- Showing contributions
- Jan 2003-Oct 2008 House
Philip English (R-PA)
Contributions he received from groups who:
| Did want this law | Did not want this law | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pharmaceutical manufacturing | $134,740 | Health & welfare policy | $8,500 |
| Chemicals | $62,749 | Teamsters union | $5,000 |
| Major (multinational) oil & gas producers | $21,000 | State & local govt employee unions | $1,000 |
| Finance, Insurance & Real Estate | $8,300 | Human Rights | $0 |
| Aircraft manufacturers | $1,000 | Labor Unions | $0 |
| Farm bureaus | $0 | Consumer groups | $0 |
| International trade associations | $0 | Environmental policy | $0 |
| Construction & Public Works | $0 | Other unions | $0 |
| Beverages (non-alcoholic) | $0 | ||
| Communications & Electronics | $0 | ||
| TOTAL | $227,789 | TOTAL | $14,500 |
Contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)
Comments 
Free-trade agreement with Oman to promote economic growth and liberalization by Angela Xu, Jul 31, 2008 (8:04pm)
Under the terms of this bill, all bilateral trade in consumer and industrial products between Oman and the US would become duty-free. Supporters say that free trade with Oman would increase economic opportunities for the US, as well as help pave the way for economic liberalization in Oman. Above all, it would supposedly strengthen relations with a strategic country in the Middle East. In a signing statement, President Bush stated that the free-trade agreement (FTA) with Oman was one more step in a plan to create a Middle East Free Trade Area, following FTAs with Bahrain and Morocco. However, opponents argue that forcing American workers to compete with Omani workers who toil under slave labor conditions is unfair.
Latest Comments
See More | New Comment