Slashdot Mirror
Emails Show How Industry Lobbyists Basically Wrote The Trans-Pacific Partnership
An anonymous reader writes: This Techdirt story shows how industry lobbyists influenced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, to the point that one even openly celebrates that the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) version copied his own text word for word. The email exchange between Jim DeLisi, from Fanwood Chemical, to Barbara Weisel, a USTR official reads: "Hi Barbara – John sent through a link to the P4 agreement. I have taken a quick look at the rules of origin. Someone owes USTR a royalty payment – these are our rules. They will need some tweaking but will likely not need major surgery. This is a very pleasant surprise. I will study more closely over the weekend."
This has become standard practice for the US.
The industry groups write the treaty, and then tell the government what they want.
Then the US government dutifully becomes lackeys to industry, and advances a position which gives industry ridiculous things which could never be negotiated in public.
During this, they insist on secrecy so that the citizens of none of the countries can know that they're being heavily undermined to advance the interests of US businesses.
Lather, rise, repeat.
The US government isn't just advancing the interests of multinational corporations, they're advancing them to the detriment of the citizens -- which means nobody benefits from these fucking things other than corporations.
Welcome to the global fucking oligarchy. Make no mistake about it, the US government are nothing more than industry shills.
Fuck you, America.
This is mainly a way for tax money to flow into the pockets of people who are already very rich.
Foreign companies are treated very well, governments want the extra jobs.
Why do foreign companies need more/better rights than nationals?
Defenders will say this is false, but it's what TTIP will lead to, like what other similar trade agreements have lead to.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
This has been SOP for years.
The US government is now acting as a foreign policy arm for multinational corporations, and doing secret negotiations so nobody knows just how badly we're being fucked over for our corporate overlords.
This is the worst form of capitalism, one in which all consideration is for corporations who have the government on the payroll, and in which the citizens of the countries get fucked over.
America has been allowing corporations to write the trade treaties for a long time. Because America is essentially a corrupt shell beholden to corporations.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Well, for the .1%, anyway. They write the laws, they write the trade agreements, they socialise risk and privatise the rewards. Wake me up when the revolution starts, I want to Tivo it.
Well, at least for the .1%. They write the laws, they write the trade agreements, they get out of jail free, they socialise risk and privatise reward. Why are these people still here? Wake me up for the revolution, I want to Tivo it, but can't find it in the programming guide.
Well, at least works for the .1%. They write the laws, they write the trade agreements, they make a fortune, they get out of jail free, they socialise risk and privatise reward. Why haven't we done anything? Wake me up when the revolution gets going, I want to Tivo it, I just need to know when to tell it to start recording.
to know how this thing will operate. Whether there needs to be an agreement, and what needs to be in it, must be decided by some folks who have some decent idea of how these relationships operate.
The unfortunate part is that no one involved is doing anything to establish their credibility with regard to my interests. The people involved are plenty smart, but most of their words and actions seem to indicate that they have little to no consideration of my interests.
Are my interests more important than yours? Of course not. Neither are yours more important than mine. And most importantly, neither are the authors' more important than ours, collectively.
It would be nice to see some attention paid to that fact.
Both are ways, for large corporations, to "externalize risks to policitcs, and internalize profits". The wording is not mine. Karl Marx already observed this practice.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
I think it's common knowledge by now that industry can buy legislation. The new low is that the actual text of the bill is being kept under lock and key.
I simply cannot see how it is constitutional to permit this to happen. While I understand that rules are being leveraged to limit its exposure (including the fast-track vote process), the spirit of the Constitution has always advocated for transparency and public ownership of government operations.
I suppose what upsets me the most is that I cannot determine which I am more upset with: what's being done with the TPP or the fact that we don't have enough congressmen speaking out against it. As a representative of the people, any legislative process that seeks to erode the spirit of the Constitution is a threat to their constituents and should not be passed. I don't care if the text of the bill would buy every American a new house; the fact that it's being kept secret should be plenty of reason alone to vote it down.
Oh thank God we can make this a partisan issue, for a moment I thought I wouldn't have a scapegoat.
This is the crap that happens when the state runs the media.
One small consolation is now some in the USA feel what it was like to be a poor South American or South Asian or African whose government was totally controlled by foreign companies.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Oh thank God we can make this a partisan issue, for a moment I thought I wouldn't have a scapegoat.
That's no more partisan than gravity.
Oh thank God we can make this a partisan issue, for a moment I thought I wouldn't have a scapegoat.
Well, which is it? If you don't like what the executive branch of the government is doing during this negotiating process, do you hold the current administration responsible for what you dislike, or not? Yes or no? You seem willing to stipulate there's an "issue," but you're disinclined to lay that at the feet of the one entity that has sole responsibility for the nature of the issue. The administration is highly partisan in all of its activities, which is no surprise. This activity is entirely in their lap. They are conducting it with politics alwyas in mind. Of course it's a partisan issue. Complaining about that is like complaining about the fact that different people have different ideas about labor unions, or taxes, or the relationship between the citizens and the government. Is that your real complaint - that some people have come to different conclusions than you have? Those different opinions tend to gather in groups and act in concert, and we call those political parties. Wishing away partisanship and complaints about it is wishing for a completely non-adversarial governing process - which would be truly frightening.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Right. Because liberals are so famously pro-free-trade-agreements and conservatives so famously opposed to them?
Meanwhile in Bizarro World, the Democratic Party has introduced a "Kill the Gays" bill while the Republican Party has introduced a bill requiring all power plant CO2 emissions to be sequestered inside the shafts of government-subsidized wind turbines.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Sorry, but you seem to be confusing a corrupt oligarchy for a nanny state.
And that's pretty much bullshit.
This is governments becoming beholden to corporations, and selling the farm for some magic beans.
This isn't a nanny state, this is a wholesale co-opting of government for corporate interests.
This has NOTHING at all to do with socialism, and everything to do with corporate welfare and stacking the deck for them.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And then the US complains that FIFA officials are corrupt.
There is one 2016 candidate who opposes the secrecy of the TPP:
http://thehill.com/policy/fina...
What, exactly, does ANY of this have to do with socialism or what you call nanny state government? This is a perversion of capitalism, not socialism. Actually, it's the predictable end game of free market policies. It's happened every time in human history we allow concentrations of wealth and why you think this should be magically different is beyond all sense.
With socialism or actual effectively regulated capitalism, you wouldn't have large corporations and the ultra rich buying laws and treaties. That's called fascism, you libertarian dumbass, and it's what tools like you have been cheering on for decades now. Welcome to the inevitable end result.
> As for the secrecy, unfortunately, this is generally how complex international treaties are negotiated [...]
No.
In a democracy, *I want my representative to know what's in the negotiations*, *I want to read about the content in the newspapers*.
I don't need to take part in said negotiations, but I want to have an informed opinion on what is being negotiated on my behalf. *I want my representative to have an informed opinion* when it comes to the up/down vote.
Everything else is anti-democratic.
This is how most bills are written. That is not a cynical but rather purely factual statement. The shock and surprise on TPP just makes you look ignorant.
Libertarians are a comical lot. They are the only people I know of who genuinely believe that only a government weaker than big business can protect us from big business. They'll tell you that a powerful government will inevitably be corrupted to serve the interests of big business, so the answer is to make government too small to stand in the way of big business.
You can't have a reasoned debate with them. What can you say to someone who argues that circles aren't round?
And this has been going on for longer than just the current administration. Skewed free trade agreements go back to the 80s. My entire point is that our elected representatives should be held responsible, regardless of their political affiliation. This is a problem on both sides, and saying "look how bad you guys fucked up again" doesn't solve anything and has been exacerbating rather than resolving issues for more than a decade.
TPP is not a partisan issue because "both" parties are united in bringing it to us. If we had a republican president right now, we'd be getting precisely the same screwing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A law so secret that you can't even view it unless you're a congressperson, and even then you have to go to a locked room without recording equipment.
But how could that be suspicious at all?
And now we find out it's written and conceived by multinational corporations.
And we all know how benevolent and caring *they* are.
More seriously, anyone who votes for this has been bribed or blackmailed. It's an obvious takeover of nation-states by a globe spanning elite corporate-state.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
What else is new?
A.L.E.C. writes about 80% of all legislation presented in State Legislatures, and at the Federal level the army of lobbyists write even more.
This is because the actual JOB of Federal-level legislatures is only one thing: RAISE MONEY TO GET RE-ELECTED.
The average Senator must raise $10,000 a DAY to get re-elected.
The average Congresscritter must raise over $1,000 a DAY to get re-elected.
They don't have TIME to actually do their jobs as defined in the Constitution.
Until we get fully-publicly-funded elections it won't get any better.
Once the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 - also known as "Obamacare" - passed and was signed in to law, the floodgates were officially open. Now every other industry is trying to play catch up and get as large of a handout from the federal government.
They may need to spend a little more money to get that kind of clout, though. The companies that stand to benefit the most from TPP don't own as much of congress as the insurance industry. Thankfully for them, though, they aren't competing with the insurance industry for anything on this matter.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm so tired of you, America.
https://youtu.be/UUkcJlekP9s
You are welcome on my lawn.
You laugh at libertarians ok
At least they can figure out that BIG BUSINESS controlling GIGANTIC GOVERNMENT is worse than just Big Business.
BTW when you find your incorruptible supermen to run your giant government let the religious folk know about them. They call them angels and would likely want to meet them.
Right. Because liberals are so famously pro-free-trade-agreements and conservatives so famously opposed to them?
Meanwhile in Bizzaro world this treaty was negotiated by Barrack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
Negotiations for TPP began in 2005.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Fill my piggy bank and I'll pass laws in favor of you're business. Oh hell, I'll just let you write them and rubber stamp them as fast as my pockets get filled with cash.
I really should get pay for teaching remedial education when I post here.
Lets go through this,
1. Giving more power, and greater mandate to a government , to interfere in the lives of its subjects produces the following effects.
A. The government grows larger and by necessity more complex.
B. The amount of a society's resources it controls becomes larger, and the incentive towards corruption becomes proportionately greater.
The consequence of 1,A, and B is that empowering a government to greater heights will produce more and greater corruption of said government.
If you doubt this look at any state that has had an encompassing government that cared for the volk. If you can't think of examples on your own, please take a look at either any of the old soviet block countries, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, China at any point post Mao for good examples.
If you don't understand why all the examples are the same thing go back to your school and demand a refund.
Oh that's nice. So it is all BUSH's fault, and for the past 6 years Obama has been fighting the good fight to stop it.
Yes, heaven forbid we should govern by consensus. Government is boring unless they are duking it out on reality TV, huh? Is cooperation is that evil in your mind?
Well, at least you're being honest about being partisan this time :-)
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"a powerful government will inevitably be corrupted"
Isn't that a significant part of what is being pointed out in this article? A democratically elected government being wholly influenced/controlled by big business? You act as if bigger government is going to be more independent of these businesses when the opposite is likely true. No one in their right mind is saying there is a perfect solution, but creating a centralized location where corporations can get their interests put in law and enforced with armed individuals is not likely to be part of the solution.
As soon as Bush is out of office, we won't have to deal with the White House acting like shills for big business interests anymore.
Republican in the White House: "Republicans are uniquely corrupt, greedy tools of big business!"
Democrat in the White House: "They all do it!"
Yes, heaven forbid we should govern by consensus.
I agree, we should have government by consensus. Are you willing to go along with anything I say, policy-wise? No? Why not? Please be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you try to fuck Europe with your endless corporatism, we might just end up being friends with Russia after all.
corrupt oligarchy ... nanny state
Synonyms.
Are you willing to go along with anything I say, policy-wise? No? Why not?
No, of course not! You're too damn partisan, selective, looking after a specific group of people.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The source emails I read don't support your hyperbole. We don't need to embellish these already crazy stories - why do so?
Nope. Both of them supported it. Among the rank and file, however, there's no questions that far more opposition to free trade bills comes from left. Just look at voting records for past free trade bills.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
No, of course not! You're too damn partisan, selective, looking after a specific group of people.
Hilarious.
... your agenda is to specifically scorn that same (mysteriously unidentified) group of people? Or to look after everyone but that group of people? And you think I won't like that, but too bad for me, because you think you're operating on a rational consensus that doesn't have to include my input because you don't like me. That's fantastic!
So, you're all for consensus, except for with the people you don't like. Government by compromise! All they have to do is do it your way, right?
The point of having checks and balances, and of encouraging vigorous debate is so that you have to make a very strong case for how you want to exercise things like the power to take people's money and property away, or enable/prevent them from running a business, etc.
You say you don't want to do things I like, because I'm "looking after a specific group of people." So
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Absolute bullshit. Yes, a few lucky survivors of the tsunami might make it thru your euphemistic 'rising tide', but in the aggregate, there will be (hell, are already) fewer and fewer living wage jobs left (this is intentional, as it will drive wages down, eagerly taken by people nearly driven mad by desperation). What the craven MBA crowd always forget is that well-paid workers are also their customers, FFS.
So to just so lightly breeze over the rotten core of this travesty makes you either a liar or an economist (but I repeat myself).
Surely you jest. Try deregulation of Wall Street with no oversight. *That's* when the flood gates opened.
You're clueless if you don't think there aren't big players in TPP.
