Tort Reform

capt 6/16  see baktortclassact219see class action for newermoderation; powell memo

refers both to leverage of small groups and indiv using legal system to protect themselves and get compensation for damage, eg civil lawsuit or class action suit (note that scotus has limited latter); also refers to longstanding defund the Left strategy to limit such suits, thus the income of lawyers, thus their political contributions (also part of overall rw narrative that gov't imposes too many burdensome regulations, thus stifles freedom and prosperity).

cf tobacco and syngenta on atrazine: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:Atrazine_Exposedbenzene leukemia cancer API FF ceo

Note also green shifted from political grassroots action to lawsuits, (sometimes against the gov't itself to force it to enforce its own laws). leverage

=<div>=</div><div><div>11 21 grab acsh</div><div>
</div><div>Health Scares Vs Health Threats</div><div>Thank You, Trial Lawyers, For Protecting Us from the Scourge of Baby Powder</div><div>
</div><div>Scientists say that talcum baby powder doesn't cause cancer. Trial lawyers say it does. As usual, the lawyers win. Scientists, common sense, and Americans lose.</div><div>Read more</div></div><div></div><div><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/02/27/oil-manufacturers-accountability-project-trade-group-climate-suits">https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/02/27/oil-manufacturers-accountability-project-trade-group-climate-suits</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>no lnx pix many lnx</div><div>
</div><div>Battling for Big Oil: Manufacturing Trade Group Leads Assault on Climate Suits</div><div>Read time: 12 mins</div><div>By Guest • Wednesday, February 27, 2019 - 11:09</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>By Karen Savage, Climate Liability News. Crossposted from Climate Liability News.</div><div>
</div><div>In its fight to stave off a wave of climate change-related lawsuits, the fossil fuel industry has found a vocal and unapologetic ally in the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). The 123-year old trade group represents a wide range of the nation’s manufacturing companies, but it has frequently gone to bat for select segments of its membership during major liability battles. Currently, it is Big Oil’s staunchest defender.</div><div>The group has filed briefs defending oil companies in liability lawsuits, launched campaigns to discredit the communities filing them, and has worked to stop shareholders from pressing the oil companies to disclose climate risks. In these roles, NAM has put itself front and center in the effort to keep fossil fuel companies from being held liable for their role in climate change, and from paying for the related damages that will run in the hundreds of billions of dollars to communities across the country.</div><div>
</div><div>“Taxpayer resources should not be used for baseless lawsuits that are designed to enrich trial lawyers and grab headlines for politicians,” Lindsey de la Torre, executive director of NAM’s spinoff group, the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project (MAP), said in a statement after Rhode Island filed one of the climate liability lawsuits last year. NAM launched MAP in 2017 as a response to the increasing number of climate liability suits. </div><div>
</div><div>Those suits, according to NAM, are a result of a coordinated campaign by activists “to disparage U.S. manufacturers with a focus on America’s largest energy manufacturers.” </div><div>
</div><div>MAP is now attempting to convince the American public — as well as judges who might hear those liability cases — that attempts to hold companies accountable for their role in climate change will harm business, said Richard Daynard, president of Northeastern University Law School’s Public Health Advocacy Institute and chair of its Tobacco Products Liability Project.</div><div>
</div><div>Manufacturers' Accountability Project logo</div><div>The Manufacturers' Accountability Project (MAP) was launched in November 2017 to push back against climate-change-related lawsuits affecting the manufacturing industry. ]</div><div>
</div><div>“This is essentially the PR front for the defendants in climate litigation,” Daynard said, adding that MAP is also working to discourage municipalities from filing future suits.</div><div>
</div><div>“This is all part of a long history of tort reform propaganda,” he said, adding that NAM has worked for decades to reign in all types of liability litigation, including against the tobacco industry.</div><div>
</div><div>So perhaps it’s not surprising that NAM’s defense of fossil fuel companies has begun to look increasingly like its support for the tobacco industry in the 1980s. Similar tactics were used when tobacco companies were facing hundreds of lawsuits and were charged with racketeering by the federal government for deceiving the public about the catastrophic health hazards of smoking. NAM has even hired the same law firm that defended the tobacco industry to launch an assault on the climate liability lawsuits.</div><div>
</div><div>NAM recently named Phil Goldberg, a former coal lobbyist as special counsel for MAP. Goldberg is a managing partner in the Washington office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, which gained notoriety for defending the tobacco industry, and is the co-chair of the firm’s  public policy group. </div><div>
</div><div>Some say Shook, Hardy & Bacon went beyond defending tobacco companies, actively coordinating efforts by its clients to deliberately deceive the public about the ruinous health effects of smoking.</div><div>
</div><div>Judge Gladys Kessler, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who found 10 tobacco companies guilty of violating racketeering laws in 2006, said the company’s lawyers “played an absolute central role in the creation and perpetuation” of the companies’ “fraudulent schemes,” calling it a “sad and disquieting chapter” in the legal profession.</div><div>
</div><div>Even before Goldberg was hired, MAP had launched an offensive against climate suits, filing friend-of-the-court briefs and intervening in a landmark constitutional suit brought by 21 young people against the U.S. government. MAP has also submitted public records requests and coordinated a public relations campaign to discredit the municipalities behind the liability lawsuits.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Sharon Eubanks, a former Department of Justice lawyer who led the government’s racketeering case against the tobacco industry, said MAP is launching a direct attack on climate litigation suits.</div><div>
</div><div>“It’s very similar what they’re doing, only the tobacco industry at least didn’t come right out and say ‘We’re going to target these lawsuits directly,’” Eubanks said. “They did so indirectly. But NAM and MAP, they’re like, ‘We’re targeting the lawsuits.’” </div><div>
</div><div>Michael Barnett, a professor of management & global business at Rutgers Business School who has studied trade associations, said groups like NAM exist to defend the interests of their industry. </div><div>
</div><div>“It’s sort of an outsourced arm of those firms, rather than doing it all on their own, there’s strength in numbers,” Barnett said. “There’s some efficiency to having one centralized legal defense that attacks on behalf of the whole industry in addition to each of the individual firms taking on these issues.”</div><div>
</div><div>No Stranger to the Liability Battlefield</div><div>
</div><div>The addition of Goldberg to MAP’s legal team indicates a continuing commitment to defending NAM’s fossil fuel defendants. In addition to being the go-to law firm for tobacco companies, Shook, Hardy & Bacon has a long history with NAM, partnering as far back as 2007 to support firms facing product liability suits. The firm worked so closelywith the tobacco industry to attack the science showing the dangers of smoking it was named in several cases along with their clients, charging them with deceiving the public by fraudulently concealing the health effects of smoking. Oklahoma’s attorney general called Shook, Hardy & Bacon an “aider and abettor” of fraud in one suit.</div><div>
</div><div>“[The Department of Justice] considered suing them and making them defendants because they were so much a part of the RICO violations we alleged,” Eubanks said.</div><div>
</div><div>“They’re not even hiding from anything, they’re just saying ‘we want to influence what’s happening in these cases the best way that we can.’” </div><div>
</div><div>She said she’s seen no evidence that MAP’s tactics are illegal, but they are similar to some of what was alleged in the tobacco cases.</div><div>
</div><div>Goldberg did not respond to a request for comment. In a NAM press release he said, “The NAM and its Manufacturers’ Accountability Project are the tip of the spear in the fight against the wave of unfounded public nuisance lawsuits targeting America’s manufacturers.” </div><div>
</div><div>Goldberg said climate liability suits get in the way of finding real solutions and “are more about politics than addressing the global challenge of climate change.” He did not elaborate on what the solutions are or how municipalities will pay for the infrastructure needed to protect their residents, costs that are projected to run into the hundreds of billions of dollars nationwide.</div><div>
</div><div>A History of Advocating for Fossil Fuel Members</div><div>
</div><div>NAM, which was founded in 1895, describes itself as the largest manufacturing association in the United States. It doesn’t publicly disclose its membership list, but its board includes some of the oil and gas industry’s most powerful executives. </div><div>
</div><div>Exxon senior vice president and management committee member Neil Chapman joined NAM’s executive committee in 2015, taking over the position vacated by current Exxon chief executive Darren Woods. Chapman, who donated $10,000 to NAM’s political action committee during the 2018 election cycle, also serves as NAM’s southwest regional vice chair.  </div><div>
</div><div>Chapman and Exxon did not respond to a request for comment. </div><div>
</div><div>For decades, the association has promoted climate denial, founding the Global Climate Coalition in 1989 and sharing offices until 1992 while the Global Climate Coalition and its members — primarily energy companies and automobile manufacturers — worked to cast doubt on what was fast becoming overwhelming scientific evidence that the burning of fossil fuels drives climate change. The goal was to change the public’s perception and cast doubt on climate science.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>The Global Climate Coalition was disbanded in 2002 after several of its largest corporate members pulled out under public pressure to accept that climate change — and the projected catastrophic effects — was an undeniable global threat.</div><div>
</div><div>More recently, NAM’s focus has shifted from promoting climate deception to defending member companies from efforts to hold them accountable for years of deceiving the public and damaging the climate.</div><div>
</div><div>Along with the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, NAM in 2015 joined the landmark youth climate lawsuit Juliana v. United States as an intervenor on the side of the federal government. </div><div>
</div><div>Calling the suit a “direct threat to businesses,” the trade associations said the “significant reduction in [greenhouse gas] emissions would cause a significant negative effect on [their] members by constraining the sale of the product they have specialized in developing and selling.” When the court asked intervenors to explain their views on climate change, NAM quickly backed out.</div><div>
</div><div>When the liability lawsuits began — and now total more than a dozen from communities across the country and one state (Rhode Island) — NAM responded by launching MAP to “set the record straight and highlight foundations and other activists who have sought to undermine and weaken manufacturing in the United States” by engaging in climate change-related litigation. </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>MAP came out swinging, claiming that then-New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman’s use of the Martin Act to investigate Exxon for possible climate change-related fraud was “politically motivated.” It demanded New York Mayor Bill de Blasio apologize to New Yorkers for using an outside firm to file its suit against five major oil companies and launched a campaign to highlight what it called de Blasio’s “politically-motivated attacks on manufacturers.”</div><div>
</div><div>Eubanks said that rhetoric doesn’t add up.</div><div>
</div><div>“Lawsuits are to enforce the law, to ensure that people are following the law and it takes you out of a political process and puts you before a neutral person, a judge,” she said, adding that Shook, Hardy & Bacon also does a good bit of political lobbying. </div><div>
</div><div>“They say, ‘We think these matters should be handled by legislation, not litigation, and by regulations that will come out of any statutes that are enacted,” she said. “Then they fight real hard to make sure there are no statutes that come down the pike because regulations come out of regulatory authority, so it sounds real good, but that’s wholly inconsistent with their approach.” </div><div>
</div><div>NAM and MAP have made a big deal out of the potential for future RICO charges against the fossil fuel industry — the same racketeering laws that ultimately ensnared the tobacco industry — and contend that a conspiracy is being waged on the other side by a “group of politically motivated activists” who are “trying to take down America’s energy manufacturers.” </div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>“Right now, there are groups of trial lawyers slinking around the country tantalizing elected officials in cities and states with unrealistic promises of jackpot justice if they will only agree to sue energy manufacturers over climate change,” said NAM president and chief executive Jay Timmons in NAM’s State of Manufacturing Address last week in Houston. “These lawyers — they want to get rich at the expense of manufacturing workers.”</div><div>
</div><div>Daynard said this type of messaging is used in an effort to control the narrative around — and media coverage of — climate litigation.</div><div>
</div><div>“They have this notion that if they can get continue to get news coverage and establish themselves, they can make sure when cases are filed journalists will look, go to them and they can then get in some comment on how this is all worthless crazy stuff stirred up by ‘greedy lawyers’ or ‘ideologically driven NGO’s,’” Daynard said.</div><div>
</div><div>To try and substantiate its view that litigation is part of a vast conspiracy — and in what some say is an attempt to have a chilling effect on municipalities that file lawsuits — MAP has also submitted extensive public record requests to plaintiffs in the suits, seeking documents and communication between the municipalities and their attorneys, prior records requests that include those attorneys, certain communication regarding the defendant companies and communication between the municipalities and billionaire Tom Steyer, founder of NextGen, a progressive organization working to stem the risks of climate change for future generations.</div><div>
</div><div>When Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin filed the first state-level suit last July, MAP denounced it. </div><div>
</div><div>Eubanks said ensuring manufacturers abide by state law is exactly what attorneys general should do.</div><div>
</div><div>“We have consumer protection statutes, we have consumer protection agencies, that’s part of what makes this country great,” Eubanks said. “You can’t just come in and roll over people with deceptive and unfair methods of competition, you can’t just lie about things without consequences and we have organizations to protect that. That’s what I find so alarming about this — the whole idea that there’s something wrong with enforcing the law.”</div><div>
</div><div>NAM did not respond to a request for comment. De la Torre could not be reached for comment.</div><div>
</div><div>Perhaps NAM’s biggest attack on liability suits thus far has been its accusations against several California municipalities.  </div><div>
</div><div>Not long after the suits were filed, Exxon went on the offensive, accusing plaintiffs of failing to disclose climate risks to their bond investors. </div><div>
</div><div>To try to bolster that allegation, NAM — along with the industry ally Competitive Enterprise Institute — asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate whether several cities and counties that filed climate suits misled investors when they stated in bond offerings that they couldn’t predict the impacts of climate change. </div><div>
</div><div>A report by the former chief of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s municipal bonds division later found the municipalities did not mislead potential investors.</div><div>
</div><div>In another instance, NAM partnered with the Chamber of Commerce to back Exxon, filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the oil giant’s quest to stop investigations by the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York. </div><div>
</div><div>New York has since filed a lawsuit against Exxon based on that investigation, alleging the oil giant for years deceived investors by deliberately downplaying the climate risks to its business and long-term financial health. The Supreme Court recently ruled against Exxon’s attempt to stop Massachusetts’ investigation, which now continues.</div><div>
</div><div>This is the first in a series of articles on the trade group coordinating opposition to climate liability suits.</div></div><div>
</div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div></div><div></div><div><a href="https://litigationfinancejournal.com/chamber-commerce-ranked-2-top-30-tort-reform-hypocrites-list">https://litigationfinancejournal.com/chamber-commerce-ranked-2-top-30-tort-reform-hypocrites-list</a></div><div>
</div><div> U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) has ranked #2 on The New York Law School’s Center for Justice & Democracy’s 2018 ranking of the top-30 tort reform hypocrites. The report aims to reveal which tort reform advocates are the most litigious, and thereby hypocritical in their efforts to scale back the litigiousness of other entities. The ILR, which consistently advocates for numerous tort reform measures including mandatory disclosure of third party funding agreements and placing interest rate caps on Consumer Legal Funding transactions, placed second on the list behind only President Trump.According to the report, the ILR was established in 1998 to pursue the Chamber’s tort reform agenda. Since its inception, however, the ILR “has spent millions on federal lobbying to in an effort to keep victims from having their cases heard before a civil judge or jury.”The U.S. Chamber is the top lobbying spender in the country, having spent a whopping $109MM in 2017 alone ($22MM of which was spent by the ILR). Yet despite spending all of that money on efforts to scale back the ability of others to litigate, the Chamber itself is one of the nation’s top litigators. Over the last decade, “the Chamber has been involved in over 1100 lawsuits, either as a plaintiff or as an amicus curiae,” according to the report.<div class="page" title="Page 9" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="layoutArea" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><div class="column" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Chamber’s President, Tom Donohue, told the Washington Examiner in 2015: “We spend half of our time trying to reduce the number of suits by class-action lawyers and the other half of our time suing the hell out of the government. We sue the federal government and units of the federal government and some state governments, 180-90 times a year.”The report cites the Chamber for its hypocrisy, and notes that the Chamber is a longtime member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)’s Civil Justice Task Force, an entity “devoted solely to weakening or eliminating corporate liability for wrongdoing.” An investigative report by the Center for Media and Democracy found that bills proposed by ALEC “make it harder for average Americans to access the civil justice system” and “provide relief and protections for the industries who wrote them.”The #1 tort reform hypocrite according to the report is President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly scaled back access to justice – his de-fanging of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is but one example – while simultaneously suing or threatening to sue anyone and everyone whom he perceives has done him wrong.Rounding out the top-5 on the list are the National Rifle Association, the National Federation of Independent Business, and General Motors.The entire report can be found <a href="https://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/1/Critical-Mass-nts-6-13-Tort-Reform-Hypocrites-Report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration-line: none;">here</a>.<a href="https://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/1/Critical-Mass-nts-6-13-Tort-Reform-Hypocrites-Report.pdf"> https://www.almcms.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/1/Critical-Mass-nts-6-13-Tort-Reform-Hypocrites-Report.pdf</a>. President Donald J. Trump...............................................................................................................2

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) .............................................................4
National Rifle Association (NRA) ...................................................................................................... 6
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)..........................................................................7
General Motors (GM) ....................................................................................................................... 9
Chrysler..........................................................................................................................................10
Uber...............................................................................................................................................12
Airbnb............................................................................................................................................13
Amazon .........................................................................................................................................14
Verizon ......................................................................................................................................15
Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA)....................................................................15
Debt Collectors ..........................................................................................................................16

State Farm.................................................................................................................................18
Liberty Mutual............................................................................................................................19
Farmers Insurance ..................................................................................................................... 20
Honeywell International............................................................................................................. 20
Covington & Burling ...................................................................................................................21
Texas Governors.........................................................................................................................23
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)......................................................................................................23
Retiring U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA).......................................................................... 24
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin ...........................................................................................25
Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness................................................................... 26
Koch Industries/Georgia-Pacific.................................................................................................. 28
ExxonMobil/Rex Tillerson........................................................................................................... 29
Amway/parent Alticor.................................................................................................................30
Bayer Corporation......................................................................................................................30
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF).............................................................................31
Pfizer..........................................................................................................................................32
Teva Pharmaceutical ...................................................................................................................33
Procter & Gamble (P&G)..............................................................................................................33

About the Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School.....</div></div></div></div><div>
</div><div>We look at factors like: the sheer volume of cases these hypocrites bring, or how recently

they’ve gone to court (to establish this is a present-day problem), while they attack the legal

rights of others; their involvement with groups like the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal

Reform (ILR) or the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Civil Justice Task Force, which

write and support bills to protect corporate lawbreakers3

; a company’s use of forced

arbitration clauses and class action waivers, blocking harmed individuals and small businesses

from bringing them to court; or just general civil justice “two-facedness.” And now and then,

we throw in a little humor because sometimes you just have to laugh. Shall we begin?

President Donald J. Trump

Donald J. Trump earns the position of civil justice hypocrite-in-chief simply because his

hypocrisy is one for the record books. Trump has tried to block the courthouse doors to others

in his business dealings and during his year and a half as President. But when he believes that

he or his companies have been wronged in some way, he has always run straight to court. He

has done so thousands of times.

Trump has long used forced arbitration clauses to prevent anyone from bringing legal cases in

open court against him.4 Typical is the case involving Stormy Daniels, a former adult film

actress who received “hush money” before the 2016 presidential election as she shopped a

story about a sexual liaison with Trump a decade earlier. On May 3, 2018, Trump tweeted

(referring to his lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen)5

Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having

nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement,

a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA.

These agreements are..... ...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In

this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against

Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist

accusations made by her about an affair......

As the Associated Press reported during election season, “In his businesses and presidential

campaign, Trump requires nearly everyone to sign legally binding nondisclosure agreements

prohibiting them from releasing any confidential or disparaging information about the real

estate mogul, his family or his companies,” with disputes subject to arbitration at the “sole

discretion of Trump and others protected by the agreement.”6

Moreover, the “agreement is

binding during employment and ‘at all times thereafter.’”7

These days, “Trump reportedly is frustrated that, as president, he can’t make federal

employees sign nondisclosure agreements and can’t block them from suing….”8

But that

doesn’t mean he has been completely unsuccessful in his quest. In November 2017, Trump

signed into law a repeal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule that had allowed

defrauded consumers to join with others to bring class action lawsuits against financial

institutions over financial products and services. Since taking office, his administration has

also stripped away the legal rights of workers, farmers, investors, students and sexual

harassment, sexual assault and discrimination survivors.9

In his first State of the Union

address, Trump called for laws that eliminate the legal rights of victims of medical malpractice.

He took the same position in a June 2017 White House “Statement of Administration Policy”

and in his Fiscal Year 2019 budget.

On the other hand, Trump and/or his businesses have filed more than 1,900 civil cases over the

past three decades.

10 These include:

• In 2009, Trump filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $2.5 billion in compensation and $2.5

billion in punitive damages after an author claimed Trump was a millionaire not a

billionaire.11 The case was rejected by a New Jersey court and on appeal.12

• “Trump sued for $4.5 million over unpaid royalties after a company that had been

paying him to call its liquor Trump Vodka fell on hard times during the economic

downturn, hurting sales of pricier spirits. The company stopped making its licensing

payments, and Trump terminated the deal and sued to recoup money. He won a

judgment for the amount, though it’s unclear whether he ever collected from the

troubled company.”13

• A Trump entity building a golf course “sued a contractor for more than $25 million,

saying it overcharged for excavation work at the site and then walked off the job when

it didn’t get paid.”14

• Trump entity 40 Wall Street LLC pursued a contempt order against a company that

failed to comply with a subpoena-ordered deposition related to $600K in back rent.15

• “Miss Universe LP, partly owned by Trump, sued to confirm a $5 million arbitration

award against Sheena Monnin, a former Miss Pennsylvania USA and Miss USA Pageant

contestant. Miss Universe claimed Monnin falsely stated on her Facebook page and on

the ‘Today’ show that the contest was fixed and called the organization ‘fraudulent,

lacking in morals, inconsistent and in many ways trashy.’” Trump won.16

• As summarized in the Washington Post,

17 Trump has sued: “Palm Beach County, Fla.,

because of the ‘malicious’ jet noise above Mar-a-Lago”: Bill Maher “after the comedian

challenged Trump to prove he was not the spawn of an orangutan”; the Chicago

Tribune “for $500 million because its architecture critic said Trump’s idea for the world’s

tallest tower was silly”; “neighbors of the Trump National Doral Miami for

vandalizing palm trees”; and “two business executives for using the name ‘Trump,’ even

though their surname was also Trump.”

More recently, while president, Trump’s company has sued towns all over the nation for tax

breaks. As an April 2018 ProPublica investigation18 revealed,

President Donald Trump is famous for bragging about his net worth. Publicly, he claims

he’s worth more than $10 billion. …Yet quietly in another setting, the Trump

Organization says the president’s holdings are worth far less than he has proclaimed.

Across the country, the Trump Organization is suing local governments, claiming it

owes much less in property taxes than government assessors say because its properties

are worth much less than they’ve been valued at. In just one example, the company has

asserted that its gleaming waterfront skyscraper in Chicago is worth less than its

assessed value, in part because its retail space is failing and worth less than nothing.

Since becoming president, Trump’s companies have filed at least nine new lawsuits

against municipalities in Florida, New York and Illinois, arguing for lower tax bills,

ProPublica has found. Some of those lawsuits have been previously reported. At stake

is millions of dollars that communities use to fund roads, schools and police

departments.

And most recently, when a New York State Supreme Court Justice ruled that a 46-story New

York City condominium building could remove bronze lettering spelling out Trump’s name,

Trump’s lawyer responded by threatening “legal proceedings to not only prevent such

unauthorized action, but to also recover the significant amount of damages, costs and

attorney’s fees.”19

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform (ILR)

In 1998, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce created its “Institute for Legal Reform” (ILR) to pursue

the Chamber’s national anti-civil justice “tort reform” agenda. Since then, ILR has spent

millions on federal lobbying in an effort to keep victims from having their cases heard before a

civil judge or jury.20 ILR now constitutes one of the largest federal lobbying forces in the

nation, spending over $22 million in 2017 alone.21 This amount is separate from the massive

lobbying muscle of the Chamber itself ($82 million in 2017),22 which makes the Chamber the

top lobbying spender in the country. As U.S. Chamber President Tom Donohue boasted in

2014, “Our Institute for Legal Reform is fighting the expansion of lawsuits on all fronts – in the

Congress, in the federal agencies, in the states, and even around the globe where U.S.

companies are getting sued.”23 In the current Congress, ILR lobbied for, among other bills:

H.R. 720, which would chill the filing of meritorious cases; H.R. 985, which would destroy clas</div><div>...</div><div>=</div>game over tipping pt?! rbg v gorsuch<a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2018/5/23/supreme_court_deals_blow_to_workers">https://www.democracynow.org/2018/5/23/supreme_court_deals_blow_to_workers</a>
a major blow to workers’ rights, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 Monday that employers can use arbitration clauses to prohibit workers from banding together to challenge violations of federal labor laws in class-action lawsuits. Arbitration is often confidential. Many workers may agree to mandatory arbitration clauses without even being aware of it when they sign a contract with their employer. In a rare show of public displeasure, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, calling the majority opinion “egregiously wrong” and saying, “The court today holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts—including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one. Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees.” For more, we speak with Terri Gerstein, former labor bureau chief for the New York State Attorney General’s Officeeric schniederman nuke option IRS // chamber watch: AIG CoC starr fdn big effort:<h1 class="gb-volume-title" dir="ltr" style="margin: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Influence Machine: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Corporate ...</h1>By Alyssa Katz<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=XhadBAAAQBAJ">https://books.google.com/books?id=XhadBAAAQBAJ</a>
When Americans hear the words “Chamber of Commerce,” many still think of the local business associations that spruce up Main Streets and sponsor Little League teams around the country. But the United States Chamber of Commerce is a different animal altogether. The Chamber was originally founded to give big business a voice during the long—and now almost inconceivable—period in American history that saw the rise of workers’ rights, consumer protections, and environmental awareness as national priorities. But over time, driven by an antigovernment ideology and its desire for financial and political power, the Chamber metastasized into a fighting force designed to protect the worst excesses of American industry.   The Chamber, through its veiled corporate sponsors, can take credit for some of the most disturbing trends in American life: the reversal of environmental protections, the destruction of unions and worker protections, the rise of virulent antigovernment ideology, the enlarged role of money in campaigns, and the creation of “astroturf” movements as cover for a corporate agenda. Through its propaganda, lobbying, and campaign cash, the Chamber has created a right-wing monster that even it struggles to control, a conservative movement that is destabilizing American democracy as never before.   The Influence Machine tells this history as a series of gripping narratives that take us into the backrooms of Washington, where the battles over how our country is run and regulated are fought, and then out into the world, where we see how the Chamber’s campaigns play out in real lives. In the end, Alyssa Katz reveals the hidden weaknesses of this seeming juggernaut and shows how its antidemocratic agenda can be reversed.<a href="http://www.exposedbycmd.org/2017/03/07/pruitt-emails-reveal-communications-alec-kochs/">http://www.exposedbycmd.org/2017/03/07/pruitt-emails-reveal-communications-alec-kochs/</a>nice context:<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/" style="font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/</a><div class="leader" style="outline-style: none; margin: 10px 0px 12px; font-weight: 700; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="outline-style: none;"> Powell saw that corporate interests could gain greatly by using the judicial system to their advantage, yet to make the judiciary more sympathetic to business interests, he knew corporations would have to plan and engage in a long-term, multi-dimensional strategy.</div></div><div style="outline-style: none;"><h2 id="a0" style="background: 0px 50%; outline-style: none; margin: 0px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 18px;">The Powell Memo on Judicial Influence:</h2><blockquote style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); outline-style: none;">"[T]he judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change. [...] This is a vast area of opportunity for the Chamber, if it is willing to undertake the role of spokesman for American business and if, in turn, business is willing to provide the funds. As with respect to scholars and speakers, the Chamber would need a highly competent staff of lawyers. In special situations it should be authorized to engage, to appear as counsel amicus in the Supreme Court, lawyers of national standing and reputation. The greatest care should be exercised in selecting the cases in which to participate, or the suits to institute. But the opportunity merits the necessary effort."(Direct link to this quote in the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/#judiciary" target="blank" class="zoom" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background: url(" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat">Powell Memo</a>)</blockquote>The big business reaction to Lewis Powell’s judicial and legal strategy was swift. Within a few years, nearly a dozen corporate-funded legal foundations were created. The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) was formed in California in 1973 to counter public-interest law firms and represent the interests of business and private property holders against environmental regulations. PLF’s prospectus quoted the Powell memo at length. (Kim Phillips-Fein, “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#invisiblehands" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal;">Invisible Hands</a>,” p. 162).When asked for his opinion of the “most critical” area of public interest law, PLF’s then-executive legal director replied, “environmental law,” citing the firm’s support for the use of DDT, the construction of a dam and reservoir project, the use of herbicides in national forests and the use of public grazing lands without environmental impact review. The early cases established a clear pattern for PLF and its followers at the Mountain States Legal Foundation and other regionally named corporate defenders. Environmental cases would be a priority and the foundations’ positions in such cases would invariably be those of their business benefactors, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, Gulf Oil, ARCO, Ford and other companies (Houck, "<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#houck" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal;">With Charity for All</a>," pp. 1461-1462). The work of these groups also supported the Wise Use movement; radical property rights activists and corporate front groups that attacked environmental laws and regulations on behalf of landowners, ranchers and the oil industry (Helvarg, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#helvarg" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal;">The War Against the Greens</a>). The conservative backlash against alleged liberal influence over the law went well beyond the corporate agenda that grew directly out of Powell’s analysis, but there were also tensions between the two. Corporate legal campaigns were primarily self-interested, practical and designed to get both immediate and longer-term results.The conservative legal movement that got its start in the 1970s was more ideologically driven; its greatest successes would take decades, and sometimes came about through indirect means (Teles, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#teles" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal;">The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement</a>).At the juncture between these two was the “law and economics” school, with leading proponents such as Richard Posner at the University of Chicago and George Mason University’s Henry Manne. Manne organized seminars for federal judges through his Law and Economics Center, with support from the Olin Foundation, which also backed some of the leading “second generation” conservative public policy law firms, like the Center for Individual Rights. The foundation’s chairman, John M Olin, was inspired by Powell’s memo to write to William Baroody at the American Enterprise Institute: “The Powell Memorandum gives a reason for a well organized effort to re-establish the validity and importance of the American free enterprise system.” (“<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#invisiblehands" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal;">Invisible Hands</a>,” Kim Phillips-Fein)For its part, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also eventually followed Powell’s advice by creating two legal groups that have carried out a multi-decade legal strategy -- the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.chamberlitigation.com/" class="zoom" target="blank" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background-image: url(">National Chamber Litigation Center</a> (NCLC) and the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.instituteforlegalreform.org/" class="zoom" target="blank" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background-image: url(">Institute for Legal Reform</a> (ILR). NCLC served as the Chamber’s law firm, using aggressive and strategic litigation to challenge regulations and laws. Entering 134 new cases of significance to the business community in 2009, for example, the NCLC helped to <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.uschamber.com/about/management/thomas-j-donohue" class="zoom" target="blank" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-color="background-color" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background-image: url(">secure 52 victories</a>.The Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) coordinated one of the Chamber’s flagship priorities in the post-Powell era -- the push for “tort reform.” The tort 'reform' campaign was so successful that by 2006, the American Lawyer proclaimed, “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#frankel" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal;">It’s Over</a>,” explaining that “the power of the plaintiffs bar is on the wane in this country, and will be for a long time to come.” ILR, along with the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.atra.org/" class="zoom" target="blank" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-color="background-color" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background-image: url(">American Tort Reform Association</a> (funded by the tobacco, chemical and drug industries, along with the American Medical Association), created a “public relations masterpiece” that demonized trial lawyers, replaced state judges hostile to business interests, and mobilized popular support for business-friendly laws. (See Frankel, “It’s Over”) The campaign erected a variety of judicial and regulatory barriers against plaintiff attorneys and their clients – i.e., the victims of corporate crime and malfeasance -- including caps on punitive and non-economic damages, the abolition of “joint and several liability,” and limits on class action lawsuits.  This push for tort 'reform' has also been a legal priority for various industries. According to a document produced by one corporate law firm, for instance, the tobacco industry’s tort reform budget for 1995 alone was $21.8 million (see <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#tobacco" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal;">Covington & Burling Tort Reform Project Budget</a>). The U.S. Chamber has used the momentum built by decades of successful tort reform to brazenly argue for policies that would shield corporations from having to pay when they are responsible for cases of massive damage. For instance, after the 2010 BP Horizon disaster the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007511-503544.html" class="zoom" target="blank" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background-image: url(">Chamber argued</a>that the $75 million liability cap should not be lifted retroactively to make BP pay for damages from the oil gusher. This position drew criticism from a variety of expert observers, including <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/feinberg-defends-legal-system-rejecting-u-s-chamber-s-campaign.html" class="zoom" target="blank" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-color="background-color" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background-image: url(">Ken Feinberg</a>, the manager of BP’s oil spill compensation fund. Some of the landmark changes in the law that have come about through support from business and conservative interests in recent decades have been used to bolster other strategies outlined by Powell in his memo. An example is the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61851.html" class="zoom" target="blank" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-size="background-size" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" background-position="background-position" px="px" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background-image: url(">dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine</a> for media, which was introduced to ensure public interest voices would balance commercial interests as part of the bargain for corporate broadcasters' free license to use the People’s airwaves.  Another significant shift in the law since Powell’s memo was circulated has been the gradual expansion of corporate constitutional rights (referred to by some business groups as “business civil liberties”), especially in the realms of commercial and political speech. The most infamous example is the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/" class="zoom" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background: url(" https="https" web.archive.org="web.archive.org" web="web" http="http" www.greenpeace.org="www.greenpeace.org" usa="usa" templates="Templates" planet3="Planet3" styles="Styles" images="images" bg-zoom.gif="bg-zoom.gif" px="px" no-repeat="no-repeat">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a>. In the commercial sphere, companies have similarly used corporate speech doctrines to challenge various restrictions on corporate advertising (e.g. direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs for off-label uses), limits on media ownership, and product safety labeling requirements (e.g. cigarettes and genetically modified foods).Corporate constitutional rights are regularly claimed (with the implicit threat of litigation) in opposition to new or proposed regulations. One recent example came during recent attacks on regulations created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, which contained a provision requiring that companies report their use of tin, gold and other minerals that can be traced back to the conflict-ridden Democratic Republic of the Congo. In its comments to the SEC, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20141114114235/http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#tiffany" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; font-stretch: normal;">Tiffany & Co. claimed</a> the SEC rules would “compel speech in a manner that violates the First Amendment.”</div>http://ecowatch.com/2016/05/26/monsanto-losses-pcb-lawsuit/
Chow | May 26, 2016 
A St. Louis jury has awarded three plaintiffs a total of $46.5 million in damages in a lawsuit alleging that Monsanto and three other companies were negligent in its handling of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, a highly toxic and carcinogenic group of chemicals.
This case, which went on trial April 28, involved only three of nearly 100 plaintiffs claiming that exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, caused non-Hodgkin lymphoma. from asbestos guy swetonic<h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; border-bottom-style: none; line-height: 1.6; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Tort Reform and Toxic Torts</h3><ul style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" a="A" csvg="Csvg" http="http" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="cx" cy="cy" r="r" fill="fill" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><ul style="list-style-type: disc; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(data:image/svg+xml,%3C%3Fxml%20version%3D%221.0%22%20encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22%3F%3E%0A%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2000%2Fsvg%22%20version%3D%221.1%22%20width%3D%225%22%20height%3D%2213%22%3E%0A%3Ccircle%20cx%3D%222.5%22%20cy%3D%229.5%22%20r%3D%222.5%22%20fill%3D%22%2300528c%22%2F%3E%0A%3C%2Fsvg%3E%0A);"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">"Torts" are civil liability claims, and "reform" was a euphemism for restricting the public liability (ie "toxic tort" problems) through various means. The support came from companies with poisoning and polluting problems. "Toxic torts" are product liability claims for noxious substances.</li></ul></li></ul>In this area, Swetonic also associated himself with the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Manhattan_Institute" title="Manhattan Institute" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Manhattan Institute</a> (specifically with <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Huber&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Peter Huber (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Peter Huber</a> and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Walter_Olson&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Walter Olson (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Walter Olson</a>), a think-tank which was funded by the same industries that funded TIEQ. The role of Huber and Olson were to circulate dubious and highly-exaggerated product-liability stories (e.g. A woman got $3 m for spilling hot coffee, etc.) <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://marcgalanter.net/Documents/papers/ContemporaryLegendsAbouttheCivilJusticeSystem.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 16px; background: url(" http="http" upload.wikimedia.org="upload.wikimedia.org" wikipedia="wikipedia" commons="commons" icons-mini-file_acrobat.gif="Icons-mini-file_acrobat.gif" no-repeat="no-repeat">[34]</a>. They did this through books, newspaper and magazine articles, radio and TV, and Olson also ran the <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://overlawyered.com/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" background-color="background-color" initial="initial" background-position="background-position" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">http://overlawyered.com</a> website which was modelled on Milloy's <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.junkscience.com/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" background-color="background-color" initial="initial" background-position="background-position" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">http://www.junkscience.com</a> operation <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://overlawyered.com/archives/00july2.html#000718a" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" background-color="background-color" initial="initial" background-position="background-position" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">[35]</a>.The manufacture of these legal-urban legends; the exaggeration of claims about plaintiff lawyer greed; and the exaggerated claims of product liability costs were all part of a well-designed coalition strategy designed to support "tort reform" <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/esm61c00/pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" background-position="background-position" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">[36]</a>. The sensationalist nature of the stories appealed to the press.The "tort reform" promoters established a fake legal-services grassroots organization called the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Tort_Reform_Association" title="American Tort Reform Association" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">American Tort Reform Association</a> (ATRA), which had a number of associated CALA branches (<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Citizens_Against_Lawsuit_Abuse" title="Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse</a>) in various states, well funded by tobacco and other industries. The purpose was to:<ul style="line-height: 22.4px; margin: 0.3em 0px 0.5em 1.6em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" a="A" csvg="Csvg" http="http" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" ccircle="Ccircle" cx="cx" cy="cy" r="r" fill="fill" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">limit damages (especially punitive damages),</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">attack "plaintiff attorneys",</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">restrict the expert evidence available in the courts, and</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">block most class actions <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jub77a00/pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns">[37]</a>.</li></ul>Junk-man <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steve_Milloy" title="Steve Milloy" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Steve Milloy</a> of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/TASSC" title="TASSC" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">TASSC</a> (controlled through APCO) who ran one of the main science lobby group for the tobacco industry, was also a close associate in the tort reform movement. APCO actually run ATRA and the various CALAs under contract, and Milloy also ran the Junk Science web site: <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.junkscience.com/" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" background-color="background-color" initial="initial" background-position="background-position" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">http://www.junkscience.com</a>.Swetonic also utilized the services of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Michael_Fumento" title="Michael Fumento" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Michael Fumento</a> of Investors Business Daily (a pro-industry health-journalist, available for hire) who's column he arranged to have syndicated around the country. This group of lobbyists all had close associations with the ABC TV journalist <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_Stossel" title="John Stossel" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">John Stossel</a> who pushed the "junk science" angle.<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jgx72a00/pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" background-color="background-color" initial="initial" background-position="background-position" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">[38]</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xwa85a00/pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background-image: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent), url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" background-color="background-color" initial="initial" background-position="background-position" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">[39]</a>By this time Swetonic had joined the Dilenschneider Group and was on a temporary retainer from <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Borelli&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Tom Borelli (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Tom Borelli</a> at <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Philip_Morris" title="Philip Morris" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background: none;">Philip Morris</a> (who later became Steve Milloy's partner) [<a rel="nofollow" class="external autonumber" href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/unn97d00/pdf" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; padding-right: 13px; background: linear-gradient(transparent, transparent) 100% 50% no-repeat, url(" data:image="data:image" svg="svg" xml="xml" c="C" fxml="Fxml" version="version" d="D" encoding="encoding" utf-8="UTF-8" f="F" e="E" csvg="Csvg" http="http" a="A" fwww.w3.org="Fwww.w3.org" f2000="F2000" fsvg="Fsvg" width="width" height="height" cg="Cg" transform="transform" translate="translate" crect="Crect" x="x" y="y" fill="fill" fff="fff" stroke="stroke" cpath="Cpath" m831.194="M831.194" h5.234v5.391l-1.571="h5.234v5.391l-1.571" z="z" m835.424="M835.424" l.022="l.022" fg="Fg" xmlns="xmlns" xmlns:data="data">[40]</a>].
=fang machine:  C ent complx: pol and poker; running reality tv of cands; right to laugh; jackpot justice (class action)tory; stakelbeck on terror ~ muslim 180-1.as goes tx
TORT REF
limited fees, so few lawyers take cases; other side can appeal, def win ony 12%
claimed TR wd save 3B$/yr on insurance but but had some of highest premimens and 
deductible
few work comp cases b/c lawyer gets 630$ of 9 wks work; co can have own plan; 
some you have to file complaint same day
big # below min wage; hard to union

<h2 class="node-title" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 23.52px; font-weight: 700;">july 13 b fischer</h2>

<h2 class="node-title" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 23.52px; font-weight: 700;"><a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/07/12172/justice-denied-71-alec-bills-2013-make-it-harder-hold-corporations-accountable-ca" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; font-weight: 700; line-height: 32.928px;">Justice Denied: 71 ALEC Bills in 2013 Make It Harder to Hold Corporations Accountable for Causing Injury or Death</a></h2></div>

<p style="border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.2px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">For decades, ALEC has been a conduit for the oil, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries to push legislation that changes the rules to limit accountability when a corporation's products or actions cause injury or death -- such as when a Koch Industries pipeline <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html" target="_blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">explodes and kills teenagers</a>, or when the tobacco or pharmaceutical industries withhold evidence that their products are dangerous. In just the first six months of 2013, seventy-one ALEC bills that advance these "tort reform" goals have been introduced in thirty states (see chart below).

"Each of these bills would weaken the legal rights of everyday people who are wrongfully harmed by a corporation or health care provider," says Joanne Doroshow, Executive Director of the Center for Justice & Democracy, a group that works to protect the civil justice system and fight tort reform. "[The bills] are carefully crafted to provide relief and protections for the industries who wrote them."

A long-standing principle of American law gives a person injured (or whose family member is killed) by the fault of another the right to pursue justice and seek fair compensation in front of a judge and jury. An injury for which a person can sue is known as a "tort." Tort lawsuits are one of the few instances where an average American can stand on equal footing with a global corporation, make their case in front of a citizen jury, and demand justice. On a level playing field, consumers often win -- which is why corporate interests want to rig this centuries-old system to their benefit.

Tort cases are relatively rare -- they make up only six percent of the entire civil court caseload, and are declining -- but they are effective. Tort liability is why U.S. companies have stopped selling dangerous cribs that strangle infants and children's pajamas that catch fire.

The ALEC "tort reform" bills fundamentally alter the tort liability system by making it harder to bring a lawsuit or by limiting a jury's ability to award damages. The bills provide a way for ALEC corporations to escape responsibility for wrongdoing, help ALEC insurance companies limit payouts (and increase profits), and prevent Americans wrongfully injured or killed from receiving just compensation.

<h2 style="border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">ALEC Bills Limit Corporate Accountability, Change Liability Rules</h2>

Some ALEC bills limit how much a corporation might have to pay for causing injury.

<li style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The ALEC "Noneconomic Damage Awards Act" (versions of which were introduced in five states in 2013) limits the amount a jury can award to compensate a person for their diminished quality of life as the result of an injury.</li>

<li style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The misleadingly-named "Full and Fair Noneconomic Damages Act" (introduced in two states) limits the amount a corporation might have to pay to compensate a person for their pain and suffering.</li>

<li style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The "Phantom Damages Elimination Act" (introduced in two states) changes the rules so a person who paid health insurance premiums for years would recover less for their medical bills than a person who had no insurance: rather than placing the full cost of paying for medical bills on the wrongdoer, the bill would reduce the amount they must pay if a person's insurance company negotiated a discount.</li>

</ul>

<li style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Three states introduced versions of the "Comparative Fault Act," which changes the rules so that "if a company is 49% responsible, they are completely off the hook," Doroshow says.</li>

<li style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Two states introduced the misleadingly-named "Joint and Several Liability Act," which actually eliminates the Joint and Several rule that has worked for many years and protects victims in situations where it is difficult to pinpoint which defendant is at fault -- such as when multiple companies may have manufactured lead paint -- or where one of the defendants is insolvent. The bill eliminates the rule that had established that after a jury finds a defendant substantially responsible, they can be required to fully reimburse a person for their injury.</li>

</ul>

<li style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Five states introduced the "Emergency Care Immunity Act," which provides immunity to emergency personnel who provide assistance, without compensation, at the scene of an emergency. Providing some legal protections for volunteers in emergency situations may be important, but Doroshow suspects the bill is primarily advanced "for PR purposes" to promote the notion that the tort system is broken.</li>

<li style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Ten states introduced the "Trespasser Responsibility Act," which would largely absolve landowners from a responsibility to maintain safe premises, and tends to benefit large landowners like railroads, utility companies, and big agriculture. These large corporations would be absolved from their duty to act responsibly, and would be immune if a person accidentally wanders onto their property and are injured by poorly-maintained electrical boxes, dangerous chemicals or farm implements.</li>

</li></ul>

The Trespasser Responsibility Act <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/civil_justice_35-day_mailing%20San%20Diego.pdf" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">was brought to ALEC</a> by Matt Fullenbaum of the American Tort Reform Association and Mark Behrens of Shook Hardy & Bacon, a law firm that has long represented tobacco companies and other industries seeking to avoid tort liability. Behrens is an "advisor" to the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force, as are other Shook Hardy & Bacon attorneys. The head of Shook Hardy & Bacon is Victor Schwartz, the so-called "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=y5qvyMHoQrgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">undisputed king of tort reform</a>" who for many years has chaired the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force.

Others involved with the Civil Justice Task Force include a variety of corporate trade groups that have worked closely with Schwartz and his law firm, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business, as well as the American Insurance Industry and others.

"Industries like the tobacco, insurance, oil and chemical industries are pretty detested," Doroshow says, "and trade groups provide a way for these corporations to hide behind a more neutral-sounding entity that will push their agenda. This makes it harder for the public to learn how these detested industries would benefit from tort reform."

ALEC's corporate members are a who's-who of companies that face tort liability. Its corporate board, recently renamed by ALEC as the "<a href="http://www.alec.org/about-alec/private-enterprise-advisory-council/" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Private Enterprise Advisory Board</a>," includes representatives of fossil fuel interests (Koch Industries, Peabody Energy, Exxon Mobil, Energy Future Holdings), the pharmaceutical industry (PhRMA, Pfizer), and big tobacco (Altria, formally known as Phillip Morris). It also includes insurance companies like State Farm, which profits from a rigged tort liability system by paying out less in claims (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-tarricone/fool-me-once-the-insuranc_b_304594.html" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">even while raising premiums</a>).

An increasingly major player in advancing the ALEC tort reform agenda is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Institute for Legal Reform, both of which are members of the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force.

A big priority for the Chamber this year has been legislation narrowing access to the courts for asbestos victims. The ALEC "Asbestos Claims Transparency Act" was first adopted by members of the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force in 2007 and was introduced in four states in 2013, in many cases supported by <a href="http://www.shb.com/news_events_detail.aspx?id=1467" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">testimony</a> from Shook Hardy & Bacon attorney Mark Behrens on behalf of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform. The effort would benefit corporations like Crown Holdings, a Fortune 500 company with over $8 billion in annual sales that has worked with ALEC for years to legislate its way out of compensating asbestos victims, as well as ALEC member Honeywell International, which has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/business/honeywell-says-asbestos-verdict-was-more-than-it-had-disclosed.html" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">faced significant</a> asbestos liability in recent years.

Asbestos-related diseases kill at least 10,000 Americans every year, in many cases from mesothelioma, an incurable and painful cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. For decades, asbestos was used for insulation and industrial purposes, and the diseases particularly affect veterans, firefighters, construction workers, and individuals who worked in factories with high-heat machinery.

Asbestos company executives knew from at least the 1940s that asbestos was deadly but covered it up for half of a century. For example, an internal memo from a subsidiary of ALEC member Honeywell in 1966 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/business/honeywell-says-asbestos-verdict-was-more-than-it-had-disclosed.html" target="_blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">stated</a>, "if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products why not die from it?" The disease can take between 20 and 50 years to manifest, so individuals exposed decades earlier are only discovering the illness now.

Like the ALEC-supported voter ID laws that spread across the country in recent years, supporters of the Asbestos Claims Transparency Act claim the law is necessary to stop fraud -- despite no persuasive evidence of significant fraud or abuse. The law is couched in terms of "transparency," but is actually designed to save corporations money by delaying justice for asbestos victims and enacting unnecessary procedural hurdles for getting their day in court.

The bill could allow corporations like Crown Holdings or Honeywell to delay a lawsuit until a victim files claims with any other asbestos or personal injury "trust funds," which are accounts set up after a company goes bankrupt to pay claims to injured parties. This requirement, advocates say, is intended to drag out a case until after a sick victim dies -- an especially pointed concern given that asbestos cancer victims usually die within a year after being diagnosed.

In December of 2012, Ohio became the first state to pass the ALEC asbestos bill, which the Chamber <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-chamber-applauds-passage-landmark-202800487.html" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">publicly applauded:</a> "'As Ohio goes, so goes the nation,' and we hope this will result in a domino effect," said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform. The Wall Street Journal editorial board -- which includes Stephen Moore, an ALEC "advisor" -- <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578161472087716126.html" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">published</a> an editorial in support of the legislation.

Consumer and worker advocates expect more states to introduce versions of the Asbestos Claims Transparency Act in 2014. A parallel bill has been introduced on the federal level and recently passed the House Judiciary Committee (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/opinion/one-sided-bill-on-asbestos-injuries.html?r=0" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">prompting a response</a> from the New York Times Editorial Board). Testimony presented to Congress from attorneys at Caplin & Drysdale <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/03132013_3/Inselbuch%2003132013.pdf" target="_blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">has identified the ALEC</a> connection.

<h2 style="border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Tort Reform" Bills Contradict ALEC's Alleged Free Market Principles</h2>

<p style="border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px; padding: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 19.2px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">A robust tort liability system advances "free market" goals -- a principle ALEC claims to support -- by providing market pressures that provide a check on corporate misbehavior. The possibility of a lawsuit, and the associated financial liability, <a href="http://centerjd.org/FAQ.php#edn18" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">provides an economic incentive for manufacturers, hospitals, utility companies, and other corporations to be more safe and responsible</a>, and it advances these goals without government regulation and enforcement.

By pushing these "tort reform" bills, ALEC is not advocating for "free markets" and "limited government," but instead protecting corporate interests from any form of accountability to consumers or the public.

"[The ALEC tort reform bills] offer nothing for consumers and in fact, would do them great harm," Doroshow says. "And they create frameworks, easily amended by future lawmakers, that could result in even worse damage to the public."

View the full list of 2013 ALEC "tort reform" bills <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_2013_Bills" target="_blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">here</a>.

===

drum mojo: A similar dynamic fueled [11] the tort-reform push of the mid-'90s. This one was a twofer: Tort-lawyer bashing had always been a reliable applause line for Republican politicians, but in 1994 conservative ur-strategist Grover Norquist pointed out [12] that the big losers in tort reform are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers contribute huge amounts of money [13] to the Democratic Party. "The political implications of defunding the trial lawyers would be staggering," he wrote. After that, the tort-reform movement exploded.

You can think of this triumvirate—unions, minority redistricting, and tort reform—as Defunding 1.0. And most of it hasn't stopped: Republicans are still battling private-sector unions and pressing for tort reform. But private-sector unions have mostly been beaten, and tort reform has turned out to be a tough nut to crack. So the GOP has moved on to Defunding 2.0, with a brand new trio of pet projects.

==

rove <span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 15.9943px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important;">made hay w/ <b style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 15.9943px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">obscure unsexy tort reform<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 15.9943px; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important;">; Ala dr got 4m$ from bmw b/c acid rain hurt paint; 23 cash cow and wedge issue; in 80's Tx sup ct dems and favored plaintiff; kr reversed; perry, simmons, harte, nau 25 44 tort bills; tort helped client Pmorris, so $ for b2

==

stumbled on alec keyword:

<li><a class="title" href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-opposing-unfair-and-unbalanced-insurance-bad-faith-legislation/">Resolution Opposing Unfair and Unbalanced Insurance “Bad Faith” Legislation</a> <cite>March 15, 2013</cite>

Summary  This resolution is responsive to efforts by the plaintiffs’ bar, represented by the Association of American Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) and its state-level affiliates, to enact legislation that undermines settled principles of contract law [...]

</li>

</ul>

</div>

==

wlf plf: <a href="http://liberaldoomsayer.blogspot.com/2007/08/monkeying-around-with-wlf.html">http://liberaldoomsayer.blogspot.com/2007/08/monkeying-around-with-wlf.html</a>

<h2 class="date-header" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; position: relative; min-height: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Tuesday, August 28, 2007</h2>

<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"><a id="1186214516908995943" name="1186214516908995943">"Monkeying Around" WIth The WLF</a></h3>

While reading the editorial page of the New York Times yesterday, I came across <a href="http://home.comcast.net/_{kwbazmat/Files/WLF.htm}" style="text-decoration: none;">this ad</a> which I scanned for the purposes of this post.

As you can read, the headline states, “Lawyers seek ‘victims’ for class action lawsuits,” with two unidentified well-dressed men and a whole bunch of other individuals dressed as men and women with the heads of chimps superimposed on their bodies (sorry the size of the ad is so big), implying you-know-what about the plaintiffs in these suits.

This insulting garbage is brought to us courtesy of the Washington Legal Foundation, which, as noted <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Legal_Foundation" style="text-decoration: none;">here</a> by SourceWatch, was established in 1977 by Chairman and General Counsel Daniel J. Popeo to "fight activist lawyers, regulators, and intrusive government agencies at the federal and state levels, in the courts and regulatory agencies across the country."

