2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDemocratic platform fight over TPP will show what democracy we really have
Mark Weißbrot
Politico
The venue is the Democratic Party platform committee and the main event is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If that sounds like inside baseball, it could easily become the World Series of this year's presidential race. And if presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is smart, she will reconsider her bet.
The TPP, a commercial agreement among 12 countries with 40 percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP), is strongly disliked by the base of the Democratic Party, as well as by a sizable majority of Democratic voters and the general public. There's an awful lot not to like about this thing.
Drafted mostly by corporations, negotiated in secret, with restricted access even for members of Congress, the deal would grant corporations the right to sue governments for all kinds of decisions, laws or regulations that infringe on their profits or potential profits. The lawsuits would be decided by a panel of private lawyers and their decisions could overrule our Congress and Supreme Court: The overlapping issues of national sovereignty and democracy are once again brought to the fore. Patent-boosting rules favored by pharmaceutical companies would increase the price of prescription drugs. And the economic gains, even as estimated by pro-TPP economists, are tiny: By their estimates, the agreement would make the U.S. as rich on January 1, 2030 as it would otherwise be by mid-March of the same year.
That is one reason why the Democratic platform is so crucial in this case: It will be difficult for Clinton, as president, to lobby Democrats for an agreement that the party is on the record as opposing; and there will be more pressure for Democrats in Congress to vote against it.
If Clinton's representatives on the full, 187-member platform committee in Orlando once again keep the Democratic Party from opposing the TPP, her responsibility for that outcome will be clear. It will be seized upon by her otherwise not-very-credible opponent.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton lost her first bid for the presidency in large part due to her support for a deeply unpopular cause: the Iraq War. Will she risk making the same mistake for this corporate power grab called the TPP?
Yep
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I find it to be amazing. It is blatantly undemocratic.
TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)Is they keep the vote open until they can bribe and threaten enough congress people to get the thing passed. I suppose that would be democracy because then you get your way.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)No way this should ever be in the platform of any party.
brooklynite
(94,331 posts)TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)Did you think I meant black people or something? I know you like to come into any thread and call anyone that disagrees with you a racist no matter what the subject.
brooklynite
(94,331 posts)I DO however note that people who complain about THEY (with insinuations -- or outright claims -- or corruption) frequently seem to be referring to the Democratic President and Democratic Party leadership.
TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)There's actually a couple people like that, anyway, to deny there's corruption on both sides is lunacy. I still believe there is more on the 'R' side and TPP will get more 'R' votes but it's disappointing that there's more than a handful of Dems that are pushing TPP.
let me also note, I don't think President Obama is corrupt or anything with wanting TPP. I think he's been sold a bill of goods and he's wrong on this one.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The real issue being pushed by progressives like Bernie Sanders and Jim Hightower is to add this plank to the platform:
It's the lame-duck vote that would be anti-democratic. If the TPP is such a great idea, let them vote it up or down before the election. Then the voters can take each legislator's vote into account when deciding whether to return him or her to office.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)In a fundraising email sent days before the Democratic National Committee's full platform committee votes on the 2016 draft in Orlando, Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver shared the specific language of the amendment he would like to see inserted.
The amendment reads, "It is the policy of the Democratic Party that the Trans-Pacific Partnership must not get a vote in this Congress or in future sessions of Congress."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/07/bernie-sanders-trade-platform-225133
You probably don't want to duel with me....
I always have the facts/links ready to go...
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You obviously relish a self-image as someone no one dares to "duel with" because you're always oh so well informed and armed with links.
In this instance, you blithely overlook the troublesome detail that I also provided a link, one that you choose to ignore completely.
So let's recap:
* Your link from July 5 refers to proposed platform language but your link also notes Sanders's view that "there are more tweaks that need to be made to the party platform."
* My link from July 7 states, "Texas populist Jim Hightower will present the Democratic Party platform committee with a Bernie Sanders-sponsored amendment to the draft platform...." That link gives the specific language that the Sanders forces will actually propose at tomorrow's meeting, language that's different from what's in your earlier link:
It's pretty clear what happened here. Weaver sent out the email that you cite, but thereafter there was further discussion about the issue within the Sanders camp. Preparatory to the hoped-for tweaking of the platform, therefore, Sanders tweaked his own proposal. He toned it down from an opposition to any vote so that it was instead an opposition to, specifically, a lame-duck vote.
As an aside, I don't think opposition to any vote at all is necessarily anti-democratic. My recollection is that, when the Democrats had the Senate majority, Harry Reid didn't allow votes on a whole raft of idiotic right-wing bills that came from the House, including the first few dozen repeals of Obamacare. Reid's bottlenecking of the Tea Party rubbish met with general approval on DU. If the best way to kill the TPP is to not vote on it at all, I'm fine with that.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Thank you in advance.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You quoted the July 5 version as reported by The Politico. I quoted the July 7 version as reported by Common Dreams.
Your source is generally considered more right-wing but I'll credit that they weren't outright making stuff up, at least on a subject that could readily be checked. Therefore, my working assumption is that both reports were accurate when written.
On that basis, I feel no inclination to try find something that might be considered a more direct link for either statement. The committee will meet tomorrow and make a decision one way or the other, so, at this point, what does it matter? 
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Jim Hightower, a Sanders delegate in Orlando, plans to offer an amendment to the platform stating, “It is the policy of the Democratic Party that the Trans-Pacific Partnership must not get a vote in this Congress or in future sessions of Congress.”
https://berniesanders.com/700000-people-call-democratic-party-reject-pacific-trade-deal/
How about that source, Jimmy?
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That would mean the plank being advocated would say that TPP should never be voted on. That seems undemocratic to me.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)brouhaha was being openly attacked most from his Left flank.
Result?
Democracy won anyway, by 65,915,796 votes. That there is democracy in action.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)So you think that the platform should say let's bring a whole host of things we disagree with to a vote? Let's have a vote on the death penalty for theft. Let's have a vote to ban all abortions. Let's have a vote to abolish the income tax. Would it be undemocratic to suggest that these things not be voted on? Then why is it undemocratic to say that a shitty trade deal not be voted on?
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Or do you intend to disarm legitimate criticism of the GOP's unprecedented behavior by adopting it too?
There is nothing about the idea of Democrats putting misguided opposition to the Constitutional legislative process into its party platform that is good or positive.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)but thank you for engaging.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)My post is plain English and straight-forward. I'm calling you out on the fact that the American public doesn't like politicians who don't do their job and who prevent votes on things they don't like. It's a bad idea for Democrats to adopt the same behavior, and they won't, thankfully.
Clear enough?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)But your non-response to my question is noted. I asked how it is anti-democratic to oppose a vote on a shit idea an you failed to respond. I will take that as an affirmative, that you think our platform should demand a vote on all shit ideas we oppose. Noted and strongly disagreed.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That's an obviously anti-democratic concept that Repukes have since applied to every other subject that comes up in the Senate. Democrats should not adopt this practice.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)For years, people of all stripes have opposed scheduling votes on bills they oppose. It's the same reason people who oppose certain proposed referenda don't sign petitions to get it on the ballot and why neither Democrats nor Republicans volunteer to help get independents who who don't meet filing requirements onto general election ballots. There are more than 2000 bills introduced in each and every Congress. Less than 10% ever get a vote. MOCs fight to get bills they support to the floor, and to keep bills they oppose from reaching the floor. This has nothing to do with "repukes" and everything to do with common sense--keep things you oppose as far away from becoming law as possible.
If you think I am wrong, try watching a Rules Committee hearing and see how many times the Ds on the committee vote to advance to the floor bills they oppose. The answer will be zero. But thank you for your views.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That's a very new and very anti-democracy thing.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)And this discussion isn't about scoring. Nice try at trying to change the subject, which is that the TPP doesn't deserve a vote, and for the history of time, people who opposed bad ideas have worked to prevent votes to advance those bad ideas.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)You should learn details about what you are supporting before you support it.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The most important issues our nation faces are the ones most in need of being settled by the regular political process rather than by blocking votes.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Corporate control of our democracy. And the TPP would enshrine it further. Hilarious that you don't respond to the point about congressional Dems voting no on rules and cloture. What, congressional Dems don't support democracy?