Take Wiley Rein, the neocon shyster firm, for instance. Besides being neocon-connected, they successfully litigated in federal court in two separate lawsuits to make fictionalizing the news legal, as well as firing any on air reporters who refuse to spew forth lies during the "news" broadcasts --- and they did this on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
Also, they represent the Blackstone Group, which is self-explanatory.
Negative, sonny, the ISDS and the Living Agreement are major malefactors in a major so-called FTA which gives away any and all sovereignty of the US of A-holes. With each job offshored, so goes a chunk of the GDP; with each fta so goes a chunk of sovereignty.
Luckyo has established once again there are still a few honest and intelligent commenters left at /.
How about We instead criticize the actual content of the actual agree once it is actually submitted to the congress for examination? The /. administration needs to start wearing tin foil hats.
It's nothing about liking you, or even 'liking' anybody. As usual you're making shit up, or just dredging up the usual trash from your favorite political rags.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This has NOTHING at all to do with socialism, and everything to do with corporate welfare and stacking the deck for them.
Sorry, but arguing about the difference between socialism and fascism is like arguing about the difference between Sprite and 7-Up. You may well have a preference, but both are terrible for you.
Obama executed a nearly textbook example of Socialism with the takeover of GM. He fired the CEO, allocated resources directly to "Green" cars, etc. The government controlled a means of production.
He executed an almost perfect example of Fascism in the ACA that put the coercive power of government behind huge corporations so they can dictate behavior and spending requirements to citizens.
So, are he and his cronies Socialist or Fascist? Does it really matter? We're fucked either way.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
So, you're all for consensus, except for with the people you don't like. Government by compromise! All they have to do is do it your way, right?
Projection. You're the one who said "are you willing to go along with anything I[you] say"
Asking for somebody to go along with ANYTHING you say isn't consensus building. You're asking for their complete submission. It is internally consistent for him to support consensus but reject you disingenuous question.
It's nothing about liking you, or even 'liking' anybody. As usual you're making shit up, or just dredging up the usual trash from your favorite political rags.
Ah, anything to avoid the substance of the discussion. What does "by consensus" mean to you, precisely? Perhaps that a bunch of elected representatives get to together and discuss whether and how to do something, and then the prevailing (by way of votes) approach is the one that's selected? You know, as in ... "elections matter?"
"Consensus" is not the same as "unanimity." Tell me how your idea of consensus works: should people opposed to a policy or law simply agree to it, despite their better judgement, in the name of "consensus?" You don't like, apparently, policies that "take care" of certain groups of people. But would you support those policies so that you could have the moral satisfaction of having been part of a consensus? If not, then what do you mean by the term? Be specific, instead of tossing out "trash," "rags" and other terms meant to distract from the fact that you don't really mean what you say.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Projection. You're the one who said "are you willing to go along with anything I[you] say"
Are you really that obtuse? I said that to point out that the GP was being completely disingenuous. He doesn't want an adversarial, debate-based government - he says he wants something else, and used the word "consensus." What he really means is that he wants things his way, and thinks that people who disagree with him ideologically should just do what he says anyway, because, you know, consensus.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
We already have one, you just don't know about it because they're secret.
The TPP is evil.
It allows China's national wealth owned corporations to sue under TPP and force us to invalidate Laws written by US Citizens to protect our environment so that we can be a hell hole on earth just like them.
All for the almighty Yuan.
Citizens are regarded as disposable chattel with no rights, with only 3/5 of a vote, while corporations get votes for every dollar they spend, and actual rights.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You're clueless if you don't think there aren't big players in TPP.
Did you mean "clueless if you don't think there are big players in TPP"? Because I certainly don't think there are no big players in TPP. The big thing though is that those players don't own as much of Washington as the insurance industry owns, which is why it is moving slightly slower.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
That's what I love about the Libertarians.
The Democrats and Republicans are just unprincipled opportunists that will sell their mothers and worse. Never trust the establishment.
Libertarians, on the other hand are principled and strictly follow the Constitution.
Democrats and Republicans fear the Libertarians because Libertarians do not want government to be the leaders of the country necessarily. Libertarianism prescribes government be the solution to only a limited number of things. Sadly, most of Amerika has been programmed to think that government is our master and that we do what they say and that they solve all the problems of the country. The federal government was never designed for this since the founders knew that centralized power always fails through corruption. I wish people would get smarter and stop voting Democrat or Republican and start voting with principles (e.g. Libertarian).
It is what destroys societies: Short-term interests taking over the long-term making of policy. You can look as far back as Rome to find documentation of the destructive effects.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
UGH! One word, banality, look it up... you just don't see yourself
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Really ? Bill Clinton NAFTA ring a bell ?
