John Key, Crosby & corporate lobbyists

Written By: - Date published: 10:26 am, July 16th, 2013 - 40 comments
Categories: accountability, capitalism, Conservation, crosby textor, democracy under attack, john key, Mining, slippery, spin, trade, uk politics - Tags: ,

In the last week there has been some news coverage of UK PM David Cameron’s links to corporate lobbyists.  There is strong criticism of his links with big tobacco lobbyists, via his Conservative Party’s election adviser, Lynton Crosby of Crosby Textor notoriety. This link is part of an extensive international network of business and politics: ones with connections to John Key, who also has bowed to the pressure of big tobacco and big oil.

It is Cameron’s connection with Philip Morris, via Lynton Crosby, that is getting media coverage in the UK this week, with many calling for Cameron to sever his links with Crosby.  It now also includes criticsms of connections to big oil and fracking.

David Cameron, Lynton Crosby, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234565/Lynton-Crosby-Foul-mouthed-abuse-campaign-chief-revealed-lands-Tory-post.html

David Cameron, Lynton Crosby: Daily Mail, 2012

Last year, John Key resisted the Maori Party call to follow the example of the Australian government in requiring plain packaging on cigarette packets.  An article in The Observer on Saturday (UK time) outlines the issue:

David Cameron faces calls from senior Liberal Democrats to sack his controversial election strategist Lynton Crosby over his links with the tobacco industry, as the coalition descended into open warfare over public health policy.

[…]

Amid the growing furore, the Tory chairman of the all-party select committee on health, former health secretary Stephen Dorrell, announced that his committee would look into why the government had changed its mind on the question of cigarette packaging.

In July last year, Green Party MP Kevin Hague called for John Key to follow Julia Gillard’s example and not bow to pressure from big tobacco:

John Key yesterday said a proposal to require plain packaging of cigarettes and tobacco was not a “slam dunk” because of the risk of legal action by tobacco companies and producing countries.

[…]

“What’s John Key’s response in the face of similar pressure? To waver. He has given tobacco giants the motivation to step up their efforts.”

[…]

The Green Party is also concerned about the impact the investor-state dispute procedure proposed in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) would have on New Zealand’s ability to protect the health of its citizens. Australia has reportedly resisted the procedure being included.

“Big tobacco can already use trade rules against New Zealand but it would be much easier for them to win under the TPP,” Mr Hague said.

On the same day, Isaac Davison reported on the issue in the NZ Herald, identifying Philip Morris as one of the major tobacco companies putting pressure on governments:

The Australian Government was being sued for its plain packet regime by tobacco giant Philip Morris, which alleged that the new policy breached a free trade treaty with Hong Kong,

[…]

New Zealand did not have significant trade with the tobacco-producing companies which were suing Australia, but a WTO case would blemish New Zealand’s trading image.

In February of this year, Key re-stated that his government may not go ahead with plain packaging.  Key has also said that his government is unlikely to ever ban smoking, because it would be too difficult.

In the UK, Cameron is now getting criticism related to Crosby’s links with the fracking industry:

Mr Crosby’s lobbying firm, Crosby Textor, represents the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, an oil and gas lobby group campaigning aggressively for fracking. The association’s chief operating officer, Stedman Ellis, has made headlines in recent months for his outspoken criticism of anti-fracking campaigners, telling one Australian paper: “The opportunity provided by shale gas is too important to be jeopardised by political scare campaigns run by activist groups.”

The association’s members include Dart, the company behind coal-bed methane extraction in Scotland, which holds a fracking licence. George Osborne announced tax breaks for the oil and gas industry just weeks after Mr Crosby’s appointment as a Conservative adviser was announced.

The background to John Key’s connection to Crosby Textor was exposed in Nicky Hager’s book, The Hollowmen, with the relevant chapter being available here.  Hager says that it was more Mark Textor who oversaw management of Key’s 2005 election campaign.

A February 2013 article in The Australian, also outlines the roles of Crosby and Textor in the “dark arts” of political manipulation, mentioning John Key as one of their clients.  It identifies examples of pressure brought by the pair via court cases.  As Lynn posted on The Standard in June 2009, Lynton Crosby unsuccessfully attempted to sue Nicky Hager and Radio NZ for “defamation” in relation to comments Hager made on RNZ.

Nicky Hager describes what went down with this case, showing how Crosby used “defamation proceedings as a political weapon”, following Hager’s exposure of Key’s consultations with Crosby Textor:

When the story appeared on 29 June 2008, National was furious. Key refused to confirm publicly that he was using the company while behind the scenes his media staff attacked me for doing the story. The day after the article was published I was invited onto Radio New Zealand’s Nine to Noon programme and basically repeated what I had written in the newspaper. For unclear reasons, I was sued over this interview (not the article) and the lawsuit came from Crosby/Textor co-director Lynton Crosby (not the other co-director, Mark Textor, who has mostly acted as the advisor for National).

The above linked article in The Australian mentioned Crosby’s links with ex-UK Conservative Party campaign manager, Mark Fullbrook, who along with his wife, has extensive influential networks of “business and political contacts”.  These seem to be part of the Networks of Influence that John Key likes to insert himself into.

Joining the dots/nodes:

John Key -Crosby Textor- big tobacco- big oil & fracking-Crosby Textor-David Cameron.

 

 

40 comments on “John Key, Crosby & corporate lobbyists ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. aerobubble 1
    16 July 2013 at 11:48 am

    Tainting the Hobbit movie with anti-unionist sentiment. Building a conference center off the backs of gambling addicts, increase the catchment area by build a rail station outside the casino, against the community who work to remove the numbers of pokies. Its clear, doing business with Key’s govt doesn’t necessary reap long term profits, Key knows this, knows the economy, legislation is rigged for short term opportunists. Take today on the NR, the share-market is top heavy with power companies, and mum and dad buyers didn’t have the money, so the pattern become clearer, its about downgrade both ends of the contract and profiting by being the market maker, and letting the parasitical profiteers reap wealth. Key’s job before he entered politics, and sure it was acceptable when energy kept getting cheaper every year, and projections that it would continue to, but that’s not the world we are in any more. we cannot sustain a market maker class, with their market maker mentalities, sure we will all need some, but the Key dodo is extinct in our new economy, and its a real shame the National party don’t see this. The housing market is in crisis, burnt at both ends, leak homes, high insurance risks, p-labs, and at the other end seven time income to buy a home, banks flushed with money as leverage levels have not been shrunk, when everyone gets what they want, the people not in the loop, the majority, don’t get a look in, get treated like indebted economic slaves.

  2. Rosetinted 2
    16 July 2013 at 12:35 pm

    aerobubble
    we cannot sustain a market maker class, with their market maker mentalities, sure we will all need some, but the Key dodo is extinct in our new economy, its a real shame the National party don’t see this.

    Why should they bother? Where’s the money in it for them? Why change anything when everything now provides so many rich fields for profitable deals? If you have a scheme, then present it with full costings and advantages to ‘key’ sectors or they won’t give it table room.

  3. phillip ure 3
    16 July 2013 at 12:39 pm

    can i claim to be first cab off the (local) ramp with this one..?

    ..back in mid-june i started covering it..

    (and i did a fake-tweet from key on that crosby-topic..)

    http://whoar.co.nz/?s=lynton+crosby

    ..other crosby-archives go back to 2008..

    ..and the patterns couldn’t be clearer..

    ..showing who key really works for..

    ..who both pulls his strings..

    ..and fucks with our perceptions..

    phillip ure..

    • karol 3.1
      16 July 2013 at 1:02 pm

      Great job keeping a record of these connections, phillip. I hadn’t seen your posts previously – was alerted to the issue by a UK contact who drew my attention to it this week.

        • karol 3.1.1.1
          17 July 2013 at 8:43 pm

          The first paragraph of the article, Wairua:

          It doesn’t seem to have occured to Lynton Crosby’s critics that he could both have a commercial interest in a policy and believe that it’s right for the Conservatives. The decision not to impose plain packaging on cigarette packets is a good example. The Australian strategist is an experienced communicator of conventional conservatism – of the immigration-restricting, welfare-capping, tax-cutting, patriotism-proclaiming variety – and believes that anything which gets in its way must be cleared out.

          So, do you have anything to add to this, Wairua, or do you agree that this hasn’t occured to us critics?

          Because f you do, you are wrong.

          Of course, Crosby & the Conservatives, like John Key, think that their commercial interests are good for their party. And this is why we are critical of such policies, and the tie in between their commercial interests and their politics. Not a very clever article then.

          Some probably also kid themselves that it is also good for the whole country.

          The article continues:

          The origins of this mess lie not with Crosby himself – who wants simply to earn more money, just like the rest of us

          LMAO! Of course that’s all he wants!… and then the article says:

          but with David Cameron and the Conservative leadership. Very simply, Crosby was shipped in at a time when Number 10 was desparate to have him. The weakness in Cameron’s strategic thinking and campaigning, which bungled the last election campaign and at times has almost paralysed the Government, had caught up with him again.

          Really! The writer of that article just doesn’t get why so many of us are critical of the close connection between corporate interests and politics. And they completely ignore the whole Crosby Textor “dark arts” of manipulation in order to make themselves (many many) bucks.

          Seriously! Are you able to defend this (disingenuous) superficial gloss?

  4. blue leopard 4
    16 July 2013 at 1:19 pm

    I am fascinated by this science/art of how people can get others to vote for interests that go against their, and a their whole communities’, wellbeing.

    I am wondering whether there is any research/statistics on who the most vulnerable group to these manipulation techniques that Crosby is clearly skilled in?

    I suspect people with higher education are probably more immune to such tactics and am wondering whether there are any stats out on the subject? Someone?

    I suspect that is why the Nact party are making a decent education harder to get and am interested to see if my suspicions have any accuracy.

    Great article on what I consider to be a very important subject.

  5. Wayne 5
    16 July 2013 at 1:21 pm

    The Left has been raising the Crosby Textor thing for a decade now. Has it made any difference to your success or is it simply another distraction from what you should be focused on, which is things that actually affect people.

    Voters are not surprised to hear that political parties have advisors, and do not judge John Key on Crosby Textor.

    The govt has been perfectly clear on its drive for more oil extraction and for the Sky City Convention Centre and it various growth initiatives. No secret there. The voters know the Govt’s agenda.

    By the way Metiria’s continual reference to a “dirty deal” is hardly the best way to persuade any Nat, or Peter Dunne for that matter. But I guess she knows that, and is only appealing to her constituency.

    By the way when did Sky City become such an object of hate for Labour. Up until this deal they seemed quite happy to have the Casino in Auckland. Perhaps they still are, given the acceptance of the invitations.

    Maybe it is only the Greens who are obsessed with evils of gambling -the new puritans!

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.1
      16 July 2013 at 1:29 pm

      the grotesque peasants stalk the land
      and deep down inside you know everyone wants to like big companies

    • karol 5.2
      16 July 2013 at 1:33 pm

      You are right, these corporate connections are often in plains sight. I raise the issue because I consider them important. I am not an election campaigner, but am concerned about the undue corporate influence in these issues – Key has clearly bowed to the tobacco industry.

      Is is puritanical to protest about corporates preying on addictions that hurt the least well off in society? Gambling, especially via pokies, damages lives.

      PS: I have a close family member who died young (a Nat voter), was a chain smoker, and was riddled with cancer as indicated by the autopsy. I have no love for the tobacco industry.

      • King Kong 5.2.1
        16 July 2013 at 1:44 pm

        For a Government that is apparantly “in the pocket” of big tabacco, they are doing a terrible job for their puppet masters.

        Smoking rates continue to nose dive due to some pretty strong Nat policies.

        • Wayne 5.2.1.1
          16 July 2013 at 2:33 pm

          But are the Nats really in the pockets of “big tobacco”, because they did not accept all the recommendations of the Maori party. Most were in fact accepted.

          And as far as I can tell it is pretty much Govt policy to drive down tobacco use.

          I think that some of the concerns are really around the fact of how far you need to go in rubbing smokers nose in it. More of a sensibilty issue.

          • karol 5.2.1.1.1
            16 July 2013 at 2:49 pm

            British American Tobacco (NZ) has lobbied hard on issues like plain packaging: this is the issue that has brought some strong criticism of David Cameron via his link with Lynton Crosby. It’s also the point where John Key has drawn the line.

            BAT has long been a strong lobbyist in NZ, providing corporate boxes for MPs, especially one Nat MP who got into a fracas that made headlines. I see that Nikki Kaye has also been named as a “friend” of a top person at BAT.

            Tobacco isn’t as big an industry in NZ as in the UK, and, yes, the Maori Party has exerted pressure on the Key government from the opposite direction.

            The other issue raised by the Cameron-Crosby confection is on the issue of fracking – and Crosby (especially Mark) Textor’s long association with the oil industry in Aussie. This lobby seems to have had a stronger impact in NZ.

            • George D 5.2.1.1.1.1
              16 July 2013 at 3:44 pm

              There’s also a revolving door from this Government into British American Tobacco. I’m aware of a senior ministerial staffer being appointed head of ‘regulatory affairs’ (lobbying), then heading back into the Beehive. I would be surprised if this was the only occurrence.

    • Winston Smith 5.3
      16 July 2013 at 3:04 pm

      “The Left has been raising the Crosby Textor thing for a decade now.”

      – I’d say its jealousy because National get value for money from Crosby where as Labour…yeah I’d be jealous if I was in the Labour party

      • karol 5.3.1
        16 July 2013 at 3:06 pm

        Mate, I’m not in the Labour Party. “Envy” – something righties seem to be into.

    • lprent 5.4
      16 July 2013 at 3:16 pm

      Guess I’m a “new puritan” as well.

      The gambling industry feeds a rather stupid addiction and is deeply corrupting of the body politic. It isn’t hard to find examples of that from many countries. In fact it isn’t hard to find examples of the damage it can cause around the families of people I have known. It isn’t as if I’ve ever seen any analysis that looked at cost/benefit analysis of the casino that actually looked at the misery factors and the downstream costs.

      Personally I couldn’t give shit about which party the MP’s are. Any MP who votes for the extra pokies will go on to my permanent shit list.

      • rosy 5.4.1
        16 July 2013 at 8:05 pm

        +1.

        I saw a clip of a Tory minister on UK tv the other morning talking CT and about reneging on the plain packaging for cigarettes. I object to the reason he gave for not proceeding – that this was the right decision because it sends the signal that Britain is “open for Business”. (If he said proceeding cautiously due to the Australian legal challenge I would have thought that was a fair enough, if debatable opinion).

        It the mindset of the Tories in Britain and National in NZ, as evidenced by the SkyCity deal, that is corrupt. At what level of harm do these people find being ‘open for business’ is not an acceptable reason for doing a deal?

        • Draco T Bastard 5.4.1.1
          16 July 2013 at 11:56 pm

          It the mindset of the Tories in Britain and National in NZ, as evidenced by the SkyCity deal, that is corrupt. At what level of harm do these people find being ‘open for business’ is not an acceptable reason for doing a deal?

          They don’t care about the harm as it doesn’t happen to them, they only care for the profit which does happen to them.

    • Anne 5.5
      16 July 2013 at 6:01 pm

      The Left has been raising the Crosby Textor thing for a decade now.

      Well. that’s a lie for starters. Most of the commenting has been on this site and The Standard has only been in existence for about 5 years.

    • Puddleglum 5.6
      16 July 2013 at 7:38 pm

      Hi Wayne,

      “The Left has been raising the Crosby Textor thing for a decade now. Has it made any difference to your success or is it simply another distraction from what you should be focused on, which is things that actually affect people.”

      First, if something is wrong I see no reason to stop pointing that out. Perhaps on ‘the Right’ the only value is ‘success’ but it’s not my only value.

      Second, what makes you think that the influence of Crosby and Textor on John Key does not “affect people“? Does government policy not affect people, as a rule? Since the concern is that Crosby and Textor appear to have an inordinate – and unacknowledged – influence on government policy, in what way would that concern not also be a concern about “things that actually affect people“?

      “Voters are not surprised to hear that political parties have advisors, and do not judge John Key on Crosby Textor.”

      First, it’s not clear what your apparent certainty about these claims is based upon. Do you, for example, have any information about what proportion of the voting population is even aware of the relationship between the government, John Key in particular, and Crosby and Textor?

      Second, the concern held by ‘the Left’ about these relationships is not in Crosby and Textor’s role as strategic advisors/ spin doctors. As is very clear, the concern is over the extent to which they may be influencing government policy via a personal and financial relationship as well as a political one.

      The public may not be surprised that political parties have ‘advisors’, but would the public be surprised to hear that political parties’ policies are influenced by people characterised as strategic and media ‘advisors’ but who have considerable connections to, and sympathies with, the mining and tobacco industries and have routinely ‘advised’ governments to adopt favourable positions in relation to those industries?

      On Turei’s reference to a ‘dirty deal’, perhaps she is more concerned to inform the public in general rather than just her ‘constituency’ about the peculiar process of awarding Sky City the Convention Centre ‘tender’. Perhaps she also sees that as more important in the long term than trying to ‘persuade’ a ‘Nat’ or Peter Dunne over a single issue.

      Or is it naive of a politician to wish to keep the public informed about the nature of how policy is being made?

      “The govt has been perfectly clear on its drive for more oil extraction and for the Sky City Convention Centre and it various growth initiatives. No secret there. The voters know the Govt’s agenda.”

      I’ll assume for now that the government has been entirely upfront about its mining agenda (though it could be debated whether or not that is the case). But I see no reason why the claimed motive for that agenda (i.e., to grow the economy for all New Zealanders’ benefits) should be accepted or assumed that it is not a “secret“.

      I start from a rejection of the ‘benign world’ assumption when it comes to the motives of politicians and business people in relation to decisions that will produce billions of dollars worth of profit from resource extraction and gambling. I think the assumption that everyone is acting with the best of motives is extraordinarily unwise, as history teaches us and the most astute observers of the operation of power (e.g., Lord Acton) confirm.

      It is for that very reason, of course, that transparent and correct processes have to be followed. There’s no room for some matey kind of ‘pragmatism’ in these matters.

      You may think it sad and a little disappointing that politicians’ and business people’s motives should be relentlessly questioned and doubted but that is the vigilance required in a democracy if the public are not to be routinely taken advantage of and treated with contempt. Now, I don’t know John Key from a bar of soap and therefore see no particularly strong reasons to trust him given the power he wields over such significant issues; and I would say the same about many politicians.

      When it comes to politics and big business, I think that is the most prudent attitude to adopt.

      As John Dewey noted, politics, after all, is simply the shadow cast over society by business.

  6. blue leopard 6
    16 July 2013 at 1:26 pm

    There is an interesting article here on the subject of mass manipulation (I may well have found this via the Standard, so it may be a repeat from a year or so ago, and sorry for not acknowledging the original ‘linker’)

    http://pulsemedia.org/2009/02/02/aldous-huxley-the-ultimate-revolution/

    Of particular interest:

    You’ll find for example that the experienced hypnotist will tell one that the number of people, the percentage of people who can be hypnotized with the utmost facility (snaps), just like that. is about 20%, and about a corresponding number at the other end of the scale are very, very difficult or almost impossible to hypnotize. But in between lies a large mass of people who can with more or less difficulty be hypnotized, that they can gradually be if you work hard enough at it be got into the hypnotic state, and in the same way the same sort of figures crop up again, for example in relation to the administration of placebos. ~ Aldous Huxley

    I suspect this is why there is always a small group of people who are able to see past the shite we are ‘fed’ and decode it back to the rest of us in a way that we can understand…properly…what we are swallowing.

  7. George D 7
    16 July 2013 at 3:40 pm

    Will a Labour Government led by Shearer withdraw NZ from the TPPA?

    • Wayne 7.1
      16 July 2013 at 3:55 pm

      To George D, No. But I am sure you already know this.

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 7.1.1
        16 July 2013 at 3:56 pm

        “No” is the right answer, because the TPPA has zero chance of being signed in its present form.

        • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.1
          16 July 2013 at 4:58 pm

          And even it is signed, it has even less chance of being ratified by the US Congress

          • KJT 7.1.1.1.1
            16 July 2013 at 5:36 pm

            Hopefully, you are correct. for once.

            • Tim 7.1.1.1.1.1
              16 July 2013 at 6:07 pm

              It provides Tim Grosser with a few little treats and trinkets in the meantime though.
              Another opportunity lost for Labour!
              They’re remarkable quiet on the whole issue.

              It’d be the first time I can recall agreeing with Mathew Hooten.

              If he’s wrong, prepare yourselves for one fcuked up country! It might be enough to wake a few sleepy hobbits up – NZ’s tipping point.

          • Wayne 7.1.1.1.2
            16 July 2013 at 6:01 pm

            Matthew,

            We will see.

            The Congress will be reluctant to let go of this opportunity. they know it won’t come around again for some decades. while this might please some there will be many others who will see access to Japan, for instance as a big win. Yes, it will challenge some of them, but the Obama administration has a reasonably good track record in this area.

            I would not be so quick to write it off. It will be the biggest trade deal since the WTO twenty years ago. A Congress will not lightly walk away from that.

            • Matthew Hooton 7.1.1.1.2.1
              16 July 2013 at 6:15 pm

              Wayne, NAFTA only sneaked in. Interested in the names of the 60 Senators you think would vote for cloture. NAFTA only went through 60 to 38. And the House is more loony protectionist than ever (Standard writers would fit in well). They will not perceive that the US is a winner from TPP, even though every country would win from it.
              Also, Obama doesn’t even have fast-track negotiating authority, so Congress could unravel any deal clause-by-clause. The main point of the TPP is to keep trade bureaucrats and rent-a-mob anti-globalisation activists like Jane Kelsey in air points.

              • blue leopard …
                16 July 2013 at 6:37 pm

                Yes, and so the list indicating groups that have some interest in the TPPA provided by Open Secrets website:

                US Chamber of Commerce 48
                National Retail Federation 26
                AFL-CIO 23
                Nike Inc 22
                Google Inc 19
                Pfizer Inc 19
                Teva Pharmaceutical Industries 19
                United Steelworkers 18
                Buhler Quality Yarns 18
                News Corp 18
                Land O’Lakes 17
                Fashion Accessories Shippers Assn 16
                National Spinning 16
                Nucor Corp 16
                Travel Goods Assn 16
                American Apparel & Footwear Assn 16
                American Farm Bureau 16
                Glen Raven Mills 16
                Net Coalition 15
                Wal-Mart Stores 15
                Dairy Farmers of America 15
                ACE Ltd 15
                Emergency Cmte for American Trade 14
                Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America 14
                Hanesbrands Inc 14
                Generic Pharmaceutical Assn 13
                Hewlett-Packard 13
                Teamsters Union 13
                Retail Industry Leaders Assn 13
                Ford Motor Co 13
                IBM Corp 13
                Assn of Equipment Manufacturers 13
                Time Warner 12
                Kraft Foods 12
                National Pork Producers Council 12
                Outdoor Industry Assn 12
                Business Software Alliance 12
                Fonterra 12
                Biotechnology Industry Organization 12
                National Cotton Council 11
                Mylan Inc 11
                Business Roundtable 11
                Intel Corp 11
                American Manufacturing Trade Action Cltn 11
                American Sugar Alliance 11
                Watson Pharmaceuticals 10
                National Oilseed Processors Assn 10
                US Assn of Importers of Textiles/Apparel 10
                Philip Morris International 9
                Abbott Laboratories 9
                Fiat SPA 9
                Independent Film & Television Alliance 8
                Renfro Corp 8
                Assn of Global Automakers 8
                United Auto Workers 8
                Biogen Idec 8
                National Electrical Manufacturers Assn 7
                Toyota Motor Manufacturing 7
                National Corn Growers Assn 7
                Sierra Club 7
                Motion Picture Assn of America 7
                Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals 7
                National Amusements Inc 7
                American International Auto Dealers Assn 7
                National Council of Farmer Co-Ops 7
                Japan Automobile Manufacturers Assn 7
                Natl Council of Textile Organizations 7
                Robertson, Julian H 6
                Oceana 6
                Novartis AG 6
                Hyundai Motor Co 6
                Motorola Solutions 6
                Gap Inc 6
                Merck & Co 6
                Altria Group 6
                Coca-Cola Co 6
                US Beet Sugar Assn 6
                Procter & Gamble 6
                Rubber & Plastic Footwear Mfrs Assn 6
                Roche Holdings 5
                National Potato Council 5
                Hospira Inc 5
                Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 5
                Wildlife Conservation Society 5
                Cooperative Network 5
                National Fisheries Institute 5
                Tyco International 5
                TenCate Protective Fabrics North America 5
                Amgen Inc 5
                Kraft Foods Group 5
                Boilermakers Union 5
                Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids 5
                Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Assn 4
                Dell Inc 4
                Communications Workers of America 4
                JPMorgan Chase & Co 4
                Monsanto Co 4
                Sony Corp 4
                Computing Technology Industry Assn 4
                Intradeco 4
                Software & Information Industry Assn 4
                Distilled Spirits Council 4
                Canadian National Railway 4
                Dunkin’ Brands 3
                Yahoo! Inc 3
                World Wildlife Fund 3
                Library Copyright Alliance 3
                NETWORK 3
                Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affl 3
                Steel Manufacturers Assn 3
                Technology Assn of America 3
                Milliken & Co 3
                Glanbia Foods 3
                Intl Alliance Theatrical Stage Employees 3
                Berkshire Hathaway 3
                Hershey Co 3
                Tooling/Manufacturing/Technologies Assn 3
                PepsiCo Inc 3
                AbbVie Inc 3
                Riverside County, CA 3
                Semiconductor Industry Assn 3
                Mondelez Global 3
                United Parcel Service 3
                Comcast Corp 3
                Directors Guild of America 3
                Oracle Corp 3
                American Civil Liberties Union 3
                National Assn of Home Builders 3
                Computer & Communications Industry Assn 3
                Cargill Inc 2
                Eli Lilly & Co 2
                American Automotive Policy Council 2
                American Israel Public Affairs Cmte 2
                Elanco Animal Health 2
                American Cancer Society 2
                Hansoll Textile Ltd 2
                Americans for Tax Reform 2
                Sweetener User Assn 2
                Pharma Industry Labor Management Assn 2
                Burlington Industries 2
                Portland Business Alliance 2
                American Sugarbeet Growers Assn 2
                Emerson 1
                ConAgra Foods 1
                Cintas Corp 1
                American Forest & Paper Assn 1
                Visa Inc 1
                National Assn of Manufacturers 1
                California Rice Commission 1
                Blue Diamond Growers 1
                CBRL Group 1
                Change to Win 1
                Chrysler Group 1
                Consumer Electronics Assn 1
                Intl Fedn of Prof & Technical Engineers 1
                Salesforce.com 1
                Public Knowledge 1
                Western United Dairymen 1
                Corning Inc 1
                Boeing Co 1
                Morgan Stanley 1
                Environmental Defense Fund 1
                Neptune Orient Lines 1
                American Assn of Law Libraries 1
                Canadian Council of Chief Executives 1
                Center for American Progress 1
                Corn Refiners Assn 1
                Financial Services Forum 1
                National Cattlemen’s Beef Assn 1
                Timken Co 1
                Midwest Dairy Coalition 1
                Lam Research 1
                Grocery Manufacturers Assn 1
                Small Business/Entrepreneurship Council 1
                Agco Corp 1
                ANSAC 1
                Apotex Inc 1
                Intl Foodservice Distributors Assn 1
                Automotive Aftermarket Industry Assn 1
                Toy Industry Assn 1
                Toyota Motor Corp 1
                National Chicken Council 1
                Caterpillar Inc 1
                GlaxoSmithKline 1
                Alliance for Healthcare Competitiveness 1
                Friends of the Earth 1

