Since, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is already well on its way to being passed ... & going to destroy North American labour market, I won't say much here. What I liked about this article was the facts & figures of how much each of the Senators in the American Senate received money from corporations which wanted TPP to pass so desperately. (Hint: the money they received is more than an average, middle class, American may make in a year).
On a side note, you should realize that if corporations are so desperate to want to get TPP passed, then it is definitely not going to be something good for the average Joe & Jane on main street.
Getting back to the main topic, as always, I would ask the reader that would you call this a democracy? Does this happen in a transparent & democratic government where Senators (one of them is 81 years old) receive such lucrative "gifts", while signing on a trade partnership, which will only going to kill any & all kinds of labour movements? Is this trade partnership going to help that single mother who is juggling multiple jobs to raise her little family while the rich Senators get more rich by voting for a trade partnership that will destroy her job & not raise her minimum wage? What about that poor student who is trying to brighten up his future by working part-time & getting a degree?
As I always say, political corruption exists everywhere. The primary difference is that it happens all out in the open in so-called "corrupt" countries (i.e. developing countries), whereas, in developed countries, those same "corrupt" practices are first made "legal". Since, the same "corrupt" practices become "legal", government officials are free to indulge in them as much as they want, & the governments of North America & Europe get the blessing of Transparency International (the organization, which is a joke in my view, similar to UN, World Bank, IMF etc.)
As the spokesperson for anti-corruption group, Represent Us, says in the end of the article that “how can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, & lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests? As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax & 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.
...
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. ...
Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling & 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 & 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.
Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden & 7 other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans & handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.
- In just 24 hours, Wyden & 5 of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, & Bill Nelson of Florida – caved & voted for fast-track.
- Bennet, Murray, & Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the 3 of them. Bennet, who comes from ... Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January & March 2015 ... .
- Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana & a Republican from Alaska.
- Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, ... received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January & March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), & Procter & Gamble ($12,900). ...
- 7 Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track & are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January & March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.
- Arizona senator & former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his 7th Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.
“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, & 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.”
On a side note, you should realize that if corporations are so desperate to want to get TPP passed, then it is definitely not going to be something good for the average Joe & Jane on main street.
Getting back to the main topic, as always, I would ask the reader that would you call this a democracy? Does this happen in a transparent & democratic government where Senators (one of them is 81 years old) receive such lucrative "gifts", while signing on a trade partnership, which will only going to kill any & all kinds of labour movements? Is this trade partnership going to help that single mother who is juggling multiple jobs to raise her little family while the rich Senators get more rich by voting for a trade partnership that will destroy her job & not raise her minimum wage? What about that poor student who is trying to brighten up his future by working part-time & getting a degree?
As I always say, political corruption exists everywhere. The primary difference is that it happens all out in the open in so-called "corrupt" countries (i.e. developing countries), whereas, in developed countries, those same "corrupt" practices are first made "legal". Since, the same "corrupt" practices become "legal", government officials are free to indulge in them as much as they want, & the governments of North America & Europe get the blessing of Transparency International (the organization, which is a joke in my view, similar to UN, World Bank, IMF etc.)
As the spokesperson for anti-corruption group, Represent Us, says in the end of the article that “how can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, & lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests? As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A decade in the making, the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is reaching its climax & 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.
...
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. ...
Those impressive majorities follow months of behind-the-scenes wheeling & 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 & 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.
Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden & 7 other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans & handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.
- In just 24 hours, Wyden & 5 of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, & Bill Nelson of Florida – caved & voted for fast-track.
- Bennet, Murray, & Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the 3 of them. Bennet, who comes from ... Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January & March 2015 ... .
- Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana & a Republican from Alaska.
- Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, ... received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January & March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), & Procter & Gamble ($12,900). ...
- 7 Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track & are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January & March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.
- Arizona senator & former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his 7th Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.
“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, & 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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment