The left-wing websites parroting Senator Durbin’s demand for a return to the bad old days of the Fairness Doctrine might want to consider the slippery-slope repercussions; as Rasmussen reports, “Thirty-four percent (34%) believe the government should ‘require web sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints.’” More: Fred Thompson, Brian C. Anderson, Jesse Walker, John Berlau, Mike Franc, Adam Thierer. Bush has stated that he would veto any such measure.
Posts Tagged ‘politics’
Somewhat off-topic thought
Isn’t it a tad ironic for the woman who hired Amanda Marcotte to be complaining about Ann Coulter’s level of discourse?
Of course, there’s a difference: Ann Coulter is to politics what pro wrestling is to sports, and intentionally acts the part of a clown. (It wasn’t always so: at her best as an attorney for the Center for Individual Rights in the 1990s, Coulter successfully litigated against a whites-only scholarship in Alabama on behalf of an African-American, Jessie Thompkins, who was ineligible for the scholarship because of his race.) In contrast, Marcotte was explicitly chosen by the Edwards campaign to speak for it and the level of political discourse it wanted to produce.
And then there’s John Edwards himself, and his level of discourse in the courtroom, where attorneys are ostensibly officers of the court with an obligation to be truthful. Of course, truth and fairness wouldn’t have made John Edwards millions.
Update: my cousin Garance Franke-Ruta has a different take at the Guardian website that takes two Coulter attacks on Edwards out of context, and I’m not sure where “look like a cross between a Robert Palmer back-up dancer and an Edward Gorey drawing” fits on the Edwardsian scale of political discourse.
Oops!
Perhaps one reason trial lawyers so frequently accuse reformers of manufacturing popular outrage is because such astroturfing is a common trial-lawyer tactic: Peter Lattman uncovers eight identical letters to the editor written at the behest of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (now going by the AAJ misnomer), all on behalf of Bill Lerach’s bogus Enron suit and criticizing the Bush administration officials who dare to stand up to the attempted extortion. Similar astroturfing regularly goes on in the comments section of the Lattman blog.
FEC v. WRTL
Yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life is of special importance to those of us in Wisconsin, since we have watched the case unfold before our eyes since its inception. As you’ve probably heard by now, the Court, in a 5-4 vote, struck down a portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law which prohibited so-called “issue advocacy” by unregistered groups in a period of 60 days before a general election. Wisconsin Right to Life had run advertisements critical of Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl for their perceived role in holding up judicial appointments, but these ads were deemed to be illegal under McCain-Feingold, despite not advocating for the electoral defeat of either. Yesterday’s decision upheld WRTL’s right to run the ads, as the Court determined they were not “express advocacy.”
The culture of speech restriction with regard to campaigns has been prevalent in Wisconsin for some time, and produces some fairly odd applications of the law. This was demonstrated during last November’s elections, when the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (a pro-campaign finance reform group) actually filed a complaint to bar a Catholic diocese from urging its parishoners to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (Church Accused of Illegal Lobbying, Madison Capital Times, Oct. 18, 2006) At the same time they were attempting to use state law to block the Catholic Church’s right to support the constitutional amendment, the WDC was actually publicly lobbying against the amendment – yet they didn’t see their own activities as “express advocacy.”
So while it is clear yesterday’s decision represented a marginal victory for free speech rights at the federal level, there are steps states can take to ensure political speech isn’t muzzled come election time. When churches break the law by teaching their beliefs, it should alert states to dangerous path campaign finance restrictions are taking us.
Mikal Watts for U.S. Senate?
The high-rolling Texas personal injury lawyer (Mar. 7, 2005; Feb. 16, 2006; May 13, 2005; Apr. 12-14, 2002; PoL Nov. 2, 2005 and various other posts) is considering challenging incumbent Republican John Cornyn for his seat in the U.S. Senate (Jaime Castillo, “Cornyn in for a fight in ’08, but Dems don’t have it sewn up”, San Antonio Express-News, Jun. 3).
West Virginia Attorney General Involved in Medicaid Fraud?
One of the tricks states have used in recent years to raise money without raising taxes is to sue companies for the products they manufacture, on the legal theory that the use of those products lead to increased state health care spending. (The most prominent example, obviously, is the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement.) Not surprisingly, it often turns out that this legal theory is more of a pretext by state attorney generals to get their names in the paper than it is to actually remedy the alleged harms caused by the companies.
In 2004, West Virginia settled with Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of Oxycontin, over the increased Medicaid costs allegedly caused by addiction to the drug. The settlement was worth $10 million. Logically, then, that $10 million should have gone to the state’s Department of Health and Human Resources to defray Medicaid costs. But there was a problem. Two problems, actually. The first was that giving the money to the DHHR wouldn’t allow Darrell McGraw, the state Attorney General, to dole out money as he saw fit. The second was that the state shares its Medicaid expenses with the federal government, so giving money to the DHHR would enable the federal government to recover part of the settlement.
The first issue has caused political controversy in West Virginia, because McGraw has given out the settlement proceeds to pretty much everybody except the underfunded DHHR, including private law firms that he hired to work on the case. But even the money that the state actually kept was handed out by McGraw based on his personal whims ($500,000 to establish a state pharmacy school (!) at the University of Charleston) rather than by the state legislature, which is constitutionally tasked with making spending decisions about state money.
But the second issue may be causing legal controversy. Legalnewsline reports that the federal government is now investigating the state’s handling of the funds, trying to find out why it hasn’t been credited for its share of the Medicaid funds. But it’s not as if it’s a secret; the deputy attorney general recently testified as to their thinking:
“We have arranged a methodology that has prevented the federal government from coming back and seizing money,” Hughes said.
Or maybe not. If you’re going to try to cheat the federal government, you should probably be a little more subtle about it. No formal charges have been filed, to be sure, and the federal government may simply resolve the problem by withholding future federal payments to the state. But that certainly won’t fix the problem caused by McGraw’s behavior; it will leave a large hole in the state’s budget which could make them worse off than if he hadn’t sued Purdue in the first place.
Mississippi governor’s race
Running as a socially conservative Democrat, John Arthur Eaves, Jr. says he’s put $1.3 million of his own money into his campaign for governor, a sum he may hardly miss given his earnings as a prominent plaintiff’s lawyer (AP/Jackson Clarion-Ledger, May 9).
Kim Strassel on “trial lawyer earmarks”
Even the tort bar understands how deeply loathed it is by the American public. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America didn’t last year change its name to the bland “American Association for Justice” for nothing.
So no, even the old liberal lawsuit bulls such as Henry Waxman or [Barney] Frank won’t start calling for the repeal of the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act, or for other blatant legislative assists to the trial bar. Instead, Democrats intend to reward the legal industry with more subtle payoffs. The most obvious gift will be a moratorium on further legal reform. Beyond that, Democrats will rely on two tried-and-tested tools to aid and abet the legal community. They’ve employed both in the past few weeks. …
A Democratic Congress means far more regulation, and any new regulation is an opportunity to insert a line or two giving the tort bar greater rights to sue. These provisions will be subtle and technical, designed to escape notice. But just in case they do raise a red flag, they’ll also be tucked into bipartisan or must-pass legislation (such as the Iraq supplemental), making it that much harder for Republicans or President Bush to shoot them down.
It’s a measure of how well Republicans played tort abuse to their political advantage that Democrats today are reluctant to brazenly flack for the legal class. If the GOP wants to keep it that way, it will have to start working harder to expose the quiet ways in which the left is now helping trial lawyers bilk the system.
The other means is by taxpayer-funded subpoenas and hearings to develop evidence and publicity for the trial bar.
Strassel claims that there is such an earmark created at the behest of ATLA, subtly providing an implied cause of action against chemical manufacturers in H.R. 1591, the soon-to-be-vetoed Iraq War supplemental funding bill. Indeed, the provision is difficult to find amidst the provisions for the milk income loss contract program and renewal grants for women’s business centers. I suspect Strassel is referring to the anti-preemption provision in Section 1501(a) of the bill, effectively permitting lawsuits against chemical facilities that comply with Department of Homeland Security regulations without once mentioning the word “lawsuit.” If there is a terrorist attack on a chemical facility, trial lawyers will have a deep pocket to blame.
Perhaps we, as a society, would agree with the Democratic Party and would prefer trial lawyers, instead of the Department of Homeland Security, to be in charge of chemical plant security. (Trial lawyers do have the advantage of getting to operate only in hindsight.) But shouldn’t that critical decision be made openly?
Edwards war chest
Strong fund-raising helps keep the North Carolinian a credible Democratic alternative; AP cites in particular the generosity of the lawyers at Lerach Coughlin (Jim Kuhnhenn, “Clinton reports $24 mil in the bank, trails Obama in primary donations”, AP/DeKalb, Ill., Daily Chronicle, Apr. 16).