Here’s How Much Corporations Paid US Senators To Fast-Track The TPP

“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?”
By |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    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:

    • 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.

    The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.

    Read more:
    Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill

    Be Sociable, Share!

    Stories published in our Hot Topics section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.

     

    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    ___________________________________________
    This entry was posted in Daily Digest, National and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Pingback: The Obama Legacy: Inequality, Corporate Trade Deals, Worldwide War | OFF THE BLOCK NEWS()

    • Pingback: Knowledge is Power | The Obama Legacy: Inequality, Corporate Trade Deals, Worldwide War()

    • Pingback: The Obama Legacy: Inequality, Corporate Trade Deals, Worldwide War - Counter Current News()

    • Pingback: The Obama Legacy: Inequality, Corporate Trade Deals, Worldwide War – Kit OConnell/MintPress | Plato's Guns()

    • Pingback: People Over Politics – Fast Tracking Corporate Dictatorship?()

    • Pingback: The Obama Legacy: Inequality, Corporate Trade Deals, Worldwide War()

    • Pingback: Here's How Much Corporations Paid US Senators to Pass the Sovereign-Killing Trade Bills | Restoring Liberty()

    • AshleyJMille

      ….All time hit the .mintpressnews Find Here

    • Love & Thief

      One of the most glaring indicators of abuse of power is not corruption. It’s the ability to boast of its corruption. Yet neither the Public, Media, or Government seems not to notice.

    • TecumsehUnfaced

      Incredible! This freaking lead barf of a gang of traitors has destroyed our country. Impeach him. He’s even more of a traitor than Benedict Arnold.

      • GALT

        Trying them for treason, as you suggest, would be the constitutional grounds
        available…….also there is the Supremacy Clause, which suffers from what seems to
        be an interpretational dichotomy with regard to the phrase “and the laws made pursuant
        to it “, which may or may not apply to treaties…..and if not, has the rather disturbing effect
        of elevating the “treaty” to a status which is “superior” to the constitution. If this
        is indeed the result, then “ratification” by Congress would be imperative…..and certainly
        one could not insure that such an effect did not occur, if one had no idea what the treaty
        consisted of? Fast track authority, which in this case does precisely that……would therefor
        seem unconstitutional on its face? ( as it would difficult to explain all these elements
        regarding “treaties” and remain consistent regarding the result. )

        In Ravi Batra’s book ” End Unemployment Now” he explains two things regarding trade
        which seem to have gotten “lost”…..one….that trade is a benefit to both countries when
        the effects are balanced……but this hasn’t been the case with any of the treaties in
        effect now……and second that the current situation, regarding China, is largely the result
        of “currency manipulation”, which we could duplicate in reverse, although this would not
        restore the manufacturing capacity we have lost, which is entirely due to the “monopoly
        capitalism” that exists here and elsewhere, where wages have not kept pace with rising
        productivity and the profits are transferred to the the “oligarchs”, a result which seems
        to be the sole purpose of our “government” and others around the world. ( which is
        and should be the very definition of “treason” since it violates the stated purpose
        of the constitution and “We the people……”

        Of course it would be nice if Mr Batra also had the “integrity” to acknowledge the FACT
        that “Nobel Laureates” in economics are a fiction, because there is no Nobel Prize for
        economics……..and this fact has been vehemently protested by the Noble committees
        who determine the winners of the five Nobel Prizes which are awarded each year.
        There have been 75 winners of the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economic Sciences,
        and not one of them has ever acknowledged being a recipient. ( one has to ponder
        how such a delusion could persist for all this time, made even stranger by the FACT
        there is nothing “scientific” about the “discipline” and that even THAT description is
        questionable…….but then the “talking hominid” has been somewhat prone to constructing
        “mythologies” to achieve answers for questions for which no evidence was available.
        Batra himself out lined this as a stage of civilization in the Great Depression of 1990,
        but has apparently chosen to become a priest in the temple, for the obvious benefit?

        • TecumsehUnfaced

          I checked to be sure. You’re right. The only Nobel prizes are physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace.

          Whether or not fast track is unconstitutional would depend on the integrity of the judges in the appeal path, I believe. Not the best bet nowadays, but it may be the only one we have yet.

          • GALT

            The issues outlined and difficulty in presenting a consistent and reasonable
            progression with the supremacy clause provide a conundrum for any “legal”
            interpretation. ( although the entire concept of “interpretation” as an actual
            power of the supreme court has always been for me a rather idiotic position
            for the following reason…..for any law, clarity is paramount…..if a duality or
            multiplicity of interpretation of a statute is possible, that law is automatically
            “unconstitutional” by definition. How the is it possible for any aspect of the
            “constitution” to be vague or require “interpretation”? That would make
            the constitution itself, unconstitutional which by definition it CAN NOT BE! )

            Ergo: the supreme court never had and never could have a power to “interpret”
            the constitution……its only power is and has always been it’s application, to those
            questions which are brought before it. ( this problem of duplicity regarding meaning
            is a fundamental element of the “rules of logic” and automatically voids any
            syllogism where it is present. The talking hominid, unfortunately, it not “endowed”
            with a “logic gene or disposition”….this ability is not present or encoded for or
            inheritable in any form of life, nor would it be……it is a learned ability and it
            does not necessarily end in a uniform result regarding the ‘conclusion” to be reached.
            We are ruled by our biology, and these rules are “simple” as they are identical for any life form…survive and reproduce…..and we have done THAT to PERFECTION.