Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Will Dems Protect Americans' Right to Sue?

By Stephanie Mencimer, TomPaine.com. Posted November 17, 2006.


Lobbyists and are gearing up once again to push for tort reforms in Washington. Will the Dems cave in to their demands?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
How Biased Media Can Brainwash You
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
4 Ways the Stupak Amendment Deprives Women of Access to Abortion
Jessica Arons

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Stephanie Mencimer

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The midterm election returns were barely in before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce started running ads encouraging Democrats to take up where Republicans left off. Their issue wasn't a business staple like lower taxes, smaller government or even illegal immigration. Instead, the nation's biggest business lobby was calling on Democrats to fix "America's lawsuit crisis." The ads promoted the chamber's latest poll, which claimed that 85 percent of people who voted in the midterm elections think frivolous lawsuits are a serious problem and want the next Congress to do something about it. Helpfully, the ad suggests Democrats could improve their standing with swing voters by embracing this "bipartisan" issue.

The ads were just a sign that as much as the election changed the political climate, many things will stay the same. Restrictions on lawsuits, or "tort reform," have been a staple of Republican politics since the 1994 Contract with America. In the past two years, the GOP-led Congress has passed restrictions on class-action litigation and immunized favored industries from fast food companies to gun manufacturers to protect them from lawsuits. At the same time, state legislatures have capped awards in malpractice lawsuits and Republican state court judges have all but eliminated punitive damages in many states.

Conventional wisdom holds that the Democratic takeover of Congress and many state capitals threatens to bring all that "reform" to a grinding halt. The conventional wisdom, though, doesn't take into account just how many lobbyists have come to depend on this issue living another day. Consider that in 2005, more than 100 big corporations employed 475 lobbyists -- nearly one for every member of Congress -- to pass the Class Action Fairness Act, which forced most class actions into federal court where business thought they'd get more favorable treatment. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce alone spent $60 million lobbying for the bill. With that kind of money at stake, the tort reform industrial complex is likely to ensure that while the battle over medical malpractice lawsuits might go dormant, the larger movement to restrict lawsuits -- and bash the lawyers who bring them -- will not go away.

A few legal reform think-tankers, like the Manhattan Institute's Walter Olson, believe it's possible that some issues -- such as the creation of an asbestos victims' trust fund that would end asbestos litigation -- might fare better in the Democratic Congress than it did under a Republican one. Other legal reform issues will also find a friendly audience among Democrats. Big businesses have already hired a handful of veteran and Democratic tort reform lobbyists to push for legislation that would cap damages and force the loser to pay the other side's legal bills in patent infringement lawsuits. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer has indicated sympathy for more legislation restricting shareholders' litigation. Of course, these bloodless battles rarely generate the emotional fights like those over medical malpractice lawsuits or product liability litigation. Nonetheless, they'll ensure that legal reform lobbyists won't have to give up their skyboxes at FedEx field just yet.

Just because Democrats have retaken Congress doesn't mean that the attacks on consumer legal rights will disappear, either. They may just come in different packages. For instance, mortgage lenders have been pushing federal legislation that, on its face, looks like a measure to crack down on predatory lending. In fact, it's simply designed to overrule stricter state laws that allow victims to sue over abusive mortgage practices. Democrat Barney Frank has already suggested he would support such a bill.

Despite large Democratic gains, most state legislatures probably haven't seen the last of the tort reformers, either. Indeed, the American Tort Reform Association recently launched its latest campaign against "abusive state consumer protection laws." These "abusive" statutes enable individuals to sue over relatively small amounts of money by allowing plaintiffs to win treble damages and attorneys fees in consumer protection lawsuits. Notably, these unfair and deceptive trade practices laws have provided the basis for some big lawsuits, such as those against tobacco companies for fraudulently marketing "light" cigarettes as safer than regular ones. Tobacco companies have been one of association's major funders.

Whether the campaign will get much traction among Democrats remains to be seen. One thing is certain, though: So long as Americans continue to exercise their right to sue when they've been injured, financially or otherwise, the folks on the receiving end will continue fighting to restrict those suits, regardless of who's in charge.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democrats, election06, law, tort reform, lobbyists

Stephanie Mencimer is a contributing editor of The Washington Monthly. She was previously an investigative reporter for The Washington Post and a staff writer for Legal Times. She now blogs about tort reform issues at TheTortellini.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Right to Sue is Not the Same as Right to Damages
Posted by: edith on Nov 17, 2006 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An objective study is needed by the new Congress on where excessive damages if any in tort litigation has cost the economy jobs or hurt quality of health care. Damages are a remedy that juries and judges impose if liabiltiy for a tort is found. The basic right to sue is established by state legislatures, and to a more limited extent, by Congress for certain specific areas(e.g., civil rights). The right to sue in a particular area of negligence or intentional harm is distinct from the amount of damages allowed. In general, it's the damages that business and professional groups object to, or the type of damages-punitive v compensatory.

