While laws are voted on by members of congress, many times there are people working behind the scenes attempting to influence politicians' decisions. These lobbyists argue their position before politicians along with financial resources to gain support from MPs on their vision of the issue. There is a constant struggle on an ideological level between whether or not the United States should participate in free trade with other nations or whether it should practice protectionism and impose more tariffs on imports to protect its own industries. Like any international politics, there is no clear winner between the two sides because there are different groups with different priorities putting pressure on both sides. In the 20th century the United States transitioned from an overall trade policy of protectionism to an advocate of global free trade. Ehrlich (2008) Since 1998, 12 free trade agreements have been proposed to Congress and 12 of these have been approved. Allen (2009) The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement are two recent agreements that have opened up trade with the United States and many other nations around the world. What drove the United States to so actively support trade liberalization and free trade agreements with other countries? The strong political support for these agreements comes from the strong pressure exerted by large companies in favor of free trade agreements. More unrestricted business options are beneficial to these companies and allow them to grow within their country and globally. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay International trade agreements such as tariffs or free trade agreements between countries are usually initiated by private companies from one of the countries involved. After the initial agreement, negotiators from all parties involved meet to work out the details of the potential trade agreement. Allen (2009) These companies and businesses that have initiated talks are usually very active in negotiations, lobbying for more favorable trading conditions that benefit their industry. Multinationals put pressure on both their own government and all other entities involved in the trade deal so that they can negotiate favorable terms on all sides of the deal. These negotiated terms help businesses grow and profit because they are able to export much more freely to newly liberated nations and gain the ability to more easily produce far from their home country. Big business uses their enormous wealth to influence politicians in the countries involved to accept the deal. Politicians are interested in helping big businesses, even if they don't fully agree with the policy, because they need funds to run for re-election and for personal gain. As a result, many trade agreements arise from political pressure from the respective countries' industries. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), effective January 1, 1994, was an agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that would end most trade barriers between the 3 countries. Lewis (1993) In the issue of free trade it is sometimes difficult to know where the ideologies of political parties stand because there have been some changes in recent years, so the political party of the politician is a minor factor. One thing that seems to remain constant with free trade agreements and NAFTA is that they have the support of large companies and foreign partners in the agreement. During theNAFTA delegation the biggest supporters were the Mexican government and businesses along with large corporations from the United States. It is not entirely clear how much was spent in total by US-based companies due to the poor quality of existing records and poor political disclosure. It is clear, however, that NAFTA's opponents, including environmental groups, labor unions, and small farmers, were severely underfunded, which likely played a huge role in the agreement's passage. Lewis (1993) Environmental groups oppose the bill because many of the major polluting companies in the United States will increase exports because of the bill and thus increase the amount of pollution they inevitably cause. Workers' and small farmers' unions oppose the bill because both workers and farmers will lose jobs or be forced to relocate jobs by large companies reacting to unrestricted trade. These groups have far less to invest in lobbying against the bill because they have far less to gain financially if it does not pass than the amount large corporations stand to gain by passing the bill. The Trans Pacific Partnership is a bill that opened up trade between the United States and many Pacific Rim nations, including Japan, Vietnam, New Zealand, and many others. This trade deal is the largest signed by the United States to date, having been signed on February 4, 2016. The lobbying efforts were very similar to the North American Free Trade Agreement in that big businesses were big supporters of the deal. In the year before the deal passed, 487 companies involved in the US Business Coalition for TPP spent more than $550 million on federal lobbying. Common (2015) The amount spent by US companies alone to lobby for the bill shows how much value large companies place on free trade agreements involving the United States. In 2014, coalition members spent nearly 5 times more on federal lobbying than they spent financing political campaigns. a dent in the funds raised by those supporting the deal. Common (2016) The extent of support for the deal in congress, which included both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, coupled with the president's approval, allowed for fast-track legislation where congress could vote yes or no but make no changes to the agreement. This was a demonstration of good faith negotiations because it allowed other nations to be relieved that agreements already agreed upon would not be considered by the United States. The money spent on lobbying by the US Business Coalition for the TPP could have been a huge factor in the deal's success. Lobbying is extremely effective in influencing international trade agreements as well as other forms of legislation. In the United States, international trade agreements such as tariffs or free trade agreements will have an outcome that will always be advantageous to some groups of people and disadvantageous to others. In free trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership and the North American Free Trade Agreement, the main groups seeking to influence decisions are large corporations, unions, and public interest groups. Although unions and public interest groups generally lobby against these agreements because they lead to more outsourcing of jobs and fewerpower for working class families, they don't have the resources to compete with big companies when it comes to financing. Currently, for every dollar spent by unions and public interest groups on lobbying, $34 is spent by large corporations. Ehrlich (2008) Although many citizens and groups oppose these trade agreements, many times they are passed with majority support from both Democrats and Republicans. This demonstrates the impact of lobbying in the international trade sector and why some people are skeptical that these agreements are passed with the best of intentions rather than personal gain for politicians. Free trade agreements, while thought to bring an overall benefit to the countries involved, are not supported by all. Workers and unions actively lobby against free trade agreements because imports are generally associated with unemployment and many times workers are displaced due to a change in the industry after a free trade agreement is concluded. The lobbying efforts of these groups were not entirely overlooked, however, as the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program was created in 1962 to help workers adversely affected by the agreements. Trade adjustment assistance provides programs that assist workers harmed by the agreements in many ways, from job search help to supplemental wages for workers who have received pay cuts due to the introduction of new competition. Lake (2016) Unions and workers may have failed to push to close FTAs ​​due to the huge funding gap between them and the large companies that support FTAs, but they were able to organize assistance programs to make the most effective agreements. bearable. In recent years, much of the lobbying activity carried out by groups with similar objectives is carried out within a coalition of groups. Corporate coalitions allow the companies involved to pool resources to achieve a common goal, coalitions lobby as a single entity to influence public policy. Because each of these large corporations has an extremely large pool of resources on its own, a coalition of them represents an extremely important force in American politics. In the negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement, there were 149 representatives of large organizations who supported the agreement, while there was only one environmental group who opposed the agreement. Lewis (1993) A MapLight report showed that representatives who voted yes to the Trade Promotion Authority in the TPP agreement received an additional $230,000 in campaign contributions from pro-TPP companies than those who voted no. Lewis (1993) These figures show the enormous power wielded by these businesses when they come together for a common goal and, although this is not officially lobbying, one could see where politicians could be incentivized to vote one way or the other. 'other. With the United States moving more toward a policy of international liberalism and free trade, it is far from being tariff-free. Many industries in the United States rely on large tariffs to survive and continue to lobby in their support for countries not involved in free trade agreements. Many food and clothing industries that produce in the United States are lobbying to impose harsh tariffs against outside nations so they can continue to profit and produce at the same rate. Even in some current agreementsof free trade such as the Trans Pacific Partnership, these industries have successfully influenced clauses in which only a certain portion of foreign goods in their specific sector are duty-free. Clark (2009) Lobbying by these firms is an important factor in policy decisions about tariffs because general endogenous trade policy concludes that governments would prefer to operate with lower tariffs to minimize trade losses. This lobbying is the American apparel industry's way of communicating to the government how important specific tariffs are to its survival and to U.S. manufacturing. These companies also lobby for selective distribution in these deals due to the growing popularity of online shopping. Luxury fashion brands were worried that their products were being sold online alongside fake, cheaper versions in other countries, which would tarnish their name and cut into profits. These companies then launched an extensive lobbying campaign in 2009 to convince representatives to implement selective distribution. Clark (2009) The movement has been successful for businesses who were concerned when goods manufacturers were given much greater control over online sales in 2010. It is clear that political lobbying works to promote large agreements but also to implement smaller conditions within or separately from the country agreements. In the case of free trade agreements, there may be unintended consequences for American lobbying that could help or hurt companies lobbying in the United States. Andrey Stoyanov established that with the introduction of the free trade agreement foreign companies and interests gain influence in American politics and lobbies while US-based companies lose some of their influence due to the introduction of new competitors. Stoyanov (2014) Now, this is not to say that this is always bad for American companies because in the case of these free trade agreements foreign interests often share the same goals and are able to add their own resources to the lobbying effort. But along with the lobbying power of foreign companies, foreign public interest groups also gain some influence because the two countries in the agreement are more linked to each other and a problem in one country could lead to a problem in the other. As free trade agreements expand to new countries, so too does the globalization of working-class lobbying efforts. Stoyanov (2014) In turn, opposition to free trade agreements will grow as more are entered into, making it easier for these groups to oppose free trade agreements in the future. This cross-border lobbying makes every dollar spent on lobbying by all competitors worth less because more competition is introduced into the fight for political influence. Some theorists argue that the most influential factor in U.S. federal lobbying for or against free trade agreements is other governments rather than other governments. compared to corporations. These foreign governments, whether involved in the agreement or not, will try to pressure US politicians to share their views. Uninvolved governments sometimes direct resources against free trade and attempt to delay the notarization or agreement or stop it altogether. The reason outside countries often oppose free trade agreements is because these agreements actually harm the outsider's economy due to the fact that countries inside the agreement are more likely to.