Forbes:  Tax And Territoriality: The Corporate 99% Versus The Law School 1%, by Jeffery M. Kadet (U. Washington):

Is “territoriality” the only tax reform option to replace our present “deferral” system for taxing U.S. based multinational corporations? Is it inevitable? You might think so from what one often reads in the press. 

Maybe that’s because 99% of the few folks who understand what “deferral” and “territoriality” mean work for the multinationals (MNCs) that would benefit from adopting territoriality or for the law, accounting and lobbying firms that are well paid to service the MNCs. Most reporters don’t understand these concepts and can do little more than repeat what the 99% feeds them. Most politicians don’t get it either; although they do understand where their campaign contributions come from. Even our President was recently reported to have said that he might back a territorial system, although the most recent word from the White House is that “a pure territorial system” probably would not be the best way to achieve tax reform.

As for the other 1%, well, those are mostly law school professors without lobbyists. …

Territoriality vs full-inclusion…it is not a toss-up.  Without doubt,
from the societal and tax policy perspectives, full-inclusion would be
better for our country.

The 99% downplay the above concerns (export of jobs, etc.) and
explain that strong anti-avoidance rules will of course accompany
territoriality.  Such rules, it is argued, would prevent many of these
terrible results.

Yes, truly strong anti-avoidance rules could prevent some of the worst
excesses.  But, frankly, it is naïve to think that such strong rules
would be put in place.  First, the rules under consideration would be
understood by few and attacked viciously by corporate lobbyists. So,
whatever gets enacted will be very weak.  Second, even if something
halfway strong were enacted, our high-powered tax consulting community
has a century-long tradition of working around anti-avoidance rules. 
So, this writer has little faith that any strong or effective
anti-avoidance rules will accompany a territorial system.  And this will
mean continued and accelerated erosion of the US tax base and the
continued export of jobs.