Whatever bitch. You're just as much of a goose stepper as those you claim to be against.
You are delusional if you believe this. Haven't you learned enough that both sides are controlled equally by special interests? If you apply a Constitutional litmus test to either side, you will see they both fail tragically. Please stop defending the left because you were once (or still are) one. Please have integrity and evaluate both sides. The left may "SAY" they do certain things but they are simply better at lying to your face. Hasn't Obama lied about EVERYTHING?
UGH! One word, banality, look it up... you just don't see yourself
Right, of course. Can't directly address the hypocrisy in your own position, so sling some more ad hominem. The first resort of people who know they're talking nonsense.
... without significant disagreement?
So, can't bring yourself to say what "consensus" means? Why not?
I know, another insult is easier than a bit of intellectual integrity.
Here, I'll help you with that level of effort you can't muster. Webster defines "consensus" as general agreement. As the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.
That's exactly what we have right now - we make laws and elect people based on things like getting more/most of the votes. We don't, though, always get "general agreement." Only a most/more agreement on most of the things we debate as we approach legislation. Something like a constitutional amendment needs something a lot more like "general agreement" to pass.
So we you say we need to govern by consensus, you must mean by the first part of that definition - "general agreement." Leaving aside for the moment that we're governed by the constitution (which WAS formed in general agreement), what you mean is you want legislative process
The problem is that there are large groups of people in this country with fundamentally different ideas about some pretty basic stuff. Why would you expect me to "generally agree" with (for example) you, if you're not willing to generally agree with me? I know, it's because yours is the superior intellect, always right, with your only flaw being an inability to say what you really mean because, like a guy with Tourette's, juvenile insults pop out first and throw you off balance.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Surprised he didn't find some way to try and call you a racist or sexist.
Wait, a bailout? I thought it was a takeover? Which shoddy commentator should I believe?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
NAFTA received 78% of its NO votes from Democrats and 59% of its YES votes from Republicans. Overall, despite having their party leader in the White House pressuring them, 60% of Democrats still voted NO; 75% of Republicans voted YES.
Are you done deluding yourself with this "Both Parties Are The Same!" BS?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I thought it was a takeover?
Certainly you jest. A takeover requires a change in leadership or direction. If anything was taken over, it was the government finally being taken over completely by the insurance industry. The ones who came out better from the transaction were the insurance companies, not the public or the government (well, excluding the politicians who received even more fantastic campaign contributions from their masters in reward, that is).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I said that to point out that the GP was being completely disingenuous
Unless when he isn't. He didn't say he wants people to go along with anything he says. The only one who thinks that what he "really" means is you.
What he really means is
Is something you made up and assigned to him (as he said, you're making shit up). Again, he didn't say he wants other people to go along with anything he says. You're the one who ASSUME that's what he meant, and asked him that question.
The moment you asked that question, is when you became the disingenuous one, and I do not fault him for walking away.
No. There's no other thing he can mean. He starts by saying that we should govern by consensus, instead of what he perceives to be happening now (here, he means that he wants less division, and - given his posting history - less resistance from the party of which he disapproves, which is is to say, libertarian/conservative types). So he wants things like votes where more people agree. OK, so that means everyone will compromise, right? That he'll do things like vote for something I like, even though he doesn't, because he considers consensus to be an end in and of itself, rather than the expression of actual ideology based on specific values. He says he doesn't want an adversarial process in government. OK, so I ask if he's willing to not oppose something I want, in the name of being less adversarial. He says, no, because he doesn't like what I stand for. Do you see what we're dealing with? Simple, good old fashioned hypocrisy.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
The 103rd congress had a Democrat controlled senate
It takes a 2/3rds vote of the senate to ratify
And the President who is the head of his party has to Negotiate and Propose the treaty.
Want to stop deluding yourself you know anything about the government ?
Please explain to me how either of those links do anything to rebut the actual voting record for NAFTA?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Being deliberately stupid I see
54 democrats in the senate + 1 democrat president = No treaties not supported by the democrats
3/5ths of Democrats voted AGAINST it, even WITH the urging of the head of their party, whike 3/4ths of Republicans voted FOR it.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
I laugh at you
If the Democrats didn't want it they could have stopped it dead.
By, say, voting against it while the other party voted for it?
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
By not bringing it to a vote at all ?
Anyone else think that techdirt.com being down is weird?
Well, there ya go! If you had voted republican, none of this would've happened.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”