Oh dear. The trouble with getting all your information from old articles is that you continue to live in the dark, with conspiracy theories making your thinking muddled. I assume you're basing your wild but incorrect assumptions on articles such as this: https://www.gunowners.org/alert5072015.htm
1) The TPP is not a "... highly classified document that only a few have even read in its entirety". It is a public document, and has been so since the agreement was signed. You can read it here: https://www.tpp.mfat.govt.nz/text
For example, should a company based on Malaysia have the right to sue the state of Oregon because it passed a regulation ( say a food safety or labeling requirement) that affected the profit margins of the Malaysian company's products?
On its own, no.
That's what TPP grants!
No it doesn't. For a start, the state of Oregon is not a party to the TPP. But the USA is, and a dispute could be raised with the USA if it is alleged that terms of the Agreement were breached, and as a result the profits of the Malaysian company were threatened.
I wonder if the fast track authority the US Congress gave to Obama for this bill will transfer to the next president, or if that has to be voted again?
FTA is a red herring. Let's suppose that Congress agrees with most aspects of TPP, except (say) ISDS. With FTA, it can only vote yes or no, so it could only express its displeasure by voting no.
Without FTA, it could debate each clause and, in theory, approve everything except ISDS. Given that the Agreement has been signed, and cannot now be changed, that is the equivalent of a no vote.
What is the difference, apart from more hot air on the Hill?
It cost them a little more than that. $7 million was their contribution to Uruguay's costs. They also had to pay the costs of the tribunal itself, as well as their own costs, which would likely be in the same order as those of Uruguay.
"The key point is that it is not absolutely necessary to include corporate sovereignty provisions in a trade deal to protect companies, because there is always the state-to-state mechanism that can be invoked if necessary."
No it can't. Only if such a mechanism is specified in a relevant treaty.