This 1998 <a href="http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00121.html" style="text-decoration: none;">interview</a> with Popeo noted that the WLF, at that time, had received about $3 million in contributions from about 500 companies, though the SourceWatch article notes that, between 1985 and 2003, the group has received about $7 million in funding on top of that.

Though Popeo, in the 1998 story, apparently did not like being associated with any coalition or funding source, SourceWatch states that the WLF “sought and obtained funding from Philip Morris and the now defunct Tobacco Institute.” As a result, the WLF has also repeatedly sued government agencies that oversee public health functions, like the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, who they sued over workplace smoking policies (decrying what it calls the “junk science” of “anti-tobacco zealots”).

The WLF went after the FDA because of what the group thought was delays in allowing drugs and medical devices to market, and to show the revolving door that exists between the WLF and Bushco, <a href="http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2005/06/wlf-watches-fda-watching-drug-ads.html" style="text-decoration: none;">this post</a> notes that Daniel E. Troy effectively landed on the WLF board after leaving Bushco’s FDA, doing his very best to hurt the agency from doing its job to ensure the safety of products under its purview (such as, in particular, Vioxx…as John Mack says, the WLF is to the First Amendment what the NRA is to the Second Amendment, with Troy as the Mike-Brown-FEMA equivalent).

Perhaps the WLF’s biggest infamy, though, is due to its attacks on Interest On Trial Lawyers Only (IOLTA) funding. As <a href="http://www.ioltanj.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">this link</a> explains…

<blockquote>(For New Jersey) The IOLTA Fund was created by Supreme Court Rule 1:28A, and operates under the auspices of the Court, with an independent Board of Trustees. A small administrative staff handles the day-to-day management of the IOLTA program.

Very often, the amount of money that a lawyer handles for a single client is nominal in amount, to be held for a short period of time, or is the result of multiple parties or clients deciding to pool advance payments against the costs of litigation in a single fund. It would not be feasible for attorneys to establish separate interest-bearing accounts for such clients, as the cost of administering the accounts, including the lawyer's time and the bank's charges, would be greater than the amount of interest that would be generated. The Supreme Court of New Jersey permits these client deposits to be pooled in common trust accounts which are interest-bearing to IOLTA. The income is forwarded to the Fund directly by the financial institution once the IOLTA Trust Account has been established.

The money collected by IOLTA is dedicated to providing legal representation and assistance to the poor, improvements in the administration of justice, and legal education to the public. The funds can be used for no other purposes.</blockquote>

As SourceWatch continues…

<blockquote>The WLF began filing suits in a number of states to prevent IOLTA from receiving the interest on lawyer trust accounts. Among the suits was one pursued all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States with a potential recovery of $20. The reasoning behind this was outlined in a fundraising letter by the (Popeo):

"We are finally in a position we've fought more than a decade to reach...a position where we can deal a death blow to the single most important source of income for radical legal groups all across the country."

Among the foundation's adversaries in the litigation, Popeo continues, are radical left-wing groups purporting to represent the interests of the homeless, minorities, and gay and lesbian activism. In that particular instance, the WFL spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate a $20 case to the Supreme Court of the United States because doing so provided it an opportunity to "deal a death blow" to a program that was inconsistent with its principles.</blockquote>

I guess one of the WLF’s principles is that people who aren’t well-moneyed or well-connected should starve, be incapacitated somehow or wronged in some other fashion and receive absolutely nothing – typical Repug garbage, of course.

<a href="http://scotus.blogspot.com/2002_12_08_scotus_archive.html#85693708" style="text-decoration: none;">This link</a> contains the most recent information I can find on the case heard before the Supremes, with the supposition being that they would reaffirm a lower court ruling that the IOLTA’s use of interest on client deposits (with the interest being donated to charity) did not constitute a “taking” in violation of the Fifth Amendment (Atrios has more <a href="http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_01_26_archive.html#390249139" style="text-decoration: none;">here</a> from 2003 on this, referencing some other posts linked above).

So, as far as Popeo is concerned, the WLF is ready to fight for any business against what it views as excessive governmental regulation, but it would deny that privilege in a heartbeat to anyone seeking a class-action remedy for a grievous wrong of one type or another?

This of course is typical for the WLF, which is but a tiny cog in the huge wheel of right-wing policy organizations that have operated to the detriment of the majority of this country for years and years by campaigns of misinformation and lawsuits.

At least they seemed to have failed in the IOLTA nonsense, though, since the Jersey link from which I took the earlier background information was dated in 2006. However, as Spencer Tracy so correctly stated in “Inherit The Wind,” “fanaticism and ignorance are forever busy, and need feeding” (proven by their ad yesterday).

The WLF should put that on the masthead of all of their correspondence.</div>

</div>

==

<h1 class="print-title" style="line-height: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Justice Denied: 71 ALEC Bills in 2013 Make It Harder to Hold Corporations Accountable for Causing Injury or Death</h1>

<div class="meta">by <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/users/35275/brendan-fischer" title="View user profile." style="">Brendan Fischer</a> [1] — July 10, 2013 - 7:31am</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-2">Topics: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations/tort-reform" style="">Tort Reform</a> [2], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations" style="">Corporations</a> [3], <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics" style="">Politics</a> [4]</li>

</ul>

</div>

<ul>

<li class="vocabulary-9">Projects: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed" style="">ALEC Exposed</a> [5]</li>

</ul>

</div>

<div class="content clearfix"><a class="da2a_button" href="http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F07%2F12172%2Fjustice-denied-71-alec-bills-2013-make-it-harder-hold-corporations-accountable-ca&linkname=Justice%20Denied%3A%2071%20ALEC%20Bills%20in%202013%20Make%20It%20Harder%20to%20Hold%20Corporations%20Accountable%20for%20Causing%20Injury%20or%20Death" id="da2a_1" style=""><img src="/9a6dc5e6-a7d3-561e-88c6-dd13543960b1.png"/> Share this</a> [6]

At least 71 bills introduced in 2013 that make it harder for average Americans to access the civil justice system resemble "models" from the American Legislative Exchange Council, or "ALEC," according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy, publishers of <a href="http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed" target="_blank" style="">ALECexposed.org</a> [7].

<h2>ALEC Agenda Tips the Scales of Justice to Help Corporations Win</h2>

<img src="/38c5cb48-d6b3-59d5-baf4-995edd00feba.jpg"/>For decades, ALEC has been a conduit for the oil, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries to push legislation that changes the rules to limit accountability when a corporation's products or actions cause injury or death -- such as when a Koch Industries pipeline <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html" target="_blank" style="">explodes and kills teenagers</a> [8], or when the tobacco or pharmaceutical industries withhold evidence that their products are dangerous. In just the first six months of 2013, seventy-one ALEC bills that advance these "tort reform" goals have been introduced in thirty states (see chart below).

A long-standing principle of American law gives a person injured (or whose family member is killed) by the fault of another the right to pursue justice and seek fair compensation in front of a judge and jury. An injury for which a person can sue is known as a "tort." Tort lawsuits are one of the few instances where an average American can stand on equal footing with a global corporation, make their case in front of a citizen jury, and demand justice. On a level playing field, consumers often win -- which is why corporate interests want to rig this centuries-old system to their benefit.

Tort cases are relatively rare -- they make up only six percent of the entire civil court caseload, and are declining -- but they are effective. Tort liability is why U.S. companies have stopped selling dangerous cribs that strangle infants and children's pajamas that catch fire.

<h2>ALEC Bills Limit Corporate Accountability, Change Liability Rules</h2>

Some ALEC bills limit how much a corporation might have to pay for causing injury.

<ul>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 10px;">The ALEC "Noneconomic Damage Awards Act" (versions of which were introduced in five states in 2013) limits the amount a jury can award to compensate a person for their diminished quality of life as the result of an injury.</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 10px;">The misleadingly-named "Full and Fair Noneconomic Damages Act" (introduced in two states) limits the amount a corporation might have to pay to compensate a person for their pain and suffering.</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 10px;">The "Phantom Damages Elimination Act" (introduced in two states) changes the rules so a person who paid health insurance premiums for years would recover less for their medical bills than a person who had no insurance: rather than placing the full cost of paying for medical bills on the wrongdoer, the bill would reduce the amount they must pay if a person's insurance company negotiated a discount.</li>

</ul>

Other ALEC bills change how liability is apportioned when more than one individual or corporation is at fault.

<ul>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 10px;">Three states introduced versions of the "Comparative Fault Act," which changes the rules so that "if a company is 49% responsible, they are completely off the hook," Doroshow says.</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 10px;">Two states introduced the misleadingly-named "Joint and Several Liability Act," which actually eliminates the Joint and Several rule that has worked for many years and protects victims in situations where it is difficult to pinpoint which defendant is at fault -- such as when multiple companies may have manufactured lead paint -- or where one of the defendants is insolvent. The bill eliminates the rule that had established that after a jury finds a defendant substantially responsible, they can be required to fully reimburse a person for their injury.</li>

</ul>

Other ALEC "model legislation" would provide immunity for certain forms of lawsuits.

<ul>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 10px;">Five states introduced the "Emergency Care Immunity Act," which provides immunity to emergency personnel who provide assistance, without compensation, at the scene of an emergency. Providing some legal protections for volunteers in emergency situations may be important, but Doroshow suspects the bill is primarily advanced "for PR purposes" to promote the notion that the tort system is broken.</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 10px;">Ten states introduced the "Trespasser Responsibility Act," which would largely absolve landowners from a responsibility to maintain safe premises, and tends to benefit large landowners like railroads, utility companies, and big agriculture. These large corporations would be absolved from their duty to act responsibly, and would be immune if a person accidentally wanders onto their property and are injured by poorly-maintained electrical boxes, dangerous chemicals or farm implements.</li>

</ul>

<h2>ALEC Corporations Reap the Rewards</h2>

The Trespasser Responsibility Act <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/civil_justice_35-day_mailing%20San%20Diego.pdf" target="blank" style="">was brought to ALEC</a> [9] by Matt Fullenbaum of the American Tort Reform Association and Mark Behrens of Shook Hardy & Bacon, a law firm that has long represented tobacco companies and other industries seeking to avoid tort liability. Behrens is an "advisor" to the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force, as are other Shook Hardy & Bacon attorneys. The head of Shook Hardy & Bacon is Victor Schwartz, the so-called "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=y5qvyMHoQrgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="blank" style="">undisputed king of tort reform</a> [10]" who for many years has chaired the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force.

ALEC's corporate members are a who's-who of companies that face tort liability. Its corporate board, recently renamed by ALEC as the "<a href="http://www.alec.org/about-alec/private-enterprise-advisory-council/" target="blank" style="">Private Enterprise Advisory Board</a> [11]," includes representatives of fossil fuel interests (Koch Industries, Peabody Energy, Exxon Mobil, Energy Future Holdings), the pharmaceutical industry (PhRMA, Pfizer), and big tobacco (Altria, formally known as Phillip Morris). It also includes insurance companies like State Farm, which profits from a rigged tort liability system by paying out less in claims (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-tarricone/fool-me-once-the-insuranc_b_304594.html" target="blank" style="">even while raising premiums</a> [12]).

