Clinton's Flip Flop on TPP Smells Familiar

Hillary Clinton's latest position on the Trans Pacific Partnership is that she's against it. Previously, she'd not only been for it but one of its biggest champions. Her rationale for the flip doesn't hold water and suggests it's just another instance of her changing her position based on which way the political winds are blowing. It seems very similar to the evolution of her position on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that would transport Canadian tar sand to the United States for use as oil and is a good example of what a lot of voters don't like about her.

The TPP is a controversial free-trade agreement between the United States and 11 other countries. There is much to be concerned about regarding the portions of the long and complex deal that was negotiated in secrecy and has not been released to the public (several parts have been leaked in the media including what was claimed to be the entire section on intellectual property by Wikileaks on Friday).

First, there's the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause, which removes most trade-related disagreements from the courts. Instead, those disagreements would be decided by an international arbitration panel made up of corporate attorneys. It cedes a certain degree of U.S. sovereignty and could put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for settlements awarded outside the U.S. court system and without means for appeal. This seems like it could be a dangerous bargain and as Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) pointed out in an excellent Op-ed for the Washington Post, it's not only troubling but unnecessary.

The matter that has managed to get the most media attention in recent weeks, however, was the Obama administration's monumental efforts on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry, who look like they could be the biggest winner if this deal goes through.

Biologic drugs are treatments made from biological sources, including vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for everything things like cancer and even Ebola. Because they are more structurally complex than "small-molecule drugs," they are much more expensive to produce or obtain. Companies are therefore very interested in developing generics, which they can get approved using the clinical trial data by the original company that developed the drugs.

In the U.S., drug manufacturers get 12 years of exclusivity on that data, meaning other companies would have to do all of the expensive testing to create a competitor, which would be less likely to cost significantly less. This is theoretically done to help the companies recoup the R&D costs of developing these drugs and takes into account that most other countries do not offer the same protection.

Some of the countries involved in the TPP offer less protection. Japan gives 8 years of exclusivity, while others like Brunei offer none. The United States pushed to have every country extend to the same 12 year protection–a difficult case to make considering the 12 years here is based partly on other countries not honoring it–but eventually settled on 8, which Doctors Without Borders still argues would be catastrophic to many of the poor countries involved.

Back to Clinton. She now says she's against it primarily because of the pharmaceutical protections and such impacts. However, CNN counted 45 times when she'd previously championed the trade agreement, going so far as to call it the "gold standard" in such deals. Considering that she uttered such praise while the negotiations were still at 12 years, her disdain rings hollow. Clinton also says she cannot support it without an agreement aimed at preventing currency manipulation by member countries. This aspect was never even part of the negotiations, nor did Clinton raise it while she was deeming it the best thing since sliced bread.

This is not unlike the Keystone XL. First, Hillary was for it. In fact, her top aide in the 2008 presidential run went to work as the chief lobbyist for the company proposing the pipeline afterward. The State Department then hired a company with a major conflict of interest to do the environmental impact study on the project (The Huffington Post has a very informative infographic on all of the shady Clinton/State Department/Keystone XL connections here).

In July of this year, Clinton began backpedaling on the Keystone XL, refusing to take a position. By late September, under increasing pressure from progressive Democrats and with Bernie Sanders leading her in the polls for both Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton executed the full flop and came out against the pipeline. In both cases, she followed Sanders to his original position.

This might sum up why so many voters dislike Clinton so vehemently and why her poll numbers on factors related to trusting the candidate are embarrassing. She seems to be too willing to pivot to whatever position seems to be required to win the favor of voters, making it very difficult to get a read on what she really believes or how she might act if she were made a leader rather than a candidate.