January, 23 2014, 10:16am EDT
New Campaign Launched: "10 Days to Stop Fast Track" Brings Together Diverse Network of Labor, Internet, and Environmental Activists
10 days of intense action from Jan 22 - 31 includes in-person protests, national call Congress day, in-district meetings, reddit AMA, and State of the Union twitterstorm. AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, reddit, Fight for the Future, and over 60 other groups are among the participants
WASHINGTON
An unprecedented network of advocacy organizations, labor unions, tech companies and environmental groups have initiated ten days of coordinated action aimed at halting the controversial "Fast Track" legislation introduced by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI) earlier this month in an effort to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) without a full Congressional debate. The "10 Days to Stop Fast Track" campaign will run from January 22-31.
More than 60 organizations are working together to oppose the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, which threatens to remove the ability of Congress and the public to meaningfully debate trade agreements like the TPP and ensure necessary protections for basic rights.
Read over 50 reasons to oppose Fast Track here: https://StopFastTrack.com
View photos of actions across the country here: https://StopFastTrack.com/#photos
Participants include: reddit, AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, Fight for the Future, Imgur, Communications Workers of America, BoingBoing, Corporate Accountability International, the Machinists Union IAMAW, Electronic Frontier Foundation, MoveOn, Rainforest Action Network, United Students for Fair Trade, Organic Consumers Association, Popular Resistance, ThoughtWorks, Sea Shepherd, Citizens Trade Campaign, 350.org, Demand Progress, Progressive Democrats of America, OpenMedia, GMO Action Alliance, Free Press, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, Jobs With Justice, and more than 30 other groups.
Groups from across the political spectrum have condemned the TPP for its lack of transparency, and are now uniting to stop the Fast Track bill in the House of Representatives (HR 3830) and in the Senate (S 1900). Stopping Fast Track is the key to preventing the TPP from undermining democratic decision-making and negatively impacting communities in the U.S. and worldwide.
The StopFastTrack.com site lists logos from dozens of organizations allowing groups to articulate -- in their own words -- why they each oppose Fast Track.
"10 Days to Stop Fast Track" launched yesterday with a full day of rallies, Congressional office visits and other events across the country coordinated by the Communications Workers of America [See photos here] with support from the MoveOn National TPP team. Other groups have many actions planned during the 10-day period, including more on the ground protests, a Twitter Storm during the State of the Union, and a national call-in day on January 29th. The 10 days will culminate with an Inter-Continental Day of Action on January 31st, marking the anniversary of the passage of NAFTA, which will see hundreds of protests and events across North America.
Below are statements from several organizations participating in the 10 Days to Stop Fast Track. For a complete list, go to https://StopFastTrack.com.
For interviews, please contact Christina DiPasquale at 202.716.1953 or christina@fitzgibbonmedia.com.
AFL-CIO
"It is past time for the United States to get off the corporate hamster wheel on trade. Fast Track renews the undemocratic "trade promotion" process and completely fails to provide the transparency, accountability and oversight necessary for the far-reaching trade and investment agreements that the administration is negotiating," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. "It is ironic that this year, which marks the 20th Anniversary of NAFTA, the supporters of that failed model are bringing forward a fast track trade promotion bill to bring us more of the same."
BoingBoing
"There is only one reason to negotiate an Internet treaty in secret: because you want to break the Internet," said Cory Doctorow, co-editor of BoingBoing. "Moving copyright and Internet regulation out of the UN and into a series of smoke-filled rooms is a blinking red sign flashing WARNING CORRUPTION WARNING CORRUPTION for all to see. Congress must debate each substantive point in TPP, rather than abdicating its duties to the USTR."
Communications Workers of America:
"Trade agreements are no longer just about tariffs and quotas," said Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen. "They are about the food we eat, the air we breathe, the jobs we hold. We cannot abdicate this process to non-elected representatives. We cannot let foreign policy objectives trump domestic concerns and in the process unravel our own democracy instead of strengthening others."
