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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

The article goes on to say who received the payoffs and that those running in 2016 got substantially more than the average bribe.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

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.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. So the Dems were running a Blue Light Special on their votes?

They sold their votes for half the going price among Republicans.

Jeez, we give these shitpots a vote, and they can't even get a good price for it.

No wonder the party is falling to ruin.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. My senator, who've I've always thought one of the best got her kickback.

Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them.

My other senator, Cantwell, cashed in as well.

[JDPriestly]

13. Another reason to vote for Bernie.

You cannot take money like that and then claim you oppose Citizens United.

I like Wyden, but . . . . . . . . this looks really, really bad.

Feinstein is a loss to begin with. But she doesn't run in 2016 and should retire and never run again. I hope.

[Dustlawyer]

27. That is why I hope that everyone who supports their favorite cause, be it education, gay marriage,

legalizing pot, immigration, environment... all join together to fight/demand Publicly Funded Elections! We can protest outside of campaign events with signs showing how much in bribes they have currently raised and ask the question, "What do you have to do for the $___ you received?"
Bernie is the ONLY one pushing for PFE's that I know of.

[chapdrum]

42. That's a great headline.

Yes - if Dems are rolling over to the seditionist wing of the Money Party, then heck, let's at least be given the chance to choose
our new pols from among America's most proactive CEO's, e.g., John Watson of Chevron for Secretary of the Interior (Posterior).

[arcane1]

3. A Fast Track victory is a republican victory. Period.

It astounds me that it gets any support here at all, regardless of who is president.

[rhett o rick]

40. We error when we try to draw the line between Democrats and Republicons. The line is between

Conservatives of both parties and Progressive Democrats.

[-none]

51. ^^^That is it^^^

What constitutes a Democrat is is getting too mushy to have much meaning anymore. We really need to start using more descriptive terms like Liberal and Conservative... Until those terms get corrupted also.

[City Lights]

4. They are whores.

They sell the government rather than their bodies.

[stage left]

20. And they're cheap whores.

[JEB]

5. K&R for exposure.

I once was proud supporter of Wyden, but turns into a fucking corporate sell out.

[KoKo]

6. Amounts Given Rise Dramatically When Broken Down to Amount Each Senator Received....More:

The amounts given rise dramatically when looking at how much each senator running for re-election received.

Two days before the fast-track vote, Obama was a few votes shy of having the filibuster-proof majority he needed. Ron Wyden and seven other Senate Democrats announced they were on the fence on 12 May, distinguishing themselves from the Senate’s 54 Republicans and handful of Democrats as the votes to sway.

In just 24 hours, Wyden and five of those Democratic holdouts – Michael Bennet of Colorado, Dianne Feinstein of California, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Patty Murray of Washington, and Bill Nelson of Florida – caved and voted for fast-track.
Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research.

Almost 100% of the Republicans in the US Senate voted for fast-track – the only two non-votes on TPA were a Republican from Louisiana and a Republican from Alaska.

Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US trade representative, has been one of the loudest proponents of the TPP. He received $119,700 from 14 different corporations between January and March, most of which comes from donations from Goldman Sachs ($70,600), Pfizer ($15,700), and Procter & Gamble ($12,900). Portman is expected to run against former Ohio governor Ted Strickland in 2016 in one of the most politically competitive states in the country.

Seven Republicans who voted “yea” to fast-track and are also running for re-election next year cleaned up between January and March. Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia received $102,500 in corporate contributions. Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, best known for proposing a Monsanto-written bill in 2013 that became known as the Monsanto Protection Act, received $77,900 – $13,500 of which came from Monsanto.

Arizona Arizona senator and former presidential candidate John McCain received $51,700 in the first quarter of 2015. Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina received $60,000 in corporate donations. Eighty-one-year-old senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is running for his seventh Senate term, received $35,000. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who will be running for his first full six-year term in 2016, received $67,500 from pro-TPP corporations.

“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” said Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their reelection campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Quid pro quo.

