» Alternatives To Corporate Globalization
» Democracy, Sovereignty and Federalism
» Deregulation and Access to Services
» Import Safety, Environment and Health
» Jobs, Wages and Economic Outcomes
» NAFTA, WTO, Other Trade Pacts
» Other Issues
One-stop shop for searchable
trade databases, case lists & more
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch blog on globalization and trade
Buy our new book: The Rise and Fall of Fast Track Trade Authority - Updated and Expanded Edition
Both contain new language demanded by the Bush Treasury Department’s ideologues banning countries from imposing currency controls during in financial crises. This is the language Rep. Barney Frank, The Economist, the Financial Times and free-trade absolutist Columbia Professor Jagdish Bhagwati have all attacked. The use of capital controls (ie. temporary freezes on currency trading) is subjected to investor-to-state claims by banks and others for penalty compensation. Under NAFTA a country is allowed to use short term currency controls in a crisis.
Both include the language from the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) which places an ABSOLUTE BAN on all investment performance requirements (ie. requiring successful environmental impact statements as a condition for investment) in signatory countries, including vis a vis investors from non-signatory countries!
Countries may only issue a compulsory license for a medicine if anti-competitive practices are proved (ie. a violation of anti-trust law) or for a national emergency.
Outrageously, the agreements require that if a compulsory license is issued, the full market price of the drug must be paid to obtain production rights, meaning consumer price cuts are eliminated.
Only governments are allowed to use such a license, meaning that a government must the ability to produce the drug itself (ie. not a private firm in the country.)
Copyright © 2013 Public Citizen. All rights reserved. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation.
Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.
Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.
Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.
You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.