Corporate Accountability International:
"If Congress approves Fast Track, it's not just delegating its trade authority to the White House, it's effectively signaling its tacit approval to the largest corporate-driven trade agreement in U.S. history before even seeing it," said Jesse Bragg, spokesperson for Corporate Accountability International. "The TPP is a corporate wish list disguised as a trade agreement. The question we need to ask is: 'Do we really want to blindly approve an agreement devised by the likes of Walmart, Big Tobacco, and Chevron without even being able to amend it?'"
Electronic Frontier Foundation
"As long as the U.S. trade office treats corporate insiders as the only relevant voice in policymaking, as long as elected lawmakers are largely shut out, and as long as Internet users' concerns are considered as an after-thought (if they are considered at all), the entire trade negotiation process is undemocratic and illegitimate," said Mara Sutton, Global Policy Analyst at the EFF. "For the U.S. Trade Representative to ask for fast track authority against this backdrop is audacious, and for Congress to even consider it is irresponsible."
Fight for the Future
"Decisions that affect our most basic rights should never be made in secret," said Tiffiniy Cheng, co-director of Fight for the Future who initiated the StopFastTrack.com effort. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership would lead to a more expensive and censored Internet, and the Fast Track bill is nothing more than an anti-democratic attempt to ram it through Congress without proper debate or public scrutiny."
LabelGMOs
"We oppose Fast Track because we want our government to follow the Constitution," said Pamm Larry of LabelGMOs.org. "We believe in food sovereignty for all people and are taking a strong stand against corporate control of our food supply."
MoveOn National TPP Organizing Team
"Trade - the instrument that drives the global economy - is arguably the most influential force in determining standards of living for people the world over," notes MoveOn Regional Organizer Elizabeth Warren, coordinator for the MoveOn National TPP Team. "Driving down wages hurts everyone. Our economy can't thrive when workers don't earn enough to buy things. Any responsible trade agreement should include a mandated living wage for workers in every country - to address the problem of trade deficits and level the playing field. But it can't happen unless Congress retains its power to review, invite public comment, and revise trade agreements before they vote on them," she said. "MoveOn councils rallied when we learned about TPP. We recognized that as written it would hand multinational corporations even more rights, and accelerate the global race to the bottom. Fast Track for the TPP would circumvent the normal legislative process, prevent Congress from making changes, and shut down public debate on a whole host of issues having a direct and lasting impact on our lives," she added. "Our representatives need to know that a vote for Fast Track is a vote against democracy itself- a vote that their constituents will surely remember this fall."
OpenMedia
"We oppose Fast Tracking TPP Internet censorship because it will make the Internet more policed, expensive, and censored," said Steve Anderson, Executive Director of OpenMedia.org. "Over 125,000 people around the world have sent a message to TPP decision makers at https://openmedia.org/censorship."
Organic Consumers Association
"Congress shouldn't give President Obama fast-track trade promotion authority. Corporations like Monsanto are pushing the President to use secret, fast-tracked trade deals to force factory farming practices on the rest of the world, practices that include genetic engineering, treating poultry with chlorine and dosing animals with ractopamine," said Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association. "GMO labels are on the trade deal hit list, too. In fact, 'Mandatory Labeling of Foods Derived from Genetic Engineering' is specifically listed in the U.S. Trade Representative's 2013 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade. Over 17,000 OCA members have sent letters to Congress through our website."
"We oppose Fast Track for the TPP because it's an undemocratic agreement that threatens the open Internet," said Erik Martin, general manager of reddit.
Sierra Club
"Across the country, Sierra Club members and supporters are ready to stand up for responsible trade that doesn't threaten American jobs, our air and water, and our climate," said Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director. "The Sierra Club strongly opposes fast track. This bill not only undermines our democracy, it puts American families and our future at risk."