                Some mighty influential groups by the look of it, would have no influence on what decision the American Congress settled upon
                🙄

              • Draco T Bastard …
                16 July 2013 at 9:09 pm

                They will not perceive that the US is a winner from TPP, even though every country would win from it.

                Except that they won’t be:

                Consider models of international trade in which capital goods are produced, not given as an unproduced endowment. A positive interest rate, in such a model, acts as a price distortion. Consequently, the gains of trade, when comparing stationary states with and without trade, can be negative. Previous authors have drawn this result in models with production depicted as a circular process, even though their point does not depend on this modeling choice. The principle contributions of this paper are to provide a demonstration of the possibility of such a loss from trade in a simplified model with “a one-way avenue … lead[ing] from ‘Factors of production’ to ‘Consumption goods'” and to illustrate the model with a concrete numerical example. The theory of comparative advantage is not sufficient to justify the advocacy of free trade in consumer goods, even under textbook assumptions.

                International trade results in loss.

  8. Frank Macskasy 8
    16 July 2013 at 8:53 pm

    An excellent piece, Karol. Well done! (And if anyone from the msm is reading this – don’t you feel just a teeny weeny bit embarressed that we’re not seeing this kind of reporting outside of blogs?)

  9. Sable 9
    16 July 2013 at 10:25 pm

    Smoking killed my parents and no doubt the lack of action will see more health crisis in the future as smokers become sick. Still looking at Keys despicable track record to date this comes a no surprise, the mans a bottom feeder.