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)The content is the bill being blocked is irrelevant. That answers your question.
So... Why are you trying to adopt GOP tactics?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Please tell me one time when Democrats demanded as a matter of party policy a vote on a bill they opposed. No one supports votes on policies they oppose -- this is why people don;t sign petitions to get referenda on the ballot if they oppose those referenda.
Also, accusing people of "adopting GOP tactics" is expressly against DU policy.
Your argument is unconvincing to put it mildly.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)"No one supports votes on policies they oppose"
In a democracy, they do. A democratic system is not set up to allow only votes that one faction or one group favors. What you're talking about is a minority of people holding the entire system hostage because they don't like the idea that people they don't like might get something they want. The Democrats have been putting up with the GOP doing it for years now.
The point is to win the vote, not suppress dissent. And there's no victory in becoming a monster just to beat another one.
Maybe this argument works on the JPR shitshow, but not here. And since I'm done debating the merit of GOP tactics under the Democratic banner, enjoy your free Ignore.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Have you even watched CSPAN or CSPAN 2? Dems in the House votes against the rule when they oppose the underlying bill. If the rule fails, the bill doesn't get a vote. Likewise, Dems in the senate oppose cloture when they oppose the underlying bill. Grow up and stop accusing people who disagree with you of using 'GOP tactics.' Such characterizations are themselves undemocratic. Why don't you debate the merits of advancing special legal rights for corporations instead of calling me a Republican for not even wanting such a dangerous idea to even get a vote.
Your rhetoric is sadly ineffective. No one is cowed by your insults.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)Then use the Constitutionally prescribed treaty process but you won't push for legitimate deliberation because it makes getting the treason passed a lot more difficult.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Keeps us from having to rely on the baseless opinions of modern know-nothings.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)TPP was created in back room deals and secrecy
"Two copies of the biggest free trade deal in history are sitting in reading rooms -- one at each end of the Capitol.
The document is classified. Only members of Congress and staffers with security clearance can access it. And they can't make copies or even carry their own handwritten notes out the door."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politics/trade-deal-secrecy-tpp/
"I've worked with the Clinton administration and I've worked with the Bush administration. And this administration is more secretive," said Thea Lee, the deputy chief of staff for the AFL-CIO, which is spearheading the left's opposition to the deal -- even though it's being negotiated by a Democratic administration under President Barack Obama.
"It's only in recent months, though, that Congress has taken increased interest in the negotiations.
From 2012 through March 2015, Froman's office kept the negotiating text of the deal itself and provided briefings to every lawmaker that requested one. In that time period, three senators and 40 House members took them up on the offer.
Once Democratic opposition increased, Froman's office -- at the behest of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- moved the text into reading rooms at the Capitol, where it's available to lawmakers any time they want to review it.
But members of Congress have howled that the text is so dense, and riddled with jargon, that their trade staffers should be able to leave with it and review it."
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)It wasn't while it was being written. For five years it was negotiated in secret. Now that it cannot be changed, fixed, or amended, it is public. That is not helpful. No other bill that will become a law is done in this manner. The citizens always have a chance to fight for amendments, but not this time.
And that is bunch of self-serving crap that "critics don't read it." In my experience, proponents don't read it. They read Third Way's summaries and have no idea that the "exceptions" in the Investment chapter aren't legally binding or that trade in goods made with forced labor isn't actually "prohibited" or that the "first ever currency provisions" aren't even in the deal. Quit insulting people you haven't even met.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)workers little more than scabs, not to mention those who blame trends that started decades before on NAFTA or similar trade agreements.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)"nationalist" and "America First"? Where does your contempt for your fellow democrats and progressives end?
Consider:
Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman:
“t’s hard to avoid the conclusion that growing U.S. trade with Third World countries reduces
the real wages of many and perhaps most workers in this country. . . . I am arguing for an end
to the finger-wagging, the accusation either of not understanding economics or of kowtowing
to special interests that tends to be the editorial response to politicians who express skepticism
about the benefits of free-trade agreements.
“It’s often claimed that limits on trade benefit only a small number of Americans, while hurting
the vast majority. That’s still true of things like the import quota on sugar. But when it comes to
manufactured goods, it’s at least arguable that the reverse is true.”
MIT Professor David Autor:
“The reality of adjustment to the China trade shock has been far different. Employment has
certainly fallen in U.S. industries more exposed to import competition. But so, too, has overall
employment in the local labor markets in which these industries were concentrated. Offsetting
employment gains either in export-oriented tradables or in nontradables have, for the most part,
failed to materialize. . . .
“Without question, a worker’s position in the wage distribution is indicative of her exposure to
import competition. In response to a given trade shock, a lower-wage employee experiences
larger proportionate reductions in annual and lifetime earnings, a diminished ability to exit a job
before an adverse shock hits, and a greater likelihood of exiting the labor market, relative to her
higher-wage co-worker.”
Nobel Prize Winner and former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz:
“Even the way Obama argued for the new trade agreement showed how out of touch with
the emerging global economy his administration is. He repeatedly said that the TPP would
determine who—America or China—would write the twenty-first century’s trade rules. The
correct approach is to arrive at such rules collectively, with all voices heard, and in a transparent
way. Obama has sought to perpetuate business as usual, whereby the rules governing global
trade and investment are written by U.S. corporations for U.S. corporations. This should be
unacceptable to anyone committed to democratic principles.
“Those seeking closer economic integration have a special responsibility to be strong advocates
of global governance reforms: if authority over domestic policies is ceded to supranational
bodies, then the drafting, implementation and enforcement of the rules and regulations has
to be particularly sensitive to democratic concerns. . . . In 2016, we should hope for the TPP’s
defeat and the beginning of a new era of trade agreements that don’t reward the powerful and
punish the weak.”
Harvard Professor Dani Rodrik:
“Globalization has not lifted all boats. Many working families have been devastated by the
impact of low-cost imports from China and elsewhere. And the big winners have been the
financiers and skilled professionals who can take advantage of expanded markets. While
globalization has not been the sole (or even the most important) force driving inequality in the
advanced economies, it has been a contributor.”
Former Secretary of Labor and NAFTA advocate in the Bill Clinton administration, Robert Reich:
“I used to believe in trade agreements. That was before the wages of most Americans
stagnated and a relative few at the top captured just about all the economic gains.
“The old-style trade agreements of the 1960s and 1970s increased worldwide demand for
products made by American workers, and thereby helped push up American wages.
“The new-style agreements increase worldwide demand for products made by American
corporations all over the world, enhancing corporate and financial profits but keeping American
wages down."
Source: http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/175130/4162962/version/1/file/16162_TU_PROGRAM-fin.pdf
But everyone who disagrees with you is an uninformed nationalist huh? I guess you know more than lots of Nobel prize winners, huh?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The Sierra Club falls to recognize the Paris Accord was being negotiated at same time and that trade agreements shouldn't be expected to solve every problem we face. AFL-CIO sees foreign workers as competition and scabs, and does not act like an International union because the potential dues are not attractive.
think
(11,641 posts)to harass and even murder workers there.
Your view of the situation is rather bizarre and unrealistic to say the LEAST.
https://www.thenation.com/article/its-real-thing-murder/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-02/chiquita-executives-must-face-claims-over-colombian-torture
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/183909-afl-cio-sends-list-of-killed-colombian-labor-leaders-to-obama
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Global-Action/Murder-Strikes-Guatemalan-Banana-Workers-Union-Again
Snip~
Until around 1990 Colombian trade unions were among the strongest in Latin America.[1] However the 1980s expansion of paramilitarism in Colombia saw trade union leaders and members increasingly targeted for assassination, and as a result Colombia has been the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists for several decades.[2][3][4] Between 2000 and 2010 Colombia accounted for 63.12% of trade unionists murdered globally.[5] According to the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) there were 2832 murders of trade unionists between 1 January 1986 and 30 April 2010,[5] meaning that "on average, men and women trade unionists in Colombia have been killed at the rate of one every three days over the last 23 years."[6] Other sources give figures of around 4000 trade union members killed from the mid-1980s to 2008.[7]
According to a 2007 Amnesty International report, in 2005 "around 49 percent of human rights abuses against trade unionists were committed by paramilitaries and some 43 percent directly by the security forces."[8] The Colombian parapolitics scandal revealed widespread links between the government and the paramilitaries. The ITUC in 2010 concluded that "the historical and structural violence against the Colombian trade union movement remains firmly in place, manifesting itself in the form of systematic human and trade union rights violations."[6] From 1986 to 2009, Antioquia Department saw the highest number of murders (46% of the total),[9] while the agricultural workers' union Sintrainagro was the most targeted union (at 844, 31% of the total).[10]
There are reports that US corporations in Colombia have actively colluded with paramilitaries in order to reduce union activity. Besides acknowledged payments from multinationals to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) (Doe v. Chiquita Brands International), "Trade unionists have been particularly targeted by the paramilitaries, and most of the violence has been directed at leaders of unions of multinational corporations."[11] In 2001 the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund sued Coca-Cola and its Colombian suppliers in a Miami court on behalf of food workers union Sinaltrainal (Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola); the case was dismissed in 2006. A similar suit regarding another US company, Estate of Rodriquez v. Drummond Co., was dismissed in 2007.
Read more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_Colombia
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)The AFL-CIO is a member of the International Trade Union Confederation and fights for the rights of all working people, both in the US and globally. Try taking a look at it's website rather than mouth right wing anti-union talking points, which are not within the new rules of this site. Better yet, I'll do your research for you, since you seem unlikely to proactively seek out the truth.
http://www.aflcio.org/Learn-About-Unions/Global-Labor-Movement
http://www.aflcio.org/About/Global-Unions
http://www.aflcio.org/content/download/174525/4153892/1628_TPPLaborRightsReport.pdf
http://www.ituc-csi.org/colombia-us-trade-agreement-faces?lang=en
http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/final-official_ituc_transpacific_partnership_labor_chapter.pdf
And your comments about the Sierra Club are equally off-base. Trade deals can contain provisions requiring countries to abise by international climate agreements or they can ignore climate and instead allow polluting corporations to game the system, producing in high carbon-emitting countries without paying any penalty. The TPP does the latter, which undermines carbon goals as well as jobs.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to punish poor countries trying to progress who can't afford all the pollution protections we can. I'm sorry, that is wrong. Besides, have you even read the damn agreement's provisions regarding environment, and the Paris Accord?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)The best you've got is "I bet you haven't read the agreement," which is a sadly weak argument when it comes to me. I have read it. Have you? I assume yes or otherwise you shouldn't be arguing that which you do not know. Sadly for you, you assume wrongly that I haven't. Pathetic.
For those of us who do read before we argue, we know that TPP's environmental provisions are worse than the Bush era provisions and do indeed threaten to exacerbate global climate change, including undermining any US attempts to comply with the Paris Accord.
Here is a shortcut for you: https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/20857-assessing-the-tpp-environmental-chapter
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)That's how the writing process works. 
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Pay attention to legislating much? The ACA was public for over a year. Had five public markups with several amendments and that was one bil.
You may be interested to know that there is a thing called Congress.gov where you can read every bill introduced and write your congress person about to suggest amendments.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)What international agreement or treaty has ever had its negotiations in public?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)All talks at the World Intellectual Property Organization.
Many talks at the World Trade Organization.
The Rio + 20 Talks.
I could go on but you get the point. The USTR's talking point that all international talks are secret is demonstrably false. And even if it were true, it wouldn't make it right. The argument that something should be done the way it has always been done is a conservative argument, not a progressive one.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Platforms are for principles and goals, not pending specifics.
More Dems support it than oppose it. The second paragraph is false.
Irrevocable commitments about things which may change are asinine.
Platforms generally don't take massive swipes at the priorities of popular sitting presidents of their own party.
The TPP will merely add parameters around trade we already engage in. There will be no new trading nations or opportunities for offshoring than we already have. Isolationism isn't just a silly idea it's a dead one.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)That will be a "new opportunity to offshore" because corporations like to offshore to places where they push around governments with ISDS.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts) TheFarseer
(9,317 posts)So go ahead and roll your eyes if you want to open the door for him. I'd prefer to slam it shut and make a good decision for our country.
840high
(17,196 posts)who feel the way I do - NO TPP.
Qutzupalotl
(14,286 posts)The TPP needs to be drowned in the bathtub.
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)have to be an agreement. And is actually has to be agreed on. We cannot stand with Nafta, to old and needs fixed. (from what I am understanding). But, there also has to be an agreement made and we want it to be the Dems that make the agreement. Give it to Warren.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Because fast-track passed (over Warren's negative vote), the TPP can't be amended in any way. A member of Congress who finds the current version unacceptable has no alternative but to vote it down.
Conceivably, a rejection by Congress might prompt the other signatory countries to return to the negotiating table to try to amend the agreement to be acceptable to the United States -- but I doubt it. They'd probably be pretty ticked off at that point, and be unwilling to reopen negotiations that lasted for several years.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)That's not remotely how international negotiations work.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)The TPP doesn't "fix" NAFTA. NAFTA will remain fully, legally intact and enforceable. The TPP goes much farther than NAFTA and contains provisions far worse than NAFTA in regard to things like special privileges for banks and pharmaceutical companies. Chapter 11 cases like the one Trans Canada is bringing against the US right now will continue unabated. There does not "have" to be an agreement. There is no reason to enter into closer, permanent trade relations with Vietnam, a country that does not recognize freedom of speech, assembly, organization, or religion, and pays workers 65 cents an hour. Making them grant these rights before we grant trade benefits is the way to go. The TPP doesn't do that.
pampango
(24,692 posts)It is disliked by a sizable majority of republican voters.
Since a majority of Democrats and a popular Democratic president do support it while many other Democras oppose it, the platform should reflect this diversity of opinion.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/07/clinton-picks-warren-the-tpp-is-dead.html
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts) think
(11,641 posts)by Mike Masnick
Mon, Jun 8th 2015 9:29am
Back in 2013, we wrote about a FOIA lawsuit that was filed by William New at IP Watch. After trying to find out more information on the TPP by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and being told that they were classified as "national security information" (no, seriously), New teamed up with Yale's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic to sue. As part of that lawsuit, the USTR has now released a bunch of internal emails concerning TPP negotiations, and IP Watch has a full writeup showing how industry lobbyists influenced the TPP agreement, to the point that one is even openly celebrating that the USTR version copied his own text word for word.
What is striking in the emails is not that government negotiators seek expertise and advice from leading industry figures. But the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders.
The article highlights numerous examples of what appear to be very chummy relationships between the USTR and the "cleared advisors" from places like the RIAA, the MPAA and the ESA. They regularly share text and have very informal discussions, scheduling phone calls and get togethers to further discuss. This really isn't that surprising, given that the USTR is somewhat infamous for its revolving door with lobbyists who work on these issues. In fact, one of the main USTR officials in the emails that IP Watch got is Stan McCoy, who was the long term lead negotiator on "intellectual property" issues. But he's no longer at the USTR -- he now works for the MPAA.
You can read through the emails, embedded below, which show a very, very chummy relationship, which is quite different from how the USTR seems to act with people who are actually more concerned about what's in the TPP (and I can use personal experience on that...). Of course, you'll notice that the USTR still went heavy on the black ink budget, so most of the useful stuff is redacted. Often entire emails other than the salutation and signature line are redacted. ..."
Read more:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150605/11483831239/revealed-emails-show-how-industry-lobbyists-basically-wrote-tpp.shtml
stopbush
(24,392 posts)
The venue is the Democratic Party platform committee and the main event is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If that sounds like inside baseball, it could easily become the World Series of this year's presidential race. And if presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is smart, she will reconsider her bet.
Reconsider her bet? What bet? She opposes TPP. Leaving it in the platform is a gesture to not embarrass Obama, who supports it.
If there is no vote on TPP during the lame duck, Hillary will not support a vote for it once she's president. That's what opposition means.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)What is embarrassing is pushing this corporate welfare package as something that is good for workers. Obama is on his way out. He needs to live with his mistakes, not make us citizens pay for them.
840high
(17,196 posts)about Obama. He'll have a very good life.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)working together, have produced a better document than they started out with, regardless of what happens now to the TPP.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)quite a lot, actually
Recursion
(56,582 posts)How long do you think people need?
think
(11,641 posts)oppose it.