Sea Shepherd
The TPP has since its inception been kept in the shadows, negotiated without the public eye out of sight from the general public. Sea Shepherd supports the importance of biodiversity and open consultative dialogue for any trade agreements," said Omar Todd, CTO of Sea Shepherd. "The emphasis of these agreements must balance both economic and environmental priorities. Humanity's lust for commercialisation and unbridled growth, at the expense of our life support system, may cause us to fall off the precipice as a species."
LATEST NEWS
Possible Lift for Trump as Supreme Court Sides With January 6 Insurrectionist
"This is important in its own right but also signals what's to come" in the former president's immunity case, said one analyst.
Jun 28, 2024
In a ruling that could have implications for charges brought against former U.S. President Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Friday put new constraints on how obstruction charges could be brought against individuals who participated in the January 6 insurrection attempt in 2021.
The high court voted along nonideological lines, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining five conservatives in the majority opinion and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in a dissent.
According to the majority, former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer cannot be charged with obstruction of an official proceeding for joining a mob of Trump supporters who breached the U.S. Capitol to stop lawmakers were certifying the 2020 election.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that to prove January 6 defendants, including Fischer, obstructed an official proceeding, prosecutors must show they "impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or... other things used in the proceeding."
The case hinged on a law enacted in 2002 after the Enron financial scandal, which the majority said was intended to apply to limited circumstances involving physical tampering.
Trump is among nearly 250 people whose January 6 cases could potentially be affected by the Fischer ruling, as they have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding.
There are 52 cases in which obstruction was the only felony conviction or charge, and The Washington Post reported that those are the "most likely defendants to be significantly affected by the decision."
Trump faces four charges in his election interference criminal case, including one count of obstructing an official proceeding and one count of conspiring to do so.
Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is overseeing the election interference case, has said a dismissal of the obstruction charges against Fischer and other January 6 defendants would not impact Trump's case, but Trump's legal team "may use [the ruling] to try to whittle down" prosecutors' arguments against the former president, according to the Post.
On social media shortly after the ruling was handed down, Trump posted the message: "BIG WIN!"
The justices are set to rule soon in another case asking whether Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions he took while in office, like his spreading of the lie that he was the legitimate winner of the 2020 election and the actions he took to foment and support those who stormed the Capitol Building.
The ruling could negate questions about whether the 2002 law applies to Trump's conduct, suggested legal analyst Norm Eisen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
"This is important in its own right but also signals what's to come in [the] immunity case," said Eisen.
The court sent the Fischer case back to the lower courts to determine whether the U.S. Justice Department could still prosecute January 6 defendants under the more narrow interpretation of the law.
While Jackson sided with the conservative majority, she wrote in a separate opinion that Fischer and other defendants could still be charged with obstruction if it is found that they tampered with electoral vote certificates.
Barrett wrote in the minority opinion that the question of whether Fischer can be prosecuted for an obstruction charge "seems open and shut," since the goal of breaching the U.S. Capitol was to disrupt the joint session of Congress where lawmakers were certifying the election results.
"Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress's joint session on January 6th," Barrett wrote. "Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unfathomably Cruel': Billionaire-Backed Justices Rule in Favor of Criminalizing Homelessness
"Maybe the right-wing justices could empathize with the most vulnerable Americans if they spent less time jet-setting on luxury vacations on their wealthy benefactors' dime," said one critic.
Jun 28, 2024
"SCOTUS just criminalized homelessness."
So said numerous legal experts and advocates for the unhoused Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority ruled that local governments can enforce bans on sleeping outdoors, regardless of whether municipalities are able to offer them shelter space.
In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the justices ruled in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson that officials can criminalize sleeping and camping on public property including parks, even when housing options are unavailable or unaffordable.
"We are disappointed that a majority of the court has decided that our Constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go," said Ed Johnson, director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center, which represented unhoused Grants Pass residents in the case.
The decision overturned a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found bans on outdoor sleeping violated the 8th Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment.
"Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "A handful of federal judges cannot begin to 'match' the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding 'how best to handle' a pressing social question like homelessness."
Gorsuch suggested that unhoused people could invoke "necessity... insanity, diminished-capacity, and duress defenses" when they are prosecuted for poverty-related offenses.
In a dissent calling the criminalization of unhoused people "unconscionable and unconstitutional," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime."
"For some people, sleeping outside is their only option," she noted.
Sotomayor continued:
Homelessness is a reality for too many Americans. On any given night, over half a million people across the country lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. Many do not have access to shelters and are left to sleep in cars, sidewalks, parks, and other public places. They experience homelessness due to complex and interconnected issues, including crippling debt and stagnant wages; domestic and sexual abuse; physical and psychiatric disabilities; and rising housing costs coupled with declining affordable housing options.
"It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles," Sotomayor asserted. "Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested."
"The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans rich and poor, housed and unhoused," Sotomayor added. "This court must safeguard those rights even when, and perhaps especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular."
Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass in the case, cheered the decision, arguing that the 9th Circuit ruling had "tied the hands of local governments."
Some leaders in places where the homelessness crisis is most acute welcomed Friday's ruling, including Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, and London Breed, the Democratic mayor of San Francisco, which also filed an amicus brief.
"Gorsuch extensively cites San Francisco's amicus in the decision,"
noted Raya Steier, communications manager at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. "Congratulations London Breed and David Chiu, this is now your legacy."
Economic justice advocates said rising inequality and housing costs have played a key role in driving the U.S. unhoused population to a record 650,000. If all the unhoused people in the country came together to form a city, it would be the nation's 23rd-largest—ahead of Las Vegas, Boston, Detroit, and Portland, Oregon—based on 2020 Census figures.
"We are in the midst of a crisis where housing is unaffordable for millions of Americans. Millions of us are just one paycheck away from losing our homes," New York-based Center for Popular Democracy Action said in a statement. "Today, the Supreme Court has made the morally bankrupt decision to allow people experiencing homelessness to be persecuted and punished just for existing, while denying them shelter and safety as a human right."
"For those who are unhoused, this will mean fines, tickets, and even incarceration for a vulnerable community already abandoned by city and state authorities," the group added.
Referring to the high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, many social media users said that "corporations are people" but "the homeless are not."
Others pointed to the millions of dollars worth of gifts and other perks—many of them undisclosed—lavished upon Supreme Court members, especially far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, by right-wing billionaires, some with business before the court.
"Today's decision shows how little the MAGA supermajority cares about struggling Americans," said Tracy Adair, communications manager at Stand Up America, a New York-based pro-democracy group. "It is unfathomably cruel to punish unhoused individuals for existing on public property when they have nowhere else to go."
"Maybe the right-wing justices could empathize with the most vulnerable Americans if they spent less time jet-setting on luxury vacations on their wealthy benefactors' dime," Adair added.
Advocates for the unhoused stressed that the solution to homelessness is housing, not criminalization.
"Cities should not punish people for being poor," said Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, a housing justice and human rights group serving San Francisco. "The solution is, and has always been, safe and affordable housing."
In response to the ruling, the National Homelessness Law Center is calling on the Biden administration to invest at least $356 billion next year to fund universal rental assistance, upgraded public housing, a national housing trust fund, eviction and homelessness prevention programs, and voluntary supportive and emergency services.
"America is the richest country in the world. We can afford to ensure that everybody has a roof over their heads, a warm bed, and a door to lock," the group sad. "Our neighbors living outside cannot wait any longer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Gift to Corporate Greed': Dire Warnings as Supreme Court Scraps Chevron Doctrine
"Make no mistake—more people will get sick, injured, or die as a result of today's decision," said one advocate.
Jun 28, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative supermajority delivered corporate polluters, anti-abortion campaigners, and other right-wing interests a major victory Friday by overturning the so-called Chevron doctrine, a deeply engrained legal precedent whose demise could spell disaster for public health and the climate.