Again, an objective study is needed as to what harm if any is caused by punitive or uncapped damages. To my knowledge, the hearings during the W years were highly poliiticized by all sides in that controversy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» heh heh...you're a lawyer! Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature
screwups
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 17, 2006 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's wealthy screwups lobbying for laws to keep them from being sued for mistakes and environmental wreckage. If they do the environmental or other screwup crimes they want to keep all their dimes. Everyone and every corporation need to be responsible for their screwups else society will degenerate into a bunch of worthless polluted criminals.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Plutocracy, not Democracy
Posted by: shangrilalad on Nov 17, 2006 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States of America is not a democracy, it’s a plutocracy.

The plutocrats, two or three percent of the population, own the government, the military, the media and damn near everything else. They own both political parties, but foster the illusion that we have democracy through their (propaganda) media outlets.

How can anyone still doubt these facts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Plutocracy, not Democracy Posted by: symcokid
Hey, guess what!
Posted by: BJT on Nov 17, 2006 5:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not everything is soaked with class warfare.

Maybe, just maybe, it is too easy to sue in this country. A colossal majority of the world's lawyers are in America, even though it has a small fraction of the world's population.

If someone does something stupid on your property, sometimes even in spite of warnings, you can still get sued. If you don't lose the case, you still lose thousands in legal bills and lost time. This is the most dagerous country to own property in because you could lose so much of it at any time in some kind of frivolous legal battle. Lawsuits in America are like pies in a food fight. Flying back and forth with such fury it's only a matter of time before you get hit.

The lawyers have taken over. This is the most litigious nation on the planet and you're covering tort reform like it's a bad thing? We need it desperately. It's a good thing, though, that you're treating the reformers with such suspicion. The lawyers run the government. Watch them closely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tort Reform is code
Posted by: lamar on Nov 17, 2006 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tort reform is just code for insurance industry reform. Of course, since it is a right wing idea, they don't reform how insurance works, they just remove the responsibility for the consequences of insuring the negligent. It's like reforming the airlines by getting rid of those costly airplanes. Or like reforming education by lowering standards and declaring more kids successes. The financial health of the insurance industry is tied to investments, not headline grabbing, but relatively rare tort awards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't forget that Corporate America is being given UNLIMITED rights to sue individuals
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 17, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's finally better to see Alternet getting at an important issue such as this. I'd like to add that remember when P2P was coming under siege year after year? Did Congress and the White House stand up to the plate and say TORT REFORM against the entertainment industry elites for all their unethical pricing schemes and then using the media to blame P2P to cover up their horrendous wrongdoing ? Fuck no ! Instead, they passed the worst forms of allowing obscene corporate lawsuits though I'll have to check which of those bills actually became law. Sadly, the liberals have also caved into it because they thought they'd lose money from trial lawyers and Hollywood when it isn't so. Try talking to a not-so-greedy lawyer in Suffolk, VA about the media/government spun "frivolous" lawsuits or try asking some artists if they really think P2P is to blame for the top folks in the music and entertainment industries ripping them off? There's plenty of room for progressive non-monied unity and it's high time we all got the ball rolling on it !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Probably not, but they should, but they won't
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 17, 2006 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because they are funded by the shyster trial lawyers. If we could reform the lawsuit culture it would be a great thing. There is nothing per se wrong with lawsuits. What's wrong is false lawsuit and excessive damages. I think punitive damages should go to a general governent fund, not to the individual and not into the lawyer's pocket. This would help drive costs down. I'm hoping that, maybe, (false hope) that both sides could 'give a little' and we could couple universal health care to tort reform. If so the winners would be everyone except the insurance companies and shysters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Public Expression of Religion Act" (S. 3696)
Posted by: TheNamelessCity on Nov 17, 2006 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recently the Public Expression of Religion Act (S. 3696) was before Congress, it was being pushed by Religious Right wackos and its purpose was to discourage members of religious minorities (and those with NO RELIGION at all) from protecting the wall between church and state through litigation. From the www.au.org web site:

"Protect Attorneys Fees in ALL Establishment Clause Cases – Protect Religious Liberty and Oppose S. 3996.

The Senate has the opportunity to debate legislation which, if enacted, would undermine a critical enforcement mechanism that has safeguarded rights and liberties of Americans for more than a century. The Public Expression of Religion Act (S. 3696) would gut the longstanding availability of plaintiffs in Establishment Clause cases – and only those cases – to gain their attorneys fees and costs when they prevail in court.

The federal law making attorneys fees available to plaintiffs in constitutional and civil rights cases has never been limited. Even worse, Congress has never attempted to target specific constitutional rights for attack by limiting attorneys fees in cases involving those rights. Our opponents are going on the offensive with a legislative attack designed to slam the courthouse door on all Establishment Clause plaintiffs, including religious minorities. As a result, this is an extremely important, precedent-setting vote on a bill that directly attacks the central work of Americans United and the fundamental values and freedoms Americans United works so hard to defend.

Enforcement of the Establishment Clause is essential for the defense of religious freedom. The protections of the First Amendment, however, do not enforce themselves. The elimination of the availability of attorneys fees in Establishment Clause cases would deter attorneys from taking these cases – even where the government has acted in direct violation of the Constitution. Plaintiffs would be forced to pay their own legal fees and costs in successful Establishment Clause cases, often totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Few Americans, including religious minorities, can afford these kinds of costs to protect their most basic rights."

So if you are not wealthy and religious wingnuts are trying to force their narrow, hateful, filthy mythological agenda upon you throught the government, you can't take legal action for fear of losing. Just another law that removes rights and protections that guarantee church-state separation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lawyers were ban in Pennsylvania.....
Posted by: mom'z the word on Nov 17, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The entire legal system civil, criminal, tort, administrative, is so far from the truth it bears no semblance to its namesake, Justice.

America is founded on the principle of Justice for all. Equality. In the beginning lawyers where ban in Pennsylvania as a disparaging an unfit element. Over 50% of our representatives are lawyers. There are at least 23 grievousness’ in the Declaration of Independence, 17 of those 23 address a corrupt justice system. Justice and the administration of it is the defining factor in our Constitution. Most civilizations, natural disasters aside, can gauge their rise and fall on one single solitary element, the administration of Justice. Justice is at the heart of any organization. Sadly, our heart is in a diseased and dysfunctional state. Tort reform is an aspirin. It is not a cure. A cure is what is needed or we will die.

If you compare the grievances in the Declaration of Independence to our present system nearly every single element that gave rise to a revolution is operational today. This has to say something about where we are as a nation.

I am not suggesting a revolution, not yet at least. But I am suggesting that unless we look at this whole corrupt dysfunctional legal system with the sincere intent on curing it we are going to die. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that a body cannot survive without a heart.

A good place to start is at the beginning. I think our founding fathers had it mostly right. Not perfect but we need a starting point. Where is the spirit that made this country great? Gone to lobbyist and lawyers everywhere. When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Punitive damages
Posted by: dkm on Nov 17, 2006 9:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recently I saw where a corporation was all upset because they had been socked with a huge punitive judgment compared to the cost of the damage that had been done. They were claiming that punitive damages should be no more than 4X the actual damage award. To make a statement like that is to be totally oblivious to what a punitive award is supposed to do. It is designed to make illegal and damaging behavior too costly to continue. If the punitive damages are so small that the corporations can pay them out of petty cash, it defeats the purpose. The corporations just regard it as a cost of doing business. Large punitive awards are much more effective in correcting corporate misbehavior than anything else I can think of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Studies Show that Medical Malpractice Tort Reforms are the Wrong Thing To do
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Nov 18, 2006 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Congressional Budget Office in April of this year determined that capping damages, as asked by the insurance company lobbyists, will not lower malpractice insurance premiums nor the cost of healthcare. Insurance premiums have gone up more in states where the legislatures have imposed caps on damages than in states where such caps have not been imposed. There are more doctors per capita in states without caps than there are in states with caps. The vast majority of Medical malpractice lawsuits are meritorious, and frivolous suits do not clog the courts, according to the findings of the Harvard Health Study Group, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Numbers of Medical Malpractic case filings are down over the past 20 years. The myths of doctors going out of business and skyrocketing costs due to "litigious patients" are nothing more than insurance lies. Michael Townes Watson, author of America's Tunnel Vision--How Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law. www.AmericasTunnelVision.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement