West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, who raised more than $400,000 from the oil and gas industry while the bill was being negotiated, is now poised to gut Biden’s clean-energy plan. Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema spent the summer and fall collecting checks from corporate groups and Trump donors who oppose the Biden agenda, then helped cut the size of the reconciliation package by approximately half.
READ MORE AT:
Are lobbyists trying to gut Biden’s budget? No one knows – and that’s the problem | David Litt | The Guardian
Showing posts with label lobbyists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobbyists. Show all posts
10/23/21
7/3/20
EU parliament chairs explain missing lobbyist meetings - by Nikolaj Nielsen
Last year, the European Parliament adopted rules requiring MEPs who
chair committees to publish their meetings with registered lobbyists.
But earlier this week, the NGO Transparency International revealed six out of the 22 chairs have so far failed to do so since July 2019.
Read more at:
EU parliament chairs explain missing lobbyist meetings
But earlier this week, the NGO Transparency International revealed six out of the 22 chairs have so far failed to do so since July 2019.
Read more at:
EU parliament chairs explain missing lobbyist meetings
8/23/19
EU-US relations: US faith-based conservative EU lobbyists billionaires funding EU culture war - by Michael Bird and Blaz Zgaga
The number of faith-based conservative EU lobbyists in Brussels is
growing and the Roman Catholic Church is itself a big spender.
But US billionaires, some of whom are friends of American president Donald Trump, are also paying anti-abortion groups in Europe tens of millions of dollars to influence policy and law.
The US groups have not scored any big wins yet.
But they are acting in concert and they are just getting started, European MPs who work on sexual and reproductive health have warned.
And the culture war is broader, with women's rights, LGBTI rights, embryonic research, and euthanasia also involved in the clash of values.
Some 21 religious think-tanks, NGOs, and other entities currently spend €2.1m to €3.1m a year lobbying the European Parliament and European Commission on these fronts, according to the EU transparency register.
Read more: US billionaires funding EU culture war
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com
But US billionaires, some of whom are friends of American president Donald Trump, are also paying anti-abortion groups in Europe tens of millions of dollars to influence policy and law.
The US groups have not scored any big wins yet.
But they are acting in concert and they are just getting started, European MPs who work on sexual and reproductive health have warned.
And the culture war is broader, with women's rights, LGBTI rights, embryonic research, and euthanasia also involved in the clash of values.
Some 21 religious think-tanks, NGOs, and other entities currently spend €2.1m to €3.1m a year lobbying the European Parliament and European Commission on these fronts, according to the EU transparency register.
Read more: US billionaires funding EU culture war
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail:Freeplanet@protonmail.com
6/30/19
Saudis and their lobbyists risk losing access to EU Parliament - by Nikolaj Nielsen
Earlier this year, the former defence minister of France, Michele
Alliot-Marie, chaired a backroom meeting with a half dozen Saudi
ambassadors at the European Parliament.
That meeting was part of a so-called training programme organised by the College of Europe, an academic institution part-funded by the European Union and based out of Bruges in Belgium.
The college received Saudi money for the effort and then attacked the media for reporting the behind closed door meeting between the ambassadors and MEPs as lobbying.
France is also the world's third-largest weapons exporter with Riyadh as one of its biggest clients. The regime late last year murdered critical journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Now pressure is mounting to ban all Saudi diplomats, as well as any organisation that represents them, from entering the European Parliament again.
Read more at: Saudis and their lobbyists risk losing access to EU Parliament
The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digst
Insure-Digest
Turkish-Digest
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail: Freeplanet@protonmail.com
That meeting was part of a so-called training programme organised by the College of Europe, an academic institution part-funded by the European Union and based out of Bruges in Belgium.
The college received Saudi money for the effort and then attacked the media for reporting the behind closed door meeting between the ambassadors and MEPs as lobbying.
France is also the world's third-largest weapons exporter with Riyadh as one of its biggest clients. The regime late last year murdered critical journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Now pressure is mounting to ban all Saudi diplomats, as well as any organisation that represents them, from entering the European Parliament again.
Read more at: Saudis and their lobbyists risk losing access to EU Parliament
The Digest Group
Almere-Digest
EU-Digst
Insure-Digest
Turkish-Digest
For additional information, including advertising rates - e-mail: Freeplanet@protonmail.com
9/4/16
Corruption in the European Union: Scandals in Banking, Fraud and Secretive TTIP Negotiations - by Graham Vanbergen
In Brussels alone there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, which are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.
The US Chamber of Commerce the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies and DigitalEurope, whose members include all the big IT names like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft are there. So are the Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby working for BMW, Ford, Renault and others, the Chemical Industry Council lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like, are all there.
The European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies are present as are powerful big Pharma companies and FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever are sitting at the negotiating table.
One in every 5 corporate lobby groups, which have lobbied for trade on TTIP (80 out of 372 corporate actors), is not registered in the EU’s Transparency Register. Of 597 closed meetings the EU Commissioners conducted over TTIP, 88% were with big corporations. Just 9% were with public interest groups.
Many, if not most of these corporations are not strangers to scandals of corruption in one sort or another. TTIP if successful, would perhaps be the apex of their achievement.
Transparency International explains the connection between lobbying and corruption thus:
Any activity carried out to influence a government or institution’s policies and decisions in favour of a specific cause or outcome. Even when allowed by law, these acts can become distortive if disproportionate levels of influence exist — by companies, associations, organisations and individuals.
It should be clear to anyone that when transparency of policy making, basic safeguards and accountability are limited, this can lead to illegal, undue and unfair influence in a country’s policies and politics. TTIP is the embodiment of a corrupt system where corporations decide what are best, not democratic principles.
In the meantime, Cecelia Malmstrom has faced huge public opposition over TTIP. Millions have signed petitions. Mass protests groups have rallied in many cities across Europe and America, some have turned ugly with protestors facing riot police in Brussels and elsewhere. In response the EU Commission conducted the largest ever survey since its 1951 birth and reluctantly published the results in January 2015 where 97% of 150,000 respondents from 28 nations voiced their unequivocal opposition to the deal. At the same time, the Commission also received individual replies from more than 450 organisations who represented a wider spectrum of EU civil society, including trade unions, NGOs, business organisations, consumer groups, charities, legal firms and academics, all of whom expressed either deep concern or outright opposition – to no avail. (5)
Questioned by a reporter from The Independent on why she continued her persistent promotion of the deal against such massive public opposition, Malmström’s chilling response was: “I do not take my mandate from the European people.” EU commissioners are supposed to follow the elected governments of Europe and so this deal proves it is nothing more than a corporate coups d’état that clearly breaches any definition, no matter how low the bar, of corruption. (6)
This stark reality is highlighted by a report from War on Want who revealed that The European Commissioner for Trade receives orders directly from the corporate lobbyists that swarm around Brussels.
Given that the European Commission takes its steer from industry lobbies it’s hardly surprising that 70 per cent of Europe’s population think corruption is now centered on politics and corporations.
Read moreCorruption in the European Union: Scandals in Banking, Fraud and Secretive TTIP Negotiations | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
The US Chamber of Commerce the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies and DigitalEurope, whose members include all the big IT names like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft are there. So are the Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby working for BMW, Ford, Renault and others, the Chemical Industry Council lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like, are all there.
The European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies are present as are powerful big Pharma companies and FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever are sitting at the negotiating table.
One in every 5 corporate lobby groups, which have lobbied for trade on TTIP (80 out of 372 corporate actors), is not registered in the EU’s Transparency Register. Of 597 closed meetings the EU Commissioners conducted over TTIP, 88% were with big corporations. Just 9% were with public interest groups.
Many, if not most of these corporations are not strangers to scandals of corruption in one sort or another. TTIP if successful, would perhaps be the apex of their achievement.
Transparency International explains the connection between lobbying and corruption thus:
Any activity carried out to influence a government or institution’s policies and decisions in favour of a specific cause or outcome. Even when allowed by law, these acts can become distortive if disproportionate levels of influence exist — by companies, associations, organisations and individuals.
It should be clear to anyone that when transparency of policy making, basic safeguards and accountability are limited, this can lead to illegal, undue and unfair influence in a country’s policies and politics. TTIP is the embodiment of a corrupt system where corporations decide what are best, not democratic principles.
In the meantime, Cecelia Malmstrom has faced huge public opposition over TTIP. Millions have signed petitions. Mass protests groups have rallied in many cities across Europe and America, some have turned ugly with protestors facing riot police in Brussels and elsewhere. In response the EU Commission conducted the largest ever survey since its 1951 birth and reluctantly published the results in January 2015 where 97% of 150,000 respondents from 28 nations voiced their unequivocal opposition to the deal. At the same time, the Commission also received individual replies from more than 450 organisations who represented a wider spectrum of EU civil society, including trade unions, NGOs, business organisations, consumer groups, charities, legal firms and academics, all of whom expressed either deep concern or outright opposition – to no avail. (5)
Questioned by a reporter from The Independent on why she continued her persistent promotion of the deal against such massive public opposition, Malmström’s chilling response was: “I do not take my mandate from the European people.” EU commissioners are supposed to follow the elected governments of Europe and so this deal proves it is nothing more than a corporate coups d’état that clearly breaches any definition, no matter how low the bar, of corruption. (6)
This stark reality is highlighted by a report from War on Want who revealed that The European Commissioner for Trade receives orders directly from the corporate lobbyists that swarm around Brussels.
Given that the European Commission takes its steer from industry lobbies it’s hardly surprising that 70 per cent of Europe’s population think corruption is now centered on politics and corporations.
Read moreCorruption in the European Union: Scandals in Banking, Fraud and Secretive TTIP Negotiations | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
7/27/16
Inequality: 10 US corporate welfare programs that will make your blood boil - by Tom Cahill
A small number of incredibly wealthy Americans are ridiculing Bernie Sanders’ base for wanting “free stuff” when the costliest programs are, by far, corporate welfare and entitlements for the top 1 percent. Fox News has been working hard to tear down Sanders’ proposals to provide Medicare for all, institute tuition-free public college, boost infrastructure spending, and expand Social Security.
“That’s not fiscally possible unless the federal government starts seizing private assets,” said Bill O’Reilly.
But O’Reilly is wrong. The money for Sanders’ platform can easily come from eliminating the costliest entitlement programs for the top 1 percent and multinational corporations. Here’s a breakdown of the most superfluous giveaways to the rich and how much they cost the rest of us:
1. Tax Breaks for obscene CEO bonuses ($7 billion/year)
Currently, the biggest corporations are exploiting a 20-year-old loophole that allows them to write off inflated compensation packages for CEOs, billing stock options, and performance-based bonuses to taxpayers. In 2010, the Economic Policy Institute found out that the biggest corporations cost Americans $7 billion by writing off inflated executive pay. Between 2007 and 2010, this loophole accounted for more than $30 billion in corporate welfare. According to The Guardian, fast food industry CEOs cost taxpayers $64 million through this loophole.
That $7 billion could singlehandedly fund the annual budget for the National Science Foundation — which, as I recently reported for US Uncut, funds 11,000 scientific research projects each year and has funded 26 Nobel laureates in the last 5 years.
2. Tax cuts for luxury corporate jets ($300 million/year)
Currently, corporations can claim a huge tax deduction every year by writing off purchases of corporate jets, lavish cars, and chauffeurs as “security” for their top executives. A Bloomberg analysis from 2011 showed that these tax breaks for some of the wealthiest Americans cost the rest of us $300 million each year. While that may not sound like much, that’s approximately 50 percent of the annual budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren that protects Americans from the financial sector’s most predatory schemes.
3. Big oil subsidies ($37.5 billion/year)
According to Oil Change International (OCI), the U.S. government spends anywhere between $10 billion and $52 billion per year on corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry — one of the wealthiest industries in the world. OCI estimated that total combined subsidies to big oil approached $37.5 billion in 2014, which includes $21 billion on production and exploration subsidies.
These subsidies alone cost more than what we currently spend on providing rental assistance for low-income families. In 2013, the department of Housing and Urban Development allocated a total of $34.3 billion toward tenant-based rental assistance ($19 billion), project-based rental assistance ($8.7 billion), and general public housing programs ($6.6 billion). These programs helped 4.5 million families — half of whom are elderly — keep a roof over their head.
4. Pharmaceutical subsidies ($270 billion/year)
As US Uncut has previously reported, the pharmaceutical industry costs taxpayers roughly $270 billion a year when accounting for the cost we pay for life-saving drugs whose patents have been bought up by Big Pharma. This is over $1,914 per household in corporate welfare. This is partly due to the Medicare Part D bill that George W. Bush signed into law in 2003, which prevents Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. But the biggest drug companies also make a pretty penny (a combined $711 billion in profits between 2003 and 2012) by buying patents for drugs that were largely developed with taxpayer-funded research, then jacking up the price by absurd amounts after cornering the market.
This $270 billion annual subsidy could be virtually eliminated by passing Bernie Sanders’ bill to establish a government fund that buys up drug patents as soon as they become available for purchase. Then, the government would sell drugs at-cost to save money for those who need them. The money saved could pay for the annual $270 billion in insurance costs from Obamacare that would help more Americans get access to healthcare.
5. Capital gains tax breaks ($51 billion/year)
When anyone makes money from selling off investments, the IRS classifies that as capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate (20 percent as of 2012) than real, actual work (35 percent). Pew Research found that 53 percent of Americans own no stock at all, and out of the 47 percent who do, the richest 5 percent own two-thirds of that stock. And only 10 percent of Americans have pensions, so stock market gains or losses don’t affect the incomes of most retirees. The Century Foundation found that the total amount of lost revenue by taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages cost $256 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2016, or $51 billion a year over the last 5 years. According to the Tax Policy Center, if investment income was taxed at the same rate as wages, 75 percent of that new revenue would come from the richest 0.3 percent of Americans; 92 percent of that revenue would come from those making $200,000 or more per year. The chart below shows what percentage of income each tax bracket makes from capital gains — not surprisingly, the wealthiest Americans get most of the benefit from capital gains.
If we taxed wealth like work, the extra $51 billion per year in savings could fund two-thirds of the annual budget for food stamps.
6. Corporate tax subsidies from state and local governments ($80.4 billion/year)
In 2012, the New York Times did an analysis of every existing tax break in each of the 50 states and learned that 1,874 programs cost taxpayers $80.4 billion every year for corporate welfare in their state. Compare that cost with the cost of providing tuition-free public college to every student, which The Atlantic estimated would be a mere $62.6 billion. As the chart below shows, this is actually way cheaper than what we currently spend on federal student aid.
7. Handouts to Big Ag ($18 billion/year)
Crop insurance — a program originally intended to help farmers recover from the dust bowls of the 1930s — has become a slush fund for wealthy corporate farmers who have become experts at manipulating the system for their own means. As Bloomberg reported, the median income of commercial farm households (in which farming makes up more than 50 percent of a household’s income) was $84,649 in 2011 — 70 percent more than the average American household. Farmers have learned to exploit the program by growing crops on land they know will be unproductive, then making money from insurance claims rather than crops. In 2011, 26 farmers each got an annual subsidy of $1 million, including one tomato farmer in Florida who got a $1.9 million subsidy.
This $18 billion in corporate welfare is more than NASA’s annual budget, which has hovered around the $17 billion mark since 2009.
8. Welfare for Wall Street ($83 billion/year)
The biggest banks have grown even bigger than they were just before the 2008 financial meltdown. And due to their size, these banks are perceived as “too big to fail,” as their demise would spell doom for the US financial sector as a whole. So as these big banks grow bigger, the Federal Reserve allows them to borrow at lower interest rates than other big banks — essentially subsidizing the continued growth of the big banks. In 2013, Bloomberg estimated the ten biggest TBTF banks suck up $83 billion per year in corporate welfare.
If we were to force the big banks to borrow at the same interest rates as every other bank at a rate of $83 billion per year, that would be enough to double the current federal budgets for highway spending ($48.6 billion), Head Start ($10.1 billion), the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.89 billion), nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children ($6.2 billion), the National Parks Service ($3 billion), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ($2.39 billion), with $5 billion left over.
9. Export-Import bank subsidies ($112 billion)
This week, the House of Representatives voted to revive the Export-Import (Ex-Im) bank, which has been maligned as a slush fund for large, multinational corporations. In its most recent year, the Ex-Im bank had a $112 billion portfolio, of which $90 billion went to multinationals. If that wasn’t bad enough, a huge portion of that money went to just 10 wealthy corporations.
According to the New York Times, the federal government spends roughly $105 billion on public K-12 schools. If we allow the Ex-Im bank to fade away, the money formerly set aside for corporate subsidies could instead double that investment in public education.
10. Federal contracts for the top 200 biggest companies ($880 billion/year)
The biggest 200 corporations have an excessively unfair advantage over their competitors due to their influence in Washington. According to the Sunlight Foundation, the top 200 companies spent a combined $5.8 billion on lobbying Congress between 2007 and 2012. And in those same years, those companies received $4.4 trillion in federal contracts. That $4.4 trillion is $100 billion more than what the U.S. government spent on providing a basic income to the nation’s 50 million Social Security recipients.
The combined cost of these 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539 trillion per year. The three main programs needy families depend upon — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.3 billion), food stamps ($74 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($67.2 billion) — cost just $158.5 billion in total. This means we spend ten times as much on corporate welfare and handouts to the top 1 percent than we do on welfare for working families struggling to make ends meet.
Read more: 10 corporate welfare programs that will make your blood boil
3/31/16
Global Warming: Who are the Global Warming Skeptic Organizations - who also have lobbyists in Bruxelles?
 |
| Global warming is for real - Vested Interest fights change |
These organizations play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas — even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet.
Who are these groups? And what is the evidence linking them to the fossil fuel industry?
Here's a quick primer on several prominent global warming skeptic organizations, including examples of their disinformation efforts and funding sources from the fossil fuel industry. Many have received large donations from foundations established, and supported, by the fossil fuel billionaire Koch brothers.
American Enterprise Institute
The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science, despite at times affirming that the “weight of the evidence” justifies “prudent action” on climate change. [1]
For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists [2], with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.” [3] A resident scholar at AEI went so far as to state that the profession of climate scientist “threatens to overtake all” on the list of “most distrusted occupations.” [4]
AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [5], and more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011. [6]
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) frequently provides a platform for climate contrarian statements, such as “How much information refutes carbon dioxide-caused global warming? Let me count the ways.” [7]
While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. [8]
These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries.
AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch [9], and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors [10]. Richard Fink, executive vice president of Koch Industries, also serves as a director for both AFP and AFP Foundation. [11]
Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. [12]
American Legislative Exchange Council
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” [13] and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions.
ALEC purports to “support the use of sound science to guide policy,” but routinely provides a one-sided platform for climate contrarians. State legislators attending one ALEC meeting were offered a workshop touting a report by a fossil fuel-funded group that declared “like love, carbon dioxide's many splendors are seemingly endless." [14, 15] Another ALEC meeting featured a Fox News contributor who has claimed on the air that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming.” [16, 17]
ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 [18], and more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [19]
Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University
From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states.
These economic analyses are at times accompanied by a dose of climate contrarianism. For example, BHI Director David Tuerck has claimed that “the very question of whether the climate is warming is in doubt…” [20] Claims such as “wind power actually increases pollution” can be found in many of BHI’s reports.
BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding [21], which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. [22]
Cato Institute
Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato's website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” [23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.” [24]
Patrick Michaels, Director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, has referred to the latest Draft National Climate Assessment Report as “the stuff of fantasy.” [25] The most recent edition of Cato’s “Handbook for Policymakers” advises that Congress should “pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.” [26]
Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 [27], and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. [28] Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. [29]
Competitive Enterprise Institute
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” [30] But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.” [31]
These kinds of claims are nothing new for CEI. Back in 1991, CEI was claiming that “The greatest challenge we face is not warming, but cooling.” [32] More recently, CEI produced an ad calling for higher levels of carbon dioxide. [33] One CEI scholar even publicly compared a prominent climate scientist to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. [34]
CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005 [35], though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations. CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s. [36]
Heartland Institute
While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists. [37]
Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski [38], bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” [39]
Heartland even once marked Earth Day by mailing out 100,000 free copies of a book claiming that “climate science has been corrupted” [40] – despite acknowledging that “…all major scientific organizations of the world have taken the official position that humankind is causing global warming.”
Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006 [41]. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011. [42, 43]
Heritage Foundation
While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. [44, 45, 46, 47] One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” [48]
Vocal climate contrarians, meanwhile, are described as “the world’s best scientists when it comes to the climate change study” in the words of one Heritage policy analyst. [49]
Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [50] ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. [51, 52]
Institute for Energy Research
The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming.
IER claims that public policy “should be based on objective science, not emotion or improbable scenarios ” But IER also claims that the sense of urgency for climate action is due not to the science that shows the real and growing conequences of global warming. Rather, IER suggests that researchers “exacerbate the sense [that] policies are urgently needed” for monetary gain, noting that “issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding.” [53]
IER has received funding from both ExxonMobil [54] and the Koch brothers [55].
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.” [56]
“The science is not settled, not by a long shot,” Robert Bryce, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow has written in the Wall Street Journal [57]. At other times Bryce has expressed indifference to the science on climate change. “I don’t know who’s right. And I really don’t care,” he wrote in one book. [58]
The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 [59], with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. [60]
Read more : Global Warming Skeptic Organizations | Union of Concerned Scientists
2/20/16
EU-TTIP: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy - by Graham Vanbergen
It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU
Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular
TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple
episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the
demise of the European project gathers pace.
The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.
The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?
Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.
The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.
Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.
European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).
FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.
However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows.
More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.
The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.
The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.
Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying.
The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.
The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP.
From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.
In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.
The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.
To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.
Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.
Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.
The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.
For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.
It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.
The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.
The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?
Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.
The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.
Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.
European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).
FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.
However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows. More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.
The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.
The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.
Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying. The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.
The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP. From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.
In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.
The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.
To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.
Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.
Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.
The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.
For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.
Read more: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy : Waking Times
 |
| TTIP: A secret and bad deal |
The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.
The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?
Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.
The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.
Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.
European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).
FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.
However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows.
More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.
The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.
The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.
Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying.
The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.
The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP.
From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.
In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.
The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.
To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.
Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.
Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.
The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.
For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.
It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.
The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.
The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?
Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.
The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.
Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.
European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).
FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.
However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows. More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.
The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.
The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.
Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying. The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.
The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP. From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.
In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.
The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.
To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.
Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.
Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.
The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.
For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.
Read more: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy : Waking Times
7/6/15
Legal Controversies: The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries - by Claire Provost and Matt Kennard
Luis Parada’s office is just four blocks from the White House, in the
heart of K Street, Washington’s lobbying row – a stretch of steel and
glass buildings once dubbed the “road to riches”, when
influence-peddling became an American growth industry. Parada, a
soft-spoken 55-year-old from El Salvador,
is one of a handful of lawyers in the world who specialise in defending
sovereign states against lawsuits lodged by multinational corporations.
He is the lawyer for the defence in an obscure but increasingly
powerful field of international law – where foreign investors can sue
governments in a network of tribunals for billions of dollars.
Fifteen years ago, Parada’s work was a minor niche even within the legal business. But since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits. In 2006, Ecuador cancelled an oil-exploration contract with Houston-based Occidental Petroleum; in 2012, after Occidental filed a suit before an international investment tribunal, Ecuador was ordered to pay a record $1.8bn – roughly equal to the country’s health budget for a year. (Ecuador has logged a request for the decision to be annulled.)
Parada’s first case was defending Argentina in the late 1990s against the French conglomerate Vivendi, which sued after the Argentine province of Tucuman stepped in to limit the price it charged people for water and wastewater services. Argentina eventually lost, and was ordered to pay the company more than $100m. Now, in his most high-profile case yet, Parada is part of the team defending El Salvador as it tries to fend off a multimillion-dollar suit lodged by a multinational mining company after the tiny Central American country refused to allow it to dig for gold.
The suit was filed in 2009 by a Canadian company, Pacific Rim – later bought by an Australian mining firm, OceanaGold – which said it had been encouraged by the government of El Salvador to spend “tens of millions of dollars to undertake mineral exploration activities”. But, the company alleged that when valuable deposits of gold and silver were discovered, the government, for political reasons, withheld the permits it needed to begin digging. The company’s claim, which at one point exceeded $300m, has since been reduced to $284m – still more than the total amount of foreign aid El Salvador received last year. El Salvador countered that the company not only lacked environmental permits but also failed to prove it had obtained rights to much of the land covered by its request: many farmers in the northern Cabañas region, where the company wanted to dig, had refused to sell their land.
Read more: The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries | Claire Provost and Matt Kennard | Business | The Guardian
Fifteen years ago, Parada’s work was a minor niche even within the legal business. But since 2000, hundreds of foreign investors have sued more than half of the world’s countries, claiming damages for a wide range of government actions that they say have threatened their profits. In 2006, Ecuador cancelled an oil-exploration contract with Houston-based Occidental Petroleum; in 2012, after Occidental filed a suit before an international investment tribunal, Ecuador was ordered to pay a record $1.8bn – roughly equal to the country’s health budget for a year. (Ecuador has logged a request for the decision to be annulled.)
Parada’s first case was defending Argentina in the late 1990s against the French conglomerate Vivendi, which sued after the Argentine province of Tucuman stepped in to limit the price it charged people for water and wastewater services. Argentina eventually lost, and was ordered to pay the company more than $100m. Now, in his most high-profile case yet, Parada is part of the team defending El Salvador as it tries to fend off a multimillion-dollar suit lodged by a multinational mining company after the tiny Central American country refused to allow it to dig for gold.
The suit was filed in 2009 by a Canadian company, Pacific Rim – later bought by an Australian mining firm, OceanaGold – which said it had been encouraged by the government of El Salvador to spend “tens of millions of dollars to undertake mineral exploration activities”. But, the company alleged that when valuable deposits of gold and silver were discovered, the government, for political reasons, withheld the permits it needed to begin digging. The company’s claim, which at one point exceeded $300m, has since been reduced to $284m – still more than the total amount of foreign aid El Salvador received last year. El Salvador countered that the company not only lacked environmental permits but also failed to prove it had obtained rights to much of the land covered by its request: many farmers in the northern Cabañas region, where the company wanted to dig, had refused to sell their land.
Read more: The obscure legal system that lets corporations sue countries | Claire Provost and Matt Kennard | Business | The Guardian
4/27/15
EU Parliament: More than 30,000 lobbyists and counting: Brussels under corporate siege
Take mobile phone charges. She saw the fact that EU citizens pay eye-watering sums in other EU states as an anomaly that needed fixing. But it wasn't that simple. "We had telephone companies and lobbyists who started to invade us," she recalls. "They obviously didn't want to reduce roaming charges because it would hit them in the pocket."
To stroll around the vast, ugly and permanent building site that is Brussels' European district is to brush up against the power of the lobbies. Every office block, every glass and steel construction within a kilometre of the EU Commission council and parliament is peopled by some of the globe's biggest corporate names.
Thousands of companies, banks, law firms, PR consultancies and trade associations are there to bend ears and influence the regulations and laws that shape Europe's single market, fix trade deals, and govern economic and commercial behaviour in the European Union of 507 million people.
Lobbying is a billion-euro industry in Brussels. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, a watchdog campaigning for greater transparency, there are at least 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels, nearly matching the 31,000 staff employed by the European commission and making it second only to Washington in the concentration of those seeking to affect legislation. Lobbyists sign a transparency register run by the parliament and the commission, though it is not mandatory.
By some estimates, they influence 75% of legislation. In principle, lobbyists give politicians information and arguments during the decision-making process. In practice, the corridors of the parliament often teem with individuals, who meet MEPs in their offices or in open spaces such as the "Mickey Mouse bar" (nicknamed so because of the shape of its seats) inside the parliament.
They explain their concerns, provide a "position paper", and send in suggestions for amendments to legislative proposals. Of course, the final decision is taken by MEPs. But examples are legion of the tail wagging the dog.
Lobbying is such a crucial part of the climate in Brussels that it has spawned manuals, a documentary (Who Really Runs the EU?) and even "the worst lobby awards". Not surprisingly, the biggest movers and shakers agitate for the biggest industries with the most to gain – and lose – from European legislation.
Basically, if you are in Bruxelles or Washington - the lobbyists have taken over and politics have not much to do with Democracy anymore.
EU-Digest
US Corporations Political Power: How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy - by Lee Drutman
 |
| US Lobbyists |
It’s a gap that has been widening since corporate lobbying began to regularly exceed the combined House-Senate budget in the early 2000s.
Today, the biggest companies have upwards of 100 lobbyists representing them, allowing them to be everywhere, all the time. For every dollar spent on lobbying by labor unions and public-interest groups together, large corporations and their associations now spend $34. Of the 100 organizations that spend the most on lobbying, 95 consistently represent business.
Read more: How Corporate Lobbyists Conquered American Democracy - The Atlantic
2/20/14
European Financial Industry: Germany, France back EU tax on derivatives - by Jean-Baptiste Vey
France and Germany
agreed that a planned pan-European tax on financial transactions should
cover all derivatives products, a source close to French Finance
Minister Pierre Moscovici said on Wednesday.
President Francois Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel said after a joint meeting of their two cabinets in Paris that they wanted other EU partners to agree on such a levy by European Parliament elections in May.
France and its banks have in the past warned that imposing a transactions tax across the board of financial products could damage Europe's financial sector. But Germany has in recent days suggested a compromise under which different components of the tax could be phased in over time.
While Hollande and Merkel signalled their will for the 11 countries who back the tax to conclude a deal on it by the European elections, it was still not clear how high the final tax would be and when it would be applied to specific products.
Asked whether he favoured a phase-in of the tax as suggested by German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble - starting with share trades first - Hollande said such details would be worked out in minister-level discussions.
"The main thing is that it happens. If we seek the perfect product, I know there are some people who will go so deep into details that there will never be a financial transactions tax. I prefer an imperfect tax to no tax at all," he said.
Note EU-Digest: every politician in the European Union should keep in mind that we elected them to defend the interests of the voters and not only the interests of the financial, banking industry, or specific corporate interest groups.
Read more: Germany, France back EU tax on derivatives - French source | Reuters
President Francois Hollande and Chancellor Angela Merkel said after a joint meeting of their two cabinets in Paris that they wanted other EU partners to agree on such a levy by European Parliament elections in May.
France and its banks have in the past warned that imposing a transactions tax across the board of financial products could damage Europe's financial sector. But Germany has in recent days suggested a compromise under which different components of the tax could be phased in over time.
While Hollande and Merkel signalled their will for the 11 countries who back the tax to conclude a deal on it by the European elections, it was still not clear how high the final tax would be and when it would be applied to specific products.
Asked whether he favoured a phase-in of the tax as suggested by German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble - starting with share trades first - Hollande said such details would be worked out in minister-level discussions.
"The main thing is that it happens. If we seek the perfect product, I know there are some people who will go so deep into details that there will never be a financial transactions tax. I prefer an imperfect tax to no tax at all," he said.
Note EU-Digest: every politician in the European Union should keep in mind that we elected them to defend the interests of the voters and not only the interests of the financial, banking industry, or specific corporate interest groups.
Read more: Germany, France back EU tax on derivatives - French source | Reuters
2/4/14
EU Lobbyist Register: Campaigners disappointed by new EU lobbying text - by Dave Keating
A draft agreement on changes to the combined European Parliament and European Commission lobbyist register, endorsed by members of the Parliament's bureau last week, has been branded “hugely disappointing” by transparency campaigners.
The draft text endorsed by the bureau on 13 January has not yet been published. But a leaked draft seen by European Voice provides more details into the results of a review process concluded in December.
The proposed text would not make it mandatory for people and entities lobbying the parliament to sign the register. But it says that people who have signed the register should benefit from better access to Parliament premises.
Other incentives could include “authorisation to organise or co-host events on its premises, facilitated transmission of information including specific mailing lists [or] participation as speakers in committee hearings.”
Transparency campaign group ALTER-EU criticised the proposal, which will be put to a vote by the Parliament's constitutional affairs committee in the coming weeks. The group will release a scorecard today (27 January) assessing the text. Out of the ten ALTER-EU recommendations for reform, five will be assessed as “no progress made” and a further three as “some improvement, more to do”.
“Our scorecard shows that there are only a handful of proposed changes which show improvement,” said Max Bank of LobbyControl, a member of the ALTER-EU steering committee. “Meanwhile it seems unlikely that many of the currently unregistered organisations and law firms will be incentivised to now join.”
The group also criticised the lack of transparency in the review process. Apart from two press releases by the Parliament and the Commission in December, no other documents have been published.
Read more: Campaigners disappointed by new EU lobbying text | European Voice
The draft text endorsed by the bureau on 13 January has not yet been published. But a leaked draft seen by European Voice provides more details into the results of a review process concluded in December.
The proposed text would not make it mandatory for people and entities lobbying the parliament to sign the register. But it says that people who have signed the register should benefit from better access to Parliament premises.
Other incentives could include “authorisation to organise or co-host events on its premises, facilitated transmission of information including specific mailing lists [or] participation as speakers in committee hearings.”
Transparency campaign group ALTER-EU criticised the proposal, which will be put to a vote by the Parliament's constitutional affairs committee in the coming weeks. The group will release a scorecard today (27 January) assessing the text. Out of the ten ALTER-EU recommendations for reform, five will be assessed as “no progress made” and a further three as “some improvement, more to do”.
“Our scorecard shows that there are only a handful of proposed changes which show improvement,” said Max Bank of LobbyControl, a member of the ALTER-EU steering committee. “Meanwhile it seems unlikely that many of the currently unregistered organisations and law firms will be incentivised to now join.”
The group also criticised the lack of transparency in the review process. Apart from two press releases by the Parliament and the Commission in December, no other documents have been published.
Read more: Campaigners disappointed by new EU lobbying text | European Voice
Democracy and ethical standards: is the US in troubled waters? - by RM
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of any modern political system and especially that of the US is to be able to
reconcile, at least from an ethical standpoint, the issue of campaign finance with that of moral convictions and democratic principles..
Plato's argument against democracy was that it would promote skilled campaigners rather than qualified leaders. This statement needs only to be amended slightly when we look at today's US political system.
In a sense the American democracy now promotes skilled fundraisers while leadership skills have taken a backseat to the ability of extracting funds from contributors
The real ethical issues of campaign finance lie not in their cost, but rather who is providing the funds. In today's America special interest groups have filled the huge gap between private donations and the realistic costs of running a successful political campaign. These interest groups are quite varied in the issues they promote, but unfortunately many of the most powerful are very recognizable, such as energy, tobacco, firearm, insurance, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry.
Perhaps, even more disturbing, however, is the way that the funds from these groups are distributed.
Historically, donations from political action committees, or PACs as they are called in America, greatly favor incumbents, at a ratio of nearly four dollars donated to incumbent campaigns to every one dollar donated to the challengers.
This notion would seem to imply a direct relationship between accepting monies from special interests and maintaining political power. In its most basic form one could call this influence peddling, but even operating on the assumption that special interest money does not directly has an influence on US political leaders, it certainly gives the appearance of doing so, and consequently has seriously eroded the US public confidence in their political leaders and democracy.
Overall, even with all the above mentioned negatives, the US political system is certainly not beyond repair, but there are problems that need to be addressed with a major sense of urgency. The time to take action is now.
The number one issue, without any doubt, is for the Congress to come to grips with campaign finance reform, along with stricter regulations on the influence and access granted to special interest groups and their lobbyists to government and elected officials.
If nothing gets done, at least in these two major area's of concern, one could assume, just by looking at the polls - which show a strong public support for the military and police (authority and order) - that the use of marshal law as a tool to restore the basic principals on which the US was founded as a Republic, is not as unthinkable as once thought before.
EU-Digest
Plato's argument against democracy was that it would promote skilled campaigners rather than qualified leaders. This statement needs only to be amended slightly when we look at today's US political system.
In a sense the American democracy now promotes skilled fundraisers while leadership skills have taken a backseat to the ability of extracting funds from contributors
The real ethical issues of campaign finance lie not in their cost, but rather who is providing the funds. In today's America special interest groups have filled the huge gap between private donations and the realistic costs of running a successful political campaign. These interest groups are quite varied in the issues they promote, but unfortunately many of the most powerful are very recognizable, such as energy, tobacco, firearm, insurance, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry.
Perhaps, even more disturbing, however, is the way that the funds from these groups are distributed.
Historically, donations from political action committees, or PACs as they are called in America, greatly favor incumbents, at a ratio of nearly four dollars donated to incumbent campaigns to every one dollar donated to the challengers.
This notion would seem to imply a direct relationship between accepting monies from special interests and maintaining political power. In its most basic form one could call this influence peddling, but even operating on the assumption that special interest money does not directly has an influence on US political leaders, it certainly gives the appearance of doing so, and consequently has seriously eroded the US public confidence in their political leaders and democracy.
In a Gallup poll conducted recently on how Americans rate their institutions Congress ranks last with 9% on this list of 16 institutions; the military with a 76% approval rating earns top spot.. Other institutions which did poorly and scored below 30% in this poll were: Big business (multi-nationals), banking, medical, the press, organized Labor and the criminal justice system.
Overall, even with all the above mentioned negatives, the US political system is certainly not beyond repair, but there are problems that need to be addressed with a major sense of urgency. The time to take action is now.
The number one issue, without any doubt, is for the Congress to come to grips with campaign finance reform, along with stricter regulations on the influence and access granted to special interest groups and their lobbyists to government and elected officials.
If nothing gets done, at least in these two major area's of concern, one could assume, just by looking at the polls - which show a strong public support for the military and police (authority and order) - that the use of marshal law as a tool to restore the basic principals on which the US was founded as a Republic, is not as unthinkable as once thought before.
EU-Digest 10/21/13
Privacy Laws - The EU could seize 25% of Google’s profits if it violates your privacy - by Leo Mirani
Last year, Google made $50 billion in global revenue, of which $10.7 billion was profit. If the European Union’s draft bill on data protection becomes law, the company will have to pay a fine of up to 5% of worldwide annual turnover—$2.5 billion in 2012, representing nearly 25% of its profits—if it doesn’t comply. This evening, a European Parliament committee pushed the legislation one crucial step closer to becoming law.
The data protection regulation, as it is known, is perhaps the most significant piece of legislation to come out of the European Commission this term. It is fraught with political and economic meaning. The law (pdf) sets out wide-ranging new rules for how personal data is treated within Europe. Among other things, it tightens rules on how companies can collect and process data. It also makes it easier for users of an online service to move between networks or to request wholesale deletion of their data (otherwise known as the “right to be forgotten”). And it lays out punitive fines (pdf) for companies that break the rules, for example by collecting an individual’s data without consent or refusing to delete it.
The US and its tech companies are not particularly happy about the new legislation and have been lobbying against it. European countries with softer laws have also been less keen to support the bill. And some claim the law could pose a risk to free-trade talks between the two blocs.
Note EU-Digest: One can only hope for EU politicians not to chicken out and that they will adopt strong and effective legislation against what seems to be total disregard by the US of EU privacy laws, and that legislators will not get bamboozled by sweet talking lobbyists.
Read more: The EU could seize 25% of Google’s profits if it violates your privacy - Quartz
The data protection regulation, as it is known, is perhaps the most significant piece of legislation to come out of the European Commission this term. It is fraught with political and economic meaning. The law (pdf) sets out wide-ranging new rules for how personal data is treated within Europe. Among other things, it tightens rules on how companies can collect and process data. It also makes it easier for users of an online service to move between networks or to request wholesale deletion of their data (otherwise known as the “right to be forgotten”). And it lays out punitive fines (pdf) for companies that break the rules, for example by collecting an individual’s data without consent or refusing to delete it.
The law’s effects will be felt far outside the European Union. Europe’s position is that any company that does business within its boundaries will be subject to its rules, never mind the ease with which data flows across borders or the difficulties national governments face in pinning down where exactly a company conducts its business. The Europe-wide law will replace the data protection directive of 1995, which set guidelines that the EU’s member states applied to their own jurisdictions. That meant a patchwork of disparate laws across the continent, with countries with looser laws—notably, Ireland—becoming hubs for non-EU companies.