The high court's 6-3 ruling along ideological lines in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce significantly constrains the regulatory authority of federal agencies tasked with crafting rules on a range of critical matters, from worker protection to the climate to drug safety.
The majority's decision was written by Chief Justice John Roberts.
"The weight of human suffering likely to arise from this decision should keep the justices up at night," said Emily Peterson-Cassin of Demand Progress, a watchdog group that called the decision "a gift to corporate greed."
"The Supreme Court is threatening safeguards that protect hundreds of millions of people from unsafe products, bad medicines, dangerous chemicals, illegal scams, and more," Peterson-Cassin added. "By handing policy decisions usually deliberated over by experts to lower level judges, the Supreme Court has set off a seismic political shift that primarily serves only the most powerful corporate interests."
Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey issued a similarly stark warning: "Make no mistake—more people will get sick, injured, or die as a result of today's decision. Some ramifications of this decision won't be felt for decades, but they will be felt."
The Chevron doctrine, which stemmed from the high court's 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, held that judges should defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretation of a law if Congress has not specifically addressed the issue.
In her dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the consequences of upending Chevron could be vast given that it underpinned "thousands of judicial decisions" and has "become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds—to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest."
Kagan noted that unlike the Supreme Court, federal agencies are staffed with experts that should be granted deference to interpret ambiguities in laws written by Congress, which "knows that it does not—in fact cannot—write perfectly complete regulatory statutes."
"When does an alpha amino acid polymer qualify as a 'protein'?" Kagan asked. "I don't know many judges who would feel confident resolving that issue... But the [Food and Drug Administration] likely has scores of scientists on staff who can think intelligently about it, maybe collaborate with each other on its finer points, and arrive at a sensible answer."
By overturning the Chevron doctrine, the liberal justice wrote, the Supreme Court's majority demonstrated that it "disdains restraint, and grasps for power."
"This is the outcome of a multi-decade crusade by big business and right-wing extremists to gut federal agencies tasked with protecting Americans’ health and safety."
An array of right-wing and industry organizations—including groups with ties to the Koch network and Federalist Society co-chairman Leonard Leo—pushed the Supreme Court to scrap the Chevron doctrine, and Friday's decision could embolden separate legal challenges.
"Anti-abortion activists are celebrating the ruling as a big win for their plans to further restrict medication abortion," The New York Timesreported Friday, citing a strategist for Students for Life who said that "getting rid of Chevron is the first domino to fall."
"They see the decision as a new precedent that can work in their favor as they seek to bring another case against the Food and Drug Administration to the Supreme Court, which rejected their bid to undo the FDA's approval of the drug earlier in June," the Times added.
Climate advocates warned the ruling could also be devastating for the planet, potentially hamstringing the Environmental Protection Agency and other departments as they attempt to rein in planet-warming pollution using existing law. The American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. oil and gas industry's largest lobbying group, celebrated Friday's ruling as environmentalists voiced dismay.
"Today's reckless but unsurprising decision from this far-right court is a triumph for corporate polluters that seek to dismantle commonsense regulations protecting clean air, clean water, and a livable climate future," said Food and Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter. "This decision brings into sharp relief the critical importance of electing presidents who will appoint Supreme Court justices guided by science and sound legal precedent."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that Friday's ruling "by an extremist Supreme Court eviscerates four decades of legal precedent that protects Americans’ rights to clean air and water, safe workplaces, and healthcare by preventing the dedicated civil-servant experts who staff our federal agencies from implementing the laws enacted by Congress."
"That is why Congress must immediately pass my Stop Corporate Capture Act, the only bill that codifies Chevron deference, strengthens the federal-agency rulemaking process, and ensures that rulemaking is guided by the public interest–not what's good for wealthy corporations," said Jayapal. "Make no mistake: this is the outcome of a multi-decade crusade by big business and right-wing extremists to gut federal agencies tasked with protecting Americans' health and safety to instead benefit corporations aiming to dismantle regulations and boost their profits."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular