Citizen - Represent Consumers

Obama and Romney share bed with a monster

How’d you like your own private court, tilted in your favor, where you could take your complaints against the government?

Pretty sweet deal, huh?

That’s exactly what a bunch of corporate lobbyists are setting up in secret right now, under the guise of negotiating a massive new trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

And this slimy secret deal is being pushed by the Obama administration.

It’s a complete betrayal by President Obama, who as a candidate campaigned strongly against previous secret trade agreements, like NAFTA, that cripple government’s ability to enforce their own worker safety, environmental, public health or financial regulation. In an effort to distinguish himself from his primary opponent, now Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the president said: “Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America…Well, I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America — and I never have.”

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama also said: “We can’t keep passing unfair trade deals like NAFTA that put special interests over workers’ interests...”

Since he became president, he’s signed trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia. But the TPP, which includes along with the U.S, Australia, Brunei, New Zealand, Singapore, Chile, Peru and Vietnam, and Malaysia, is the first trade deal created solely on President Obama’s watch. And it’s being concocted just like previous trade negotiations: with the corporate lobbyists firmly on the inside and the rest of us, as well as our elected representatives, shut completely out.

If you’re waiting for the Republicans to raise a stink, don’t hold your breath.

Mitt Romney has already said the Trans-Pacific agreement should be pushed through as quickly as possible. The Republican presidential candidate’s support for TPP is also a foul betrayal – of all the free market principles he supposedly holds so dear.

Last week, Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch ripped the cloak of secrecy that surrounds the TPP when it got hold of a document that detailed the secret court and leaked it.

I wrote about the dangers of the TPP back in April, calling it a “free trade Frankenstein,” a monster that in fact is not free and has nothing to do with trade. It should be called a “corporate bill of rights” that grants big business all kinds of special privileges to stomp on the rights enjoyed by the rest of us.

Lori Wallach, Global Trade Watch’s executive director, compared the TPP to another monster, one that also flourishes in the dark.

Wallach told Democracy Now that “these agreement are a little bit like Dracula. You drag them in the sunshine, and they do not fare well. But all of us, and also across all of the countries involved, there are citizen movements that are basically saying, `This is not in our name. We don’t need global enforceable corporate rights. We need more democracy. We need more accountability.’ ”

Wallach pointed out that under similar provisions in NAFTA, special “trade courts” have forced governments have paid out $350 million to corporations which claimed to have been wronged by a variety of zoning laws, bans on toxic materials and logging regulations.

Shame on President Obama for reversing himself and hatching this monster in the dark. Shame on Governor Romney for slithering into bed with it so cozily as if it was a beauty queen he couldn’t resist.

The time to stop it is now.

The way these trade deals work is that the administration jams it through Congress with no debate allowed on its various provisions, only an up or down vote.

Does this sound anything like democracy?

Ironically, the TPP “negotiations” resume the 4^th of July weekend at the Hilton Bayfront in San Diego.

If you’re in the neighborhood, stop by and suggest that the “negotiators” should do their patriotic duty and deliver the wretched mess where it belongs – to the nearest toxic waste dump.

If you’re elsewhere, let your congressional representative know you won’t be fooled by “free trade” anymore, and neither should they.

We know a monster when we see one.

President aims to take the money and run

Here’s what President Obama wants you to believe about his relationship to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and the toxic torrent of corporate cash polluting our politics: “it’s complicated.”

In their ruling, the justices determined that corporations had a free speech right to anonymously contribute as much as they wanted to third-party political action groups that worked in support of candidates, as long as those PACs had no formal connection to the candidate.

On the one hand, the president blasted the court’s ruling less than a week after it was issued, with the justices seated right in front of him, in his January 2010 State of the Union speech, for opening “the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections.”

On the other hand, his campaign decided two years later to “level the playing field” with Republicans and encourage Super PAC support for the president, by allowing cabinet members and senior White House officials to cooperate with a Super PAC that supports their boss.

On yet another hand, the president insisted he would support a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United.

And on yet still another hand, when the president had the opportunity to actually do something to shed some sunlight on the secretive stash of corporate donations unleashed by Citizens United, by issuing an executive order requiring government contractors to reveal all their political spending, he balked.

When you follow the president’s actions, rather than listen to his words, it’s not complicated at all.

The president and his Democratic Party colleagues are determined to “take the money and run.”

For nearly a year, President Obama had floated the idea of issuing an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose all their political contributions – including contributions to PACs and organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce – when they submit a bid.

The biggest contractors, for the most part, are defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, which smother the politicians in contributions to keep the weapons contracts flowing. In the 2012 cycle, Lockheed’s PAC has spent more than $2 million in contributions that we know of, 59 percent to Republicans and 41 percent to Democrats.

Its contributions go beyond an attempt to win a single weapons contract. What they and the other contractors have been able to do is to purchase the country’s entire debate over defense spending, so that few of our representatives ever raise a peep about whether the expensive defense systems are necessary.

Republicans howled at the President Obama’s proposal, accusing him of attempting to politicize the bidding process. President Obama wanted to know who had made the contributions, the Republicans charged, so he could award bids to the highest-contributing bidders.

While President Obama stewed, the Republicans passed measures in May 2011 to block [m1] an executive order if it was issued.

The venerable Public Citizen organization made a suggestion that would sidestep the Republicans’ stated objection.

Why not, Public Citizen said, limit the disclosure requirement to the winning bidder?

But the president backed off – either because he didn’t want a fight with Republicans or because his fundraisers reminded him he had a tough campaign ahead and the little people they dote on with their solicitation emails weren’t going to be able to foot the bill.

On the most critical issue facing our political system, the president of the United States is incapable of leveling with the American people.

President Obama may want to do the right thing, but he is trapped in a system controlled by big money that is bigger than he is.

The first step to fight back against that system won’t come from Washington. It will come from building a grassroots movement to undo Citizens United. Read more about it, and our proposed constitutional amendment, which is easy to understand and will withstand any legal challenge, here.