+
Whether as a block or individually, Europe has for years been suspicious of the power wielded by American companies. France doesn’t like the economic clout they enjoy. Germany has a strong dislike for the easy data rules enacted by some EU members. And nobody really believes that the “safe harbor” agreement between the US and the EU to safeguard Europeans’ data is working. Moreover, Viviane Reding, the bureaucrat responsible for the legislation, is said to harbor ambitions to become the next president of the European Commission. Pushing through this law before her terms expires next year would represent a significant victory.
Note EU-Digest: One can only hope for EU politicians not to chicken out and that they will adopt strong and effective legislation against what seems to be total disregard by the US of EU privacy laws, and that legislators will not get bamboozled by sweet talking lobbyists.
Read more: The EU could seize 25% of Google’s profits if it violates your privacy - Quartz
4/11/13
Internet - "How Fair Is Fair" : Google proposes fix for Europe's search competition concern - by Stephen Shankland
Google has submitted its ideas for how to address complaints in Europe that it uses its search power to benefit its other online properties.
Antoine Colombani, the European Commission's spokesman on competition policy, told Reuters that the move took place after the EC finished its years-long assessment of Google's search dominance and its effects.
As Google has grown and then expanded from search into other areas, it's faced increasing antitrust concerns in the United States and Europe. At the heart of the concern is that Google can hurt competitors such as "vertical search" specialists by featuring its own results instead. That could include airline flights, e-commerce, maps, and other areas.
In the United States, Google settled the Federaral Trade Commission's antitrust case with minor tweaks of its behavior. That light outcome -- perhaps influenced by Google's ever-heavier lobbying efforts among politicians in Washington, D.C. -- makes it harder for European regulators to come down hard, legal experts have said.
One rumored remedy is for Google would have to label search results that are drawn from its own properties so consumers could make an informed choice about what they're clicking on in search results. Critics, arguing that Google abuses its search dominance by promoting its own properties, want tougher restraints.
One top organization taking on Google is FairSearch, which includes representation from rivals such as Microsoft, Nokia, and Oracle. In an effort to keep pressure on Google, it complained this week that it's using its Android operating system as a way to further its own mobile apps.
Read more: Google proposes fix for Europe's search competition concern | Internet & Media - CNET News
Antoine Colombani, the European Commission's spokesman on competition policy, told Reuters that the move took place after the EC finished its years-long assessment of Google's search dominance and its effects.
As Google has grown and then expanded from search into other areas, it's faced increasing antitrust concerns in the United States and Europe. At the heart of the concern is that Google can hurt competitors such as "vertical search" specialists by featuring its own results instead. That could include airline flights, e-commerce, maps, and other areas.
In the United States, Google settled the Federaral Trade Commission's antitrust case with minor tweaks of its behavior. That light outcome -- perhaps influenced by Google's ever-heavier lobbying efforts among politicians in Washington, D.C. -- makes it harder for European regulators to come down hard, legal experts have said.
One rumored remedy is for Google would have to label search results that are drawn from its own properties so consumers could make an informed choice about what they're clicking on in search results. Critics, arguing that Google abuses its search dominance by promoting its own properties, want tougher restraints.
One top organization taking on Google is FairSearch, which includes representation from rivals such as Microsoft, Nokia, and Oracle. In an effort to keep pressure on Google, it complained this week that it's using its Android operating system as a way to further its own mobile apps.
Read more: Google proposes fix for Europe's search competition concern | Internet & Media - CNET News
2/14/13
Corporate Influence: Lobbyists Control European Politicians: Is the EU beholden to lobbyists?
 |
| EU Lobbyland |
When they provide advice with the interests of a certain company or organization in mind, then you' have what is known as lobbying.
Green Party member Jan Philipp Albrecht, spokesman in the EU parliament on efforts to reform the bloc's data protection laws, just recently complained that companies are all too eager to get their positions and interests taken into account by parliamentarians. More eager than other groups; for instance, NGOs.
"In the original draft there was the idea that a company from the US would have to abide by the strict European regulations if it wants to move here. According to the new draft, a company can choose which state it wants as the main seat of the company and then simply look which data protection laws suit it better." Strict rules are systematically being watered down, Maas warns.
Read more: Is the EU beholden to lobbyists? | Europe | DW.DE | 14.02.2013
4/9/11
EU Parliament: “cash-for-laws” or “cash-for-amendments”, its all in a days work for a lobbyist
On a scale of zero-to-Jack Abramoff, it barely rates a mention.But for the European Parliament (EP), the current scandal is a doozy, involving members who went so far as to request amendments to legislation in exchange for promises of cash from lobbyists — lobbyists who turned out to be journalists from The Sunday Times investigating how much influence they could buy.
“We need to learn the lessons of this unhappy episode,” said EP President Jerzy Buzek.
“Episode” is an apt term, since video of some of the meetings between lawmakers and the fake lobbyists is available on the internet. Of the 60 MEPs the undercover reporters approached over an eight-month period, offering payments up to 100,000 euros in exchange for presenting amendments on banking legislation, they say 14 showed interest in continuing the conversations and four actually went through with it.
For more: European Parliament | Lobbying | Resignations | Sunday Times
2/27/09
BBC NEWS: Trim Euro MP expenses - "and control lobbyists influence"
For the complete report from the BBC NEWS click on this link
Trim Euro MP expenses - "and control lobbyists influence"
Bankers may currently occupy the prime slot as the public's hate figures, but revelations that EU parliament MEPs could add euro 1.2 m to their family income over a five-year term suggest that we are strong challengers for the role. It doesn't have to be like this. An MEP's salaries budget (euro 150,000 annually) can be used entirely to pay the salaries of staff. The office budget (euro 40,000) can be used entirely to pay the expenses of running an office.
With no executive body to insist upon a line to be followed, and with the freedom to forge cross-party alliances, individual MEPs can have a great deal more legislative influence than their counterparts at Westminster. Their actions can change the law of the land in 27 countries, not just one, and the lobbyists know this very well indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)