U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has yet to make a definitive stance on Fast Track or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
(Photo: Marc Nozell/flickr/cc)
Jun 19, 2015
For a moment on Thursday, Hillary Clinton seemed poised to make a definitive statement against Trade Promotion Authority, or Fast Track, the controversial legislation that would grant President Barack Obama the power to force pro-corporate agreements through Congress without allowing input or amendments from lawmakers.
But she didn't.
Speaking to Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston in a televised interview Thursday night, the 2016 presidential candidate said she "probably" would not vote for Fast Track "at this point," and that "I certainly would not vote for it unless I were absolutely confident we would get Trade Adjustment Assistance [TAA]."
TAA is designed to provide support for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the offshoring created by deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the secretive international corporate investment proposal currently making its way through Congress. Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at the progressive advocacy group Public Citizen, has previously explained (pdf) that TPP and similar "NAFTA-style" agreements "will kill more American jobs in the first place, especially given our high unemployment rates."
On Thursday, just hours before Clinton made her comments to Ralston, the House of Representatives passed Fast Track--sending the legislation back to the Senate, where its fate remains unclear as many Democrats had previously insisted it includes TAA.
Some media outlets saw Clinton's comments as her strongest stance yet on the issue of trade, which has dogged her presidential campaign as opponents point out her deep personal ties to Wall Street lobbyists and foreign oligarchies.
But progressives were unimpressed. Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Politico on Thursday that all presidential candidates "should urge the Senate to vote no on fast track. Voters need to see that Democratic Party leaders, including Hillary Clinton, are willing to strongly fight corporate interests that seek to hurt workers and everyday families."
And as The Intercept's Lee Fang reported on Thursday, Clinton's campaign "is partnering with a pro-TPP/TPA law and lobby firm to raise cash."
Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson explained earlier this month that Clinton's continued evasion of questions on Fast Track is "a political calculation, trying to stay on the fence between the donor/corporate/elite class and the 'base' of working people and progressives trying to do something about the terrible inequality that is killing the middle class and our democracy."
"But this is an either/or line," Johnson wrote. "You can't be on both sides of this dividing line. You are either for Wall Street, the giant corporations and the billionaires--or you are on the side of the rest of us."
Observers have also called attention to Fast Track's indivisible connection to TPP because Clinton has kept silent.
During a campaign stop in Iowa last month, Clinton said she would reserve her opinion on the TPP until negotiations are completed.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
barack obamabillionaireselection 2016fast trackglobal trade watchhillary clintonhondurasnaftaprogressive change campaign committeepublic citizentpptradeus congresswall streettrans-pacific partnership
For a moment on Thursday, Hillary Clinton seemed poised to make a definitive statement against Trade Promotion Authority, or Fast Track, the controversial legislation that would grant President Barack Obama the power to force pro-corporate agreements through Congress without allowing input or amendments from lawmakers.
But she didn't.
Speaking to Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston in a televised interview Thursday night, the 2016 presidential candidate said she "probably" would not vote for Fast Track "at this point," and that "I certainly would not vote for it unless I were absolutely confident we would get Trade Adjustment Assistance [TAA]."
TAA is designed to provide support for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the offshoring created by deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the secretive international corporate investment proposal currently making its way through Congress. Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at the progressive advocacy group Public Citizen, has previously explained (pdf) that TPP and similar "NAFTA-style" agreements "will kill more American jobs in the first place, especially given our high unemployment rates."
On Thursday, just hours before Clinton made her comments to Ralston, the House of Representatives passed Fast Track--sending the legislation back to the Senate, where its fate remains unclear as many Democrats had previously insisted it includes TAA.
Some media outlets saw Clinton's comments as her strongest stance yet on the issue of trade, which has dogged her presidential campaign as opponents point out her deep personal ties to Wall Street lobbyists and foreign oligarchies.
But progressives were unimpressed. Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Politico on Thursday that all presidential candidates "should urge the Senate to vote no on fast track. Voters need to see that Democratic Party leaders, including Hillary Clinton, are willing to strongly fight corporate interests that seek to hurt workers and everyday families."
And as The Intercept's Lee Fang reported on Thursday, Clinton's campaign "is partnering with a pro-TPP/TPA law and lobby firm to raise cash."
Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson explained earlier this month that Clinton's continued evasion of questions on Fast Track is "a political calculation, trying to stay on the fence between the donor/corporate/elite class and the 'base' of working people and progressives trying to do something about the terrible inequality that is killing the middle class and our democracy."
"But this is an either/or line," Johnson wrote. "You can't be on both sides of this dividing line. You are either for Wall Street, the giant corporations and the billionaires--or you are on the side of the rest of us."
Observers have also called attention to Fast Track's indivisible connection to TPP because Clinton has kept silent.
During a campaign stop in Iowa last month, Clinton said she would reserve her opinion on the TPP until negotiations are completed.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
For a moment on Thursday, Hillary Clinton seemed poised to make a definitive statement against Trade Promotion Authority, or Fast Track, the controversial legislation that would grant President Barack Obama the power to force pro-corporate agreements through Congress without allowing input or amendments from lawmakers.
But she didn't.
Speaking to Nevada political reporter Jon Ralston in a televised interview Thursday night, the 2016 presidential candidate said she "probably" would not vote for Fast Track "at this point," and that "I certainly would not vote for it unless I were absolutely confident we would get Trade Adjustment Assistance [TAA]."
TAA is designed to provide support for workers who lose their jobs as a result of the offshoring created by deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the secretive international corporate investment proposal currently making its way through Congress. Lori Wallach, director of the Global Trade Watch program at the progressive advocacy group Public Citizen, has previously explained (pdf) that TPP and similar "NAFTA-style" agreements "will kill more American jobs in the first place, especially given our high unemployment rates."
On Thursday, just hours before Clinton made her comments to Ralston, the House of Representatives passed Fast Track--sending the legislation back to the Senate, where its fate remains unclear as many Democrats had previously insisted it includes TAA.
Some media outlets saw Clinton's comments as her strongest stance yet on the issue of trade, which has dogged her presidential campaign as opponents point out her deep personal ties to Wall Street lobbyists and foreign oligarchies.
But progressives were unimpressed. Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Politico on Thursday that all presidential candidates "should urge the Senate to vote no on fast track. Voters need to see that Democratic Party leaders, including Hillary Clinton, are willing to strongly fight corporate interests that seek to hurt workers and everyday families."
And as The Intercept's Lee Fang reported on Thursday, Clinton's campaign "is partnering with a pro-TPP/TPA law and lobby firm to raise cash."
Campaign for America's Future blogger Dave Johnson explained earlier this month that Clinton's continued evasion of questions on Fast Track is "a political calculation, trying to stay on the fence between the donor/corporate/elite class and the 'base' of working people and progressives trying to do something about the terrible inequality that is killing the middle class and our democracy."
"But this is an either/or line," Johnson wrote. "You can't be on both sides of this dividing line. You are either for Wall Street, the giant corporations and the billionaires--or you are on the side of the rest of us."
Observers have also called attention to Fast Track's indivisible connection to TPP because Clinton has kept silent.
During a campaign stop in Iowa last month, Clinton said she would reserve her opinion on the TPP until negotiations are completed.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.