SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Progressives Unimpressed as Clinton Hedges on Fast Track
After partnering with pro-TPP/TPA firm for campaign season, Clinton takes both sides on corporate-friendly agreements
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —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.