• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Anomalism

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
When are we going to start calling it bribery?

Here

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.
Click to expand...
 
Anomalism said:
When are we going to start calling it bribery?

Here
Click to expand...

Why would you call it bribery? It is visible and everyone knows even the sums. If the payments were illicit, I would be worried. But one might make it law that donations can be made only by real persons, if one wanted. The question is, whether it doesn't make sense that the areas of society actually making the money we all live from, are the worst in who to place one's trust that they understand, what the economy needs.
 
The fringe right is the single best example of self efficacy. To the rest. A deal negotiated in secret, by a composition 85% of corporate execs and industry lobbyist! doling out the money as it comes time for congresses approval! really needs no explanation.
 
joG said:
Why would you call it bribery? It is visible and everyone knows even the sums. If the payments were illicit, I would be worried. But one might make it law that donations can be made only by real persons, if one wanted. The question is, whether it doesn't make sense that the areas of society actually making the money we all live from, are the worst in who to place one's trust that they understand, what the economy needs.
Click to expand...
*bolding mine.

Whatever it's called in technical terms, it sure isn't right: It's 'buying' the democratic process!
 
BrewerBob said:
Then the corporations would just pay the state representatives to appoint the US senators they want.
Click to expand...

sorry but that not correct, because you assume that their is only [1] special interest, while the u.s. government is bought and paid for by many special interst.

without the 17th senators are not free agents to vote as they will, they are representatives of the state legislatures of their state, they cannot be lobbied via bribes, reelection they must vote according to how their state tells them to vote.

in order the lobby the senate, the lobbyist of many special interest groups have to physically visit the states to lobby the legislatures, which over the 50 states comprises 7000 people, instead of bribing 100 people in 1 central location of Washington.

madison states in federalist 10 that democratic forms of government are more factious then republican forms of government, which is why america was created a republican form, the 17th turned america towards a democratic form, and opened american government up to faction/special interest who buy government for they agendas.

only by repealing the 17th and again splitting power in america government will break the back of special interest in that government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry but that not correct, because you assume that their is only [1] special interest, while the u.s. government is bought and paid for by many special interst.

without the 17th senators are not free agents to vote as they will, they are representatives of the state legislatures of their state, they cannot be lobbied via bribes, reelection they must vote according to how their state tells them to vote.

in order the lobby the senate, the lobbyist of many special interest groups have to physically visit the states to lobby the legislatures, which over the 50 states comprises 7000 people, instead of bribing 100 people in 1 central location of Washington.

madison states in federalist 10 that democratic forms of government are more factious then republican forms of government, which is why america was created a republican form, the 17th turned america towards a democratic form, and opened american government up to faction/special interest who buy government for they agendas.

only by repealing the 17th and again splitting power in america government will break the back of special interest in that government.
Click to expand...

Compelling points I had never really considered. I'll have to read up a bit but thanks for giving me a starting point.
 
BrewerBob said:
Compelling points I had never really considered. I'll have to read up a bit but thanks for giving me a starting point.
Click to expand...

i would point you in the direction of the federalist 62 and 63 of why the senate is created.. to block collectivist legislation of the house and place a check [prevent] the expansion of federal power...among others...keeping the federal government[congress] out of the life's liberty and property of the people.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Why would you call it bribery? It is visible and everyone knows even the sums. If the payments were illicit, I would be worried. But one might make it law that donations can be made only by real persons, if one wanted. The question is, whether it doesn't make sense that the areas of society actually making the money we all live from, are the worst in who to place one's trust that they understand, what the economy needs.
Click to expand...

Bribery isn't bribery if it's in the open? What?
 
the # of comments compared to obvious wasteful threads is disturbing.


The TPP is the worst abuse in... well only 2-3 years... but still.

The lack of media coverage on this is.... disturbing.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
*bolding mine.

Whatever it's called in technical terms, it sure isn't right: It's 'buying' the democratic process!
Click to expand...

It is a very good question regarding how much money and time an individual or a group of individuals should be allowed to invest in political activities.
 
Deuce said:
Bribery isn't bribery if it's in the open? What?
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't. IT is then participation in attaining your political goals.
 
joG said:
It is a very good question regarding how much money and time an individual or a group of individuals should be allowed to invest in political activities.
Click to expand...
Yes it is - and I'm of the opinion (in terms of money): "The least, the better"!

However, there's a coupla' guys & a gals known as 'Justices of the Supreme Court' who disagree with me, and this has been a bit, well ... problematic.
 
Deuce said:
Bribery isn't bribery if it's in the open? What?
Click to expand...
The problem we have here, is that it's 'legal bribery', so-to-speak.

So now, we have established an extremely dangerous virtuous circle (or vicious circle, if you so chose), where:

+++

Money = Power

Those with money --> those that legislate receive money --> legislation produced to assist those with money to accrue more money --> those with more money now have even more money --> those that legislate receive even more money --> more legislation produced to assist those with money accrue even more money yet ...

+++

Do this for a while, and the result is a wounded, hobbled, and disappearing middle class, to say nothing of the poor (due to lack of representation & an uneven field of opportunity).

Do this long enough, and well ... it's not good.

There's much, much, more resulting from this circle, but I wanted to stay brief & focused on the concept of money usurping representation & the democratic process.
 
Last edited:
Anomalism said:
When are we going to start calling it bribery?

Here
Click to expand...

The bigger problem is the money donated on the record is quickly becoming irrelevant. It's also a huge problem that sitting Senators really have two worries. One is getting reelected, and doing the bidding of the plutocrats helps immensely - they either get the big money to get reelected, or they avoid having outside interests come into their state and spend 7 or 8 figures opposing them, from secret donors.

The second worry is their life after the Senate. So long as they reasonably represent the interests of big donors on most issues, they've got a 7 figure job waiting for them the day after they retire or are defeated, and can set their family up for a generation. Just don't rock the boat too much and it's there for the taking.
 
Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill
Click to expand...

i'm shocked.

capt_renault.jpg
 
How much did Obama get? He loves this bill.
 
I did notice that on average the republicans hold out for vastly more money than the democrats who appear to have rounder heels and will fall over for a pittance. :mrgreen:

The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters. The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.
Click to expand...
 
JasperL said:
The second worry is their life after the Senate. So long as they reasonably represent the interests of big donors on most issues, they've got a 7 figure job waiting for them the day after they retire or are defeated, and can set their family up for a generation. Just don't rock the boat too much and it's there for the taking.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this holds true for regulators and other overseer appointees, too.

What a sad state of affairs!
 
Anomalism said:
When are we going to start calling it bribery?

Here
Click to expand...

The problem with this selective outrage is it fails to look at the concept of lobbying and how money plays a role in all forms of government legislating .

California is an example of big money taking control of government at both the state and local level. However, in this case, the big money is organized labor. So, where are the articles regarding campaign donations and other "favor peddling" from these organizations, and the economic impact they have caused?

Lobbying allows the voices of people to be concentrated and focused, where otherwise people of similar thinking would not have a voice. It may be ripe for nefarious characters to take advantage of, but with greater calls for transparency, voters would have an opportunity to demonstrate their agreement or disagreement with the way their representatives operate. That is how it should work.

If voters chose not to be informed, they get the representation and government they deserve.
 
Chomsky said:
Yes it is - and I'm of the opinion (in terms of money): "The least, the better"!

However, there's a coupla' guys & a gals known as 'Justices of the Supreme Court' who disagree with me, and this has been a bit, well ... problematic.
Click to expand...

It can be. Yep!
 
Erod said:
How much did Obama get? He loves this bill.
Click to expand...

...I don't think Obama has gotten a lot of money for a re-election campaign.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom