TRADE BEING THE ONE AREA WHERE CONSERVATIVES OPPOSE SOVEREIGNTY:

To understand what's at stake, we need to understand the economic war that is underway. On one side are multinational corporations who want to maximize their power and profits in all the countries where they operate. Opposing them are the national governments that make and enforce the rules of the market in each country. It's a fight over who gets the wealth that flows as the economy hums along. Does the wealth go mostly to workers, consumers and small businesses in the country? Or does it mostly get extracted by the multinationals?

National governments' main tool in this war is regulation. They pass laws that, for example, prohibit child labor, preserve clean water and ensure that drugs are safe before they are sold. They strive to develop a vibrant and diverse national economy in which locally owned and operated firms can flourish. Multinational corporations don't generally like these laws and would prefer to operate in an environment where they are free to pull as much money out, by any means necessary.

To date, the struggle between those who favor local prosperity and those who favor wealth extraction has taken place issue by issue, law by law. But recently, the extractors have gotten smarter and smarter about how to block the entire ability of local governments to make policy regardless of the issue. It would save the extractors a lot of time and trouble if they could shut down all government regulation and policymaking at once and not have to battle one issue at a time.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is, first and foremost, a tool for gutting rulemaking. Though the full text has been kept secret (even from Congress), bits have been leaked. From those bits, we can see the overall thrust of the proposal. The trade agreement enshrines a legal doctrine - so-called Investor Protection - that lets corporations sue to overturn practically any regulation that costs them money. For example, Philip Morris can sue countries that require graphic warnings on cigarettes. (In fact, they are already doing so.) Nike could sue a country that restricted the importation of products made with sweatshop labor. Citigroup Inc. could sue a country that had rules protecting homeowners from inadequately-documented foreclosures. Wal-Mart could sue a city that had a procurement preference for locally-owned or minority-owned businesses. These are just examples; the possibilities are endless.

Follow @brothersjudd