#8. To: SOSO (#6)
#9. To: rlk (#7)
oo many ersatz corporate CEOs are in a hurry to destroy this country for the sake of temporary profits and bogus fleeting reputation as money makers with the help of members of congress. The country be damned.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
No, Mister White, it means a great deal more. The Republicans support free trade, strongly, to the detriment of American manufacturing. Finance does well, but the factories shut down and American workers are put onto the dole...which the Republicans are keen to cut (to keep the taxes down on the financiers).
#11. To: misterwhite (#10)
All of that is in the Fast Track Authority given to Obama?
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
"secret treaties"
#13. To: misterwhite (#12)
Ooooooh. A secret treaty. Really? Congress is going to vote on a treaty that's a secret?
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
"When you boil it all down to its essence, that's exactly what they're going to do."
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
Once negotiations are finished, the trade agreement will be written up as a bill which must be introduced to Congress as soon as they're in session. They have 60 days to vote on it as is -- up or down.
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
The Senate is a body that requires supermajorities to pass things.
#17. To: misterwhite (#3)
To: Vicomte13 "What it means is that the Republican Party, as a group, supported Fast Track, and the Democrat party opposed it."
#18. To: misterwhite (#16)
The Senate is a body that requires supermajorities to pass things.
#19. To: We The People (#18)
"except for the U.S. Constitution."
#20. To: We The People (#17)
"The constitutional requirement for ratification of treaties is a two thirds vote in the Senate."
#21. To: misterwhite (#16)
#22. To: misterwhite (#20)
If the trade agreement was a treaty, yes.
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
"But the Democrats are dead right on wanting to block the export of American industrial jobs abroad"
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
"And the public WOULDN'T have agreed to most of our police actions, or to most of the treaties that are foisted off as "executive agreements" to evade the Constitution."
#25. To: BobCeleste (#0)
#26. To: TrappedInMd (#25)
#27. To: misterwhite (#23)
Then why do they support unions,
#28. To: misterwhite (#24)
Next time you wander off and go on a tirade about "police actions" or somesuch, I'm not going to respond.
#29. To: BobCeleste (#26)
Warren sounds like a woman scorned, a woman cast aside for a guy
#30. To: misterwhite (#24)
Stick with trade and make a point, huh? Next time you wander off and go on a tirade about "police actions" or somesuch,
#31. To: misterwhite (#24)
Admit it. You don't care about constitutionality. You simply don't like the trade bill -- despite not knowing what's in it.
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
"So workers banded together collectively to protect themselves."
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
"The point is the same."
#34. To: SOSO (#6)
You tell 'em, Comrade. Keep voting Democrat and we all can be like Baltimore, Detroit, Camden, New Orleans, etc.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
"Free" trade has been a disaster for working people.
#36. To: TrappedInMd (#29)
Obama called her a 'politician' on TV in smacking her down on her criticism of this bill. He played the same holier than thou act he plays against Republicans. Its nice to see libs fight each other for change.
#37. To: misterwhite (#35)
I don't want to spend $2,500 for an iPhone built in the U.S. by some union thug making $60 an hour in wages and benefits. Maybe he can afford it. I can't.
#38. To: misterwhite (#33)
Then argue one.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
"I am arguing what the subject is ultimately all about: jobs and shifts of money and power."
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
"You would not spend $2500."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]