[JDPriestly]

30. I want to know where the money came from. Don Siegelman is in prison for less than taking

money for a vote on a trade agreement.

Where did that money come from?

Each recipient should let us know specifically where their recent donations came from.

[gratuitous]

7. Just over a million bucks?

FIFA officials held out for a lot more.

[Elwood P Dowd]

9. Crap can't pass on it's merits, so the fat cats just buy it. Most of us knew that would happen.

When it comes up in the House, look for another Capitol Hill traffic jam from these just before the vote.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. They used to come in brown paper bags. Now they're "legal campaign contributions".

[bvar22]

11. Geez. You would think that the Dems would hold out for more money.

The Dems were selling their votes for less than 1/2 of what the Republicans were getting for theirs.

[Elwood P Dowd]

12. There are more nasty fake free trade deals in the hopper. They will make it up with those.

Gotta' stimulate the economy and keep these guys in business.....

[rhett o rick]

41. There is an important lesson here. The Oligarchs are telling the sell-out Democrats that their

quid pro quo vote is appreciated but don't take it for granted.

[n2doc]

14. Cheap

Amazing the ROI on these things. You would think we could crowdsource an opposing donation greater than that. But of course we couldn't match the promises of cushy jobs and speaking fees that are also being made.

[Elwood P Dowd]

16. Remember the NAFTA debate? Opponents were outspent something like 20-1.

These fake free trade deals are like a money blitzkrieg from the mega rich when the vote approaches.

[erronis]

15. And how many of these "gifts" are reported as taxable income?

Don't we all wish we could get our payments in unreported $100 bills or in-kind on foreign assets? No wonder they want the IRS to go away.

“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” said Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their reelection campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.

“How can we expect politicians who routinely receive campaign money, lucrative job offers, and lavish gifts from special interests to make impartial decisions that directly affect those same special interests?” Gidfar said. “As long as this kind of transparently corrupt behavior remains legal, we won’t have a government that truly represents the people.”

[Enthusiast]

17. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

[KoKo]

35. ...!

[packman]

18. Seems like small chump change

Why can't we get up a collection and buy those votes back. Better yet, start a DU lobby - I'll contribute a few bucks - to buy those easily bought law makers.
Reminds me of the declining days of Rome when Senators were being bought out and the hell with the Republic.

[GoneFishin]

25. Seems cheap to me too. They really are cheap whores.

[dreamnightwind]

37. Actually that is an excellent idea

The American people could chip in enough to offset these contributions. It might simply up the ante. But the other possibility is it would free congress-people to vote against the big money. They wouldn't necessarily have to get the most they possibly could, they just need enough to finance their elections independently from those interests. Truth is still worth something, it can overcome money to a certain extent in elections.

Someone should run with this idea, it needs expansion but I think there's gold in them thar hills.

[bvar22]

45. They do.

It is called "Money Bombs", and as the election gets closer,
you will be asked to participate in some.

[dreamnightwind]

47. I don't think that's quite the same, is it?

A congressperson is approached by a lobbyist wanting a vote on legislation, and offers the congressman a contribution. I don't know the exact way these things go down, but for the point of discussion, let's say it is something like that.

In some cases, the congressperson would be ideologically aligned with the lobbyists position, and there is no problem there.

In other cases, the congressperson dislikes that he/she has to do things this way, would rather represent the people's interest than the lobbyists, but needs the campaign cash.

I don't think this is the best solution, but wouldn't it be possible to build a mechanism (like gofundme) where the congressperson posts the need for funding and also the possibility of accepting funding for x amount for x position (would need to be verifiable) and is seeking a non-compromising alternative to accepting those funds on that issue, therefore being able to vote his/her conscience?

If that's how money bombs work, I didn't reallize that, I thought they were not so specifically targeted to prevent acceptance of lobby money on a single issue.

Anyway I am trying to get to a working mechanism that would enable an honest politician to stay honest without unilaterally disarming in the campaign finance world, and without requiring a constitutional amendment. Suggestions welcome.

[bvar22]

48. Good Luck.

That is an noble goal.

[dreamnightwind]

50. OK

It seems wrong for the public to have to basically bid against corporations for congresspeople to vote in our interests, but with the current state of campaign finance law and this SCOTUS' interpretaions of money, speech, and corporate personhood, I thought maybe an alternative like this might be workable.

We wouldn't have to outbid the corporation, necessarily, a right-hearted congressperson that merely needs enough funding to win reelection could win without maximizing his/her campaign war chest, so long as they had enough to get their name known and their ideas heard.

But a mechanism where they could directly solicit public funds for issues when they are considering accepting lobbyist money but don't like the strings, seems like there might be a workable solution in there somewhere.

[-none]

52. Instead of trying to rebuy our congress critters, use that money to mound a legal case against them

for bribery. Then, if successful, we get new, hopefully more honest congress critters.

[dreamnightwind]

53. I don't think you'd have much luck with that

but be my guest, would be interesting.

I was thinking of it as a Citizen's Lobby, crowd-funded.

I have long held the unpopular opinion that we pay our congresspeople way too little money. They work for who pays them, and for who will help them bankroll their reelection. Congressional salaries, and POTUS too, are extremely low considering how hard it is to get those jobs and how important they are. If we could get them to work for us instead of for corrupting corporate money, they'd be worth every penny of it.

Corporations long ago figured out that contributions to congresspeople get a huge return on their investment. I may be way off track here, but I'd think a Citizen's Lobby could also take advantage of this.

I know there are some public interest groups that attempt to do this, but I was trying to imagine it more as providing an alternative for congresspeople who would rather represent us but can't afford to (and I actually think that is a lot of them, and if the alternative is there but they still won't take it, those are the ones we run candidates against).

Obviously the right fix is public financing of elections, that's a great place to put energy, it's a long battle though, in the meantime why not set up a way for them to do the right thing without sacrificing their hopes of reelection? until we find a way to defeat money, we could crowd-source our own Citizens Lobby.

[WillyT]

19. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[benld74]

21. Cheap bastards!

[raindaddy]

22. Not surprised to see Feinstein's name on the list...

I called her office and told them how fed up I was of her. I also called Wyden's office....
Bernie and Warren are right, it's way past to be angry...

[B Calm]

23. Best government money can buy!

Vomit. . .

[StarzGuy]

24. The sell out by the dems just sickens me

[AZ Progressive]

26. And this shows that if some Republicans and Democrats initially stall fast track in the House...

It's more likely because they are waiting for their payout rather than that they care about preserving the sovereignty of this country.

[Elwood P Dowd]

29. You got it. When the Brinks trucks show up, they will suddenly fall in love with another fake free

trade deal.

[diabeticman]

28. So much for our American press being the 4 estate informing the American public.

[Dont call me Shirley]

31. Cheap dates!

[antigop]

32. K&r. Sorry for the late kick...I've been tied up and not on DU. Thanks for posting. nt

[KoKo]

33. Recommend Read...

[leftstreet]

34. DURec

[Unknown Beatle]

36. If Obama had kept his promises,

we wouldn't be where we are right now.

[dreamnightwind]

38. K & f'n R - eom

[Michigan-Arizona]

39. K&R n/t

[NorthCarolina]

43. Excuse me, but shouldn't the fee for Democrats be HIGHER than Republicans

who would just support it anyway? That's a load of crap right there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Apparently, those running for reelection got a bigger cut.

From the article.

Bennet, Murray, and Wyden – all running for re-election in 2016 – received $105,900 between the three of them. Bennet, who comes from the more purple state of Colorado, got $53,700 in corporate campaign donations between January and March 2015, according to Channing’s research.

[bvar22]

46. Does this make you skin crawl...like mine?

And then we have the nerve to claim we are spreading "Freedom & Democracy"
with our bombs & guns.
Bullshit.

[moondust]

49. Paging FIFA investigative team...

We have a new case that might interest you.

[woo me with science]

54. K&R