Unfortunately, according to the Tribune series, the supposedly flameproof furnishings 1) aren’t necessarily very good at reducing fire risk and 2) are doused with chemicals that one might not want rubbing off on one’s family and pets. That’s aside from the regulations’ obvious cost in making furnishings more expensive and narrowing consumer choice by excluding producers unable or unwilling to use the chemical treatments. Whether or not you accept the series’ interpretation in all respects — the authors tend to taken an alarmist line, for example, on the chemicals’ environmental dangers — it’s useful as reminder #83,951 that government regulation often is driven by motives quite different from those advertised, and in particular by business lobbies whose interest is frequently squarely opposed to laissez-faire.

On Sunday, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, criticized lately in this space for his views on supposed Big Beer responsibility for Indian reservation alcoholism, addressed the flameproofing story in his column. After reciting the controversy — laying a particular emphasis on chemical alarmism, long a specialty of his — Kristof concludes as follows:

This campaign season, you’ll hear fervent denunciations of “burdensome government regulation.” When you do, think of the other side of the story: your home is filled with toxic flame retardants that serve no higher purpose than enriching three companies. The lesson is that we need not only safer couches but also a political system less distorted by toxic money.

Which affords James Taranto of the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” this response:

The guy is so blinded by ideology that he fails to notice he has just given an example of burdensome government regulation.

The trouble with Nicholas Kristof, cont’d is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Plus: Scoop! Must credit Washington Post! Wal-Mart (like much of the rest of American business) has backed FCPA reform! In above-the-fold coverage with no fewer than three reporters’ bylines — though it does little more than recycle a meme that bounced around left-wing websites all day Tuesday — the Washington Post darkly warns that the giant retailer has been a member of broad business coalitions pressing various FCPA reforms “that, some advocacy groups argue, would eviscerate the Watergate-era anti-corruption statute.”  ”There is no evidence,” the paper is constrained to concede to the disappointment of Some Advocacy Groups, “that suggests Wal-Mart participated in the Chamber’s efforts because of its problems in Mexico.”

The Post notes that the campaign is led by what it bizarrely describes as the U.S. Chamber’s “little-known” Institute for Legal Reform. Yet the Post’s own index indicates that the “little-known” Institute has gotten seven mentions in the paper within the past 12 months, mostly for its advocacy on FCPA reform. Indeed, the Post itself has covered the FCPA debate in some depth over the past year, and its editorialists have ardently defended the law (perhaps “Watergate-era” should serve as some kind of tipoff phrasing.)

It would be one thing if Wal-Mart’s Washington reps had shown some sort of special dislike of FCPA not shared by other American firms that do business in developing countries. But the real story here is how broad and pervasive the discontent with the law is among American businesses with international operations. They consider it unrealistic, incapable of reliable compliance, punitive and constantly changing in its interpretations. Wouldn’t the Post do better to begin listening to them, rather than demonize their efforts to petition Washington for redress?

Punitive moralism and Wal-Mart’s Mexico mess is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Using federal bucks to lobby for food nannyism is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

March 6 roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“Business Leaders for Loser-Pays” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Depressing government-and-business datum is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Myhrvold’s patent-lobbying methods is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Home fire sprinkler mandates is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

• Rick Esenberg on health care reform and the Constitution (with Mark Steyn link, no less). And Peggy Little on shifting views of state AGs’ role;
• A first: attorneys nailed in asbestos fraud (more: Law.com)
• Jonathan Wilson: Georgia high court strikes down medical malpractice damages cap, while upholding offer of judgment rule and emergency room liability standard.
• “That nice Mr. Smith does not have to pay this personally, does he?” Jurors and insurance;
• James Copland on the friends of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid;
• Lawyers up, lobbyists down, which creates opportunities for arbitrage in D.C.

New at Point of Law is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“British Government Pays Lobbyists to Lobby It on Climate Change” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system