When NAFTA was passed in 1993, I, and others, argued that the labor movement should mount primary challenges to every Democrat who voted for the legislation. After all, labor correctly saw NAFTA as the underpinning for a trade policy that would hasten the evolution of a global economy based on one thing: the search for the lowest wage possible. And that is the kind of trade policy that we now have. The labor movement did nothing, however, to hold the pro-NAFTA Democrats accountable.

   Then came CAFTA–the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It passed thanks to 15 Democrats who voted for the deal in the House. I argued back then that those 15 Democrats should be held accountable for that vote. But, again, they were not. And, in response, the labor movement has had to fight more NAFTA-style trade agreements.

   Which brings us to the current moment. I pointed out recently that Rep. Kendrick Meek dropped his support for a very important piece of legislation spearheaded by Rep. Mike Michaud. There is only one reason Meek did so–he is running for the U.S. Senate seat in Florida and wants to attract corporate money to his campaign. Ringing up dollars from sources that are not friendly to the labor movement is not a new thing for Mr. Meek: he took in thousands of dollars from Wal-Mart (as did, in fairness, other Democrats). And it is likely his sudden change of heart on the TRADE Act will aid him again, as reported by CongressDaily PM yesterday:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce this week wrote to Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., thanking him for removing his name from a bill that could force the United States to renegotiate several existing and pending trade agreements…

"The Chamber appreciates your record of support for agreements that have opened foreign markets for U.S. exports and created American jobs," Josten wrote. He added his group thanked Meek for recognizing the Michaud bill "would have the opposite effect."

   Let’s be clear–the Chamber is doing what it does in the current electoral financing system. I don’t fault the Chamber. Those are the rules, as bad as they are and as much as they pervert our system of governing.

   The real question is: what will labor do? If Meek continues to get labor support–financial and otherwise–will that not simply signal other Members of Congress that they can do as they please and jump ship on critical labor legislation? I think the answer is obvious.

   The question should be: who does Meek work for? The people? Or the Chamber?