<h2>Average Americans Pay the Price</h2>

An increasingly major player in advancing the ALEC tort reform agenda is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Institute for Legal Reform, both of which are members of the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force.

A big priority for the Chamber this year has been legislation narrowing access to the courts for asbestos victims. The ALEC "Asbestos Claims Transparency Act" was first adopted by members of the ALEC Civil Justice Task Force in 2007 and was introduced in four states in 2013, in many cases supported by <a href="http://www.shb.com/news_events_detail.aspx?id=1467" target="blank" style="">testimony</a> [13] from Shook Hardy & Bacon attorney Mark Behrens on behalf of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform. The effort would benefit corporations like Crown Holdings, a Fortune 500 company with over $8 billion in annual sales that has worked with ALEC for years to legislate its way out of compensating asbestos victims, as well as ALEC member Honeywell International, which has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/business/honeywell-says-asbestos-verdict-was-more-than-it-had-disclosed.html" target="blank" style="">faced significant</a> [14] asbestos liability in recent years.

Asbestos company executives knew from at least the 1940s that asbestos was deadly but covered it up for half of a century. For example, an internal memo from a subsidiary of ALEC member Honeywell in 1966 <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/business/honeywell-says-asbestos-verdict-was-more-than-it-had-disclosed.html" target="_blank" style="">stated</a> [14], "if you have enjoyed a good life while working with asbestos products why not die from it?" The disease can take between 20 and 50 years to manifest, so individuals exposed decades earlier are only discovering the illness now.

In December of 2012, Ohio became the first state to pass the ALEC asbestos bill, which the Chamber <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-chamber-applauds-passage-landmark-202800487.html" target="blank" style="">publicly applauded:</a> [15] "'As Ohio goes, so goes the nation,' and we hope this will result in a domino effect," said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform. The Wall Street Journal editorial board -- which includes Stephen Moore, an ALEC "advisor" -- <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578161472087716126.html" target="blank" style="">published</a> [16] an editorial in support of the legislation.

Consumer and worker advocates expect more states to introduce versions of the Asbestos Claims Transparency Act in 2014. A parallel bill has been introduced on the federal level and recently passed the House Judiciary Committee (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/opinion/one-sided-bill-on-asbestos-injuries.html?r=0" target="blank" style="">prompting a response</a> [17] from the New York Times Editorial Board). Testimony presented to Congress from attorneys at Caplin & Drysdale <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/03132013_3/Inselbuch%2003132013.pdf" target="_blank" style="">has identified the ALEC</a> [18] connection.

<h2>"Tort Reform" Bills Contradict ALEC's Alleged Free Market Principles</h2>

A robust tort liability system advances "free market" goals -- a principle ALEC claims to support -- by providing market pressures that provide a check on corporate misbehavior. The possibility of a lawsuit, and the associated financial liability, <a href="http://centerjd.org/FAQ.php#edn18" target="blank" style="">provides an economic incentive for manufacturers, hospitals, utility companies, and other corporations to be more safe and responsible</a> [19], and it advances these goals without government regulation and enforcement.

View the full list of 2013 ALEC "tort reform" bills <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_2013_Bills" target="_blank" style="">here</a> [20].

<table id="fancy" style=" border-collapse: collapse;"><tbody style="border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-top-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"><tr><th colspan="3" style="text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_2013_Bills" target="blank" style="">ALEC Tort Reform Bills, 2013</a> [20]</th></tr><tr><th style="text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">State</th><th style="text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">ALEC Bill</th><th style="text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">State Bill</th></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">IN</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/admissibility-in-civil-actions-of-nonuse-of-a-seat-belt-act" target="blank" style="">Admissibility in Civil Actions of Nonuse of a Seat Belt Act</a> [21]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/PDF/FISCAL/HB1010.001.pdf" target="blank" style="">HB 1010</a> [22]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WA</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/admissibility-in-civil-actions-of-nonuse-of-a-seat-belt-act" target="blank" style="">Admissibility in Civil Actions of Nonuse of a Seat Belt Act</a> [21]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2013-14/Htm/Bills/House%20Bills/1696.htm" target="blank" style="">HB 1696</a> [23]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">NY</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/anti-phishing-act" target="blank" style="">Anti-Phishing Act</a> [24]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A1117-2013" target="blank" style="">A 1117</a> [25]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">IL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/asbestos-claims-transparency-act" target="blank" style="">Asbestos Claims Transparency Act</a> [26]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB0153&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=69135&DocNum=153&GAID=12&Session=&print=true" target="blank" style="">HB 153</a> [27]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">LA</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/asbestos-claims-transparency-act" target="blank" style="">Asbestos Claims Transparency Act</a> [26]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=835094" target="blank" style="">HB 481</a> [28]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">OH</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/asbestos-claims-transparency-act" target="blank" style="">Asbestos Claims Transparency Act</a> [26]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_380" target="blank" style="">HB 380</a> [29]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WI</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/asbestos-claims-transparency-act" target="blank" style="">Asbestos Claims Transparency Act</a> [26]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ab19" target="blank" style="">AB 19</a> [30]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">UT</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/asset-forfeiture-process-and-private-property-protection-act" target="blank" style="">Asset Forfeiture Process and Private Property Protection Act</a> [31]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://le.utah.gov/_{2013/bills/hbillenr/hb0384.pdf}" target="blank" style="">HB 384</a> [32]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">AZ</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/class-actions-improvements-act" target="blank" style="">Class Actions Improvements Act</a> [33]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/sb1452s.pdf" target="blank" style="">SB 1452</a> [34]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">OK</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/class-actions-improvements-act" target="blank" style="">Class Actions Improvements Act</a> [33]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://openstates.org/ok/bills/2013-2014/SB949/documents/OKD00013929" target="blank" style="">SB 949</a> [35]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">NC</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/commonsense-consumption-act" target="blank" style="">Commonsense Consumption Act</a> [36]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HTML/H683v1.html" target="blank" style="">HB 683</a> [37]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">RI</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/comparative-fault-act" target="blank" style="">Comparative Fault Act</a> [38]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText13/HouseText13/H5321.pdf" target="blank" style="">H 5321</a> [39]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WV</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/comparative-fault-act" target="blank" style="">Comparative Fault Act</a> [38]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb450%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=450" target="blank" style="">SB 450</a> [40], <a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2843%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=2843" target="blank" style="">HB 2843</a> [41]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">FL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/elimination-of-double-recoveries-act" target="blank" style="">Elimination of Double Recoveries Act</a> [42]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/1134/BillText/Filed/HTML" target="blank" style="">SB 1134</a> [43]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WV</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/elimination-of-double-recoveries-act" target="blank" style="">Elimination of Double Recoveries Act</a> [42]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb176%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=176" target="blank" style="">SB 176</a> [44]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">AL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/emergency-care-immunity-act" target="blank" style="">Emergency Care Immunity Act</a> [45]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2013rs/PrintFiles/SB62-int.pdf" target="blank" style="">SB 62</a> [46]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">NV</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/emergency-care-immunity-act" target="blank" style="">Emergency Care Immunity Act</a> [45]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Bills/AB/AB132.pdf" target="blank" style="">AB 132</a> [47]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">NJ</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/emergency-care-immunity-act" target="blank" style="">Emergency Care Immunity Act</a> [45]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A4000/3694_I1.HTM" target="blank" style="">A 3694</a> [48]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">SC</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/emergency-care-immunity-act" target="blank" style="">Emergency Care Immunity Act</a> [45]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/prever/4145_20130516.htm" target="blank" style="">H 4145</a> [49]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">SD</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/emergency-care-immunity-act" target="blank" style="">Emergency Care Immunity Act</a> [45]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2013/Bill.aspx?File=HB1151ENR.htm" target="blank" style="">HB 1151</a> [50]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WV</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/emergency-care-immunity-act" target="blank" style="">Emergency Care Immunity Act</a> [45]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2285%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=2285" target="blank" style="">HB 2285</a> [51]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WV</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/forum-non-conveniens-act" target="blank" style="">Forum Non Conveniens Act</a> [52]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb113%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=113" target="blank" style="">SB 113</a> [53]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">KS</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/full-fair-noneconomic-damages-act" target="blank" style="">Full & Fair Noneconomic Damages Act</a> [54]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/measures/documents/sb158_00_0000.pdf" target="blank" style="">SB 158</a> [55]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">NH</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/full-fair-noneconomic-damages-act" target="blank" style="">Full & Fair Noneconomic Damages Act</a> [54]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1180.html" target="blank" style="">HB 1180</a> [56]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">IL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/joint-and-several-liability-act" target="blank" style="">Joint and Several Liability Act</a> [57]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700SB1974&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=58116&DocNum=1974&GAID=11&Session=&print=true" target="blank" style="">SB 1974</a> [58]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">TN</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/joint-and-several-liability-act" target="blank" style="">Joint and Several Liability Act</a> [57]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB0056.pdf" target="blank" style="">SB 56</a> [59], <a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB1099.pdf" target="blank" style="">HB 1099</a> [60]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">OK</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/jury-patriotism-act" target="blank" style="">Jury Patriotism Act</a> [61]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB484%20ENR.PDF" target="blank" style="">SB 484</a> [62]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">CT</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/noneconomic-damage-awards-act" target="blank" style="">Noneconomic Damage Awards Act</a> [63]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://openstates.org/ct/bills/2013/SB452/documents/CTD00011667" target="blank" style="">SB 452</a> [64]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">MO</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/noneconomic-damage-awards-act" target="blank" style="">Noneconomic Damage Awards Act</a> [63]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HJR0006I.htm" target="blank" style="">HJR 6</a> [65]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">NY</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/noneconomic-damage-awards-act" target="blank" style="">Noneconomic Damage Awards Act</a> [63]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A321-2013" target="blank" style="">A 321</a> [66], <a href="http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A5336-2013" target="blank" style="">A 5336</a> [67]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">SC</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/noneconomic-damage-awards-act" target="blank" style="">Noneconomic Damage Awards Act</a> [63]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/prever/625_20130416.htm" target="blank" style="">S 625</a> [68]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">MA</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/notice-and-opportunity-to-repair-act" target="blank" style="">Notice and Opportunity to Repair Act</a> [69]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="https://malegislature.gov/Bills/BillHtml/127551?generalCourtId=11" target="blank" style="">S 617</a> [70]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">OK</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/prejudgment-and-post-judgment-act" target="blank" style="">Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Act</a> [71]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://openstates.org/ok/bills/2013-2014/SB1080/documents/OKD00014023" target="blank" style="">HB 1494</a> [72]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">RI</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/prejudgment-and-post-judgment-act" target="blank" style="">Prejudgment and Post-Judgment Act</a> [71]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText13/HouseText13/H5289.pdf" target="blank" style="">HB 5289</a> [73]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">OK</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/private-attorney-retention-sunshine-act" target="blank" style="">Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act</a> [74]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/hB/HB1494%20INT.PDF" target="blank" style="">HB 1494</a> [75]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">AL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/product-liability-act" target="blank" style="">Product Liability Act</a> [76]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2013rs/PrintFiles/HB617-int.pdf" target="blank" style="">HB 617</a> [77]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">IL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/product-liability-act" target="blank" style="">Product Liability Act</a> [76]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB5808&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=66298&DocNum=5808&GAID=11&Session=&print=true" target="blank" style="">HB 5808</a> [78]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">MO</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/product-liability-act" target="blank" style="">Product Liability Act</a> [76]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.senate.mo.gov/13info/pdf-bill/intro/SB356.pdf" target="blank" style="">SB 356</a> [79]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">SC</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/punitive-damages-standards-act" target="blank" style="">Punitive Damages Standards Act</a> [80]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/prever/788_20130606.htm" target="blank" style="">S 788</a> [81]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">OK</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/rational-use-of-a-product-act" target="blank" style="">Rational Use of a Product Act</a> [82]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENGR/SB/SB754%20ENGR.PDF" target="blank" style="">SB 754</a> [83]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">IL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/regulatory-compliance-congruity-with-liability-act" target="blank" style="">Regulatory Compliance Congruity with Liability Act</a> [84]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB5808&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=66298&DocNum=5808&GAID=11&Session=&print=true" target="blank" style="">HB 5808</a> [78]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">IL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/reliability-in-expert-testimony-standards-act" target="blank" style="">Reliability in Expert Testimony Standards Act</a> [85]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB2221&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=73511&DocNum=2221&GAID=12&Session=&print=true" target="blank" style="">HB 2221</a> [86]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WV</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/reliability-in-expert-testimony-standards-act" target="blank" style="">Reliability in Expert Testimony Standards Act</a> [85]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb113%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=113" target="blank" style="">SB 113</a> [53]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">OK</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-in-support-of-fair-recourse-and-effective-deterrence-against-frivolous-claims" target="blank" style="">Resolution in Support of Fair Recourse and Effective Deterrence Against Frivolous Claims</a> [87]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/SB/SB533%20INT.PDF" target="blank" style="">SB 533</a> [88]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">PA</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/ten-year-statute-of-repose-act" target="blank" style="">Ten-Year Statute of Repose Act</a> [89]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?syear=2013&sInd=0&body=S&type=B&bn=446" target="blank" style="">SB 446</a> [90]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">FL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/the-common-sense-scientific-and-technical-evidence-act" target="blank" style="">The Common Sense Scientific and Technical Evidence Act</a> [91]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/1412/BillText/c1/HTML" target="blank" style="">SB 1412</a> [92], <a href="http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/7015/BillText/er/PDF" target="blank" style="">H 7015</a> [93]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">TN</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/the-phantom-damages-elimination-act" target="blank" style="">The Phantom Damages Elimination Act</a> [94]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB1184.pdf" target="blank" style="">SB 1184</a> [95], <a href="http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB0978.pdf" target="blank" style="">HB 978</a> [96]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WI</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/the-phantom-damages-elimination-act" target="blank" style="">The Phantom Damages Elimination Act</a> [94]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/sb22" target="blank" style="">SB 22</a> [97], <a href="http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ab29" target="blank" style="">AB 29</a> [98]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">MO</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/the-uninsured-motorist-stipulation-of-benefits-act" target="blank" style="">The Uninsured Motorist Stipulation of Benefits Act</a> [99]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/perf/HB0339P.htm" target="blank" style="">HB 339</a> [100]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">GA</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/130178.pdf" target="blank" style="">SB 125</a> [102], <a href="http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/130242.pdf" target="blank" style="">HB 270</a> [103]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">IL</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB3407&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=75276&DocNum=3407&GAID=12&Session=&print=true" target="blank" style="">HB 3407</a> [104], <a href="http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB2216&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=73506&DocNum=2216&GAID=12&Session=&print=true" target="blank" style="">HB 2216</a> [105]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">IN</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/PDF/IN/IN1502.1.pdf" target="blank" style="">HB 1502</a> [106]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">MS</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2013/html/SB/2500-2599/SB2525IN.htm" target="blank" style="">SB 2525</a> [107], <a href="http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2013/html/HB/1300-1399/HB1302PS.htm" target="blank" style="">HB 1302</a> [108]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">NY</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A4824-2013" target="blank" style="">A 4824</a> [109]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">SC</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/prever/788_20130606.htm" target="blank" style="">HB 788</a> [81]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">UT</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://le.utah.gov/_{2013/bills/hbillenr/hb0347.pdf}" target="blank" style="">HB 347</a> [110]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">VA</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+CHAP0217" target="blank" style="">HB 2285</a> [111]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WV</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb338%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=338" target="blank" style="">SB 338</a> [112], <a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2582%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=2582" target="blank" style="">HB 2582</a> [113]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WY</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act" target="blank" style="">Trespasser Responsibility Act</a> [101]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Engross/SF0070.pdf" target="blank" style="">SF 70</a> [114]</td></tr><tr><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">WV</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/volunteer-immunity-and-charitable-organization-liability-limit-act" target="blank" style="">Volunteer Immunity and Charitable Organization Liability Limit Act</a> [115]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2285%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=2285" target="blank" style="">HB 2285</a> [51]</td></tr><tr class="alt"><td class="bold" style=" padding: 5px;">OK</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/workers-compensation-fraud-warning-act" target="blank" style="">Workers' Compensation Fraud Warning Act</a> [116]</td><td style=" padding: 5px;"><a href="http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB1062%20ENR.PDF" target="_blank" style="">SB 1062</a> [117]</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

<div class="print-footer" style="line-height: normal; text-align: center; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Center for Media and Democracy • 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 • Madison, Wisconsin 53703

Phone: 608-260-9713 • Fax: 608-260-9714</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="line-height: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Source URL: <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/07/12172/justice-denied-71-alec-bills-2013-make-it-harder-hold-corporations-accountable-ca" style="">http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/07/12172/justice-denied-71-alec-bills-2013-make-it-harder-hold-corporations-accountable-ca</a></div>

Links:

[1] http://www.prwatch.org/users/35275/brendan-fischer

[2] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations/tort-reform

[3] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/corporations

[4] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/politics

[5] http://www.prwatch.org/projects/alec-exposed

[6] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2013%2F07%2F12172%2Fjustice-denied-71-alec-bills-2013-make-it-harder-hold-corporations-accountable-ca&linkname=Justice%20Denied%3A%2071%20ALEC%20Bills%20in%202013%20Make%20It%20Harder%20to%20Hold%20Corporations%20Accountable%20for%20Causing%20Injury%20or%20Death

[7] http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed

[8] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

[9] http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/civil_justice_35-day_mailing%20San%20Diego.pdf

[10] http://books.google.com/books?id=y5qvyMHoQrgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[11] http://www.alec.org/about-alec/private-enterprise-advisory-council/

[12] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anthony-tarricone/fool-me-once-the-insuranc_b_304594.html

[13] http://www.shb.com/news_events_detail.aspx?id=1467

[14] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/18/business/honeywell-says-asbestos-verdict-was-more-than-it-had-disclosed.html

[15] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-chamber-applauds-passage-landmark-202800487.html

[16] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324640104578161472087716126.html

[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/20/opinion/one-sided-bill-on-asbestos-injuries.html?_r=0

[18] http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/03132013_3/Inselbuch%2003132013.pdf

[19] http://centerjd.org/FAQ.php#_edn18

[20] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ALEC_2013_Bills

[21] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/admissibility-in-civil-actions-of-nonuse-of-a-seat-belt-act

[22] http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/PDF/FISCAL/HB1010.001.pdf

[23] http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2013-14/Htm/Bills/House%20Bills/1696.htm

[24] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/anti-phishing-act

[25] http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A1117-2013

[26] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/asbestos-claims-transparency-act

[27] http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB0153&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=69135&DocNum=153&GAID=12&Session=&print=true

[28] http://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=835094

[29] http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_380

[30] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ab19

[31] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/asset-forfeiture-process-and-private-property-protection-act

[32] http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillenr/hb0384.pdf

[33] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/class-actions-improvements-act

[34] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/sb1452s.pdf

[35] http://openstates.org/ok/bills/2013-2014/SB949/documents/OKD00013929

[36] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/commonsense-consumption-act

[37] http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/HTML/H683v1.html

[38] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/comparative-fault-act

[39] http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText13/HouseText13/H5321.pdf

[40] http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb450%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=450

[41] http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2843%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=2843

[42] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/elimination-of-double-recoveries-act

[43] http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/1134/BillText/Filed/HTML

[44] http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb176%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=176

[45] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/emergency-care-immunity-act

[46] http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2013rs/PrintFiles/SB62-int.pdf

[47] http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Bills/AB/AB132.pdf

[48] http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2012/Bills/A4000/3694_I1.HTM

[49] http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/prever/4145_20130516.htm

[50] http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2013/Bill.aspx?File=HB1151ENR.htm

[51] http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2285%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=2285

[52] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/forum-non-conveniens-act

[53] http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb113%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=113

[54] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/full-fair-noneconomic-damages-act

[55] http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/measures/documents/sb158_00_0000.pdf

[56] http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1180.html

[57] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/joint-and-several-liability-act

[58] http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700SB1974&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=58116&DocNum=1974&GAID=11&Session=&print=true

[59] http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB0056.pdf

[60] http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB1099.pdf

[61] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/jury-patriotism-act

[62] http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB484%20ENR.PDF

[63] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/noneconomic-damage-awards-act

[64] http://openstates.org/ct/bills/2013/SB452/documents/CTD00011667

[65] http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HJR0006I.htm

[66] http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A321-2013

[67] http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A5336-2013

[68] http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/prever/625_20130416.htm

[69] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/notice-and-opportunity-to-repair-act

[70] https://malegislature.gov/Bills/BillHtml/127551?generalCourtId=11

[71] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/prejudgment-and-post-judgment-act

[72] http://openstates.org/ok/bills/2013-2014/SB1080/documents/OKD00014023

[73] http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText13/HouseText13/H5289.pdf

[74] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/private-attorney-retention-sunshine-act

[75] http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/hB/HB1494%20INT.PDF

[76] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/product-liability-act

[77] http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2013rs/PrintFiles/HB617-int.pdf

[78] http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09700HB5808&GA=97&SessionId=84&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=66298&DocNum=5808&GAID=11&Session=&print=true

[79] http://www.senate.mo.gov/13info/pdf-bill/intro/SB356.pdf

[80] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/punitive-damages-standards-act

[81] http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_2013-2014/prever/788_20130606.htm

[82] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/rational-use-of-a-product-act

[83] http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENGR/SB/SB754%20ENGR.PDF

[84] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/regulatory-compliance-congruity-with-liability-act

[85] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/reliability-in-expert-testimony-standards-act

[86] http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB2221&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=73511&DocNum=2221&GAID=12&Session=&print=true

[87] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/resolution-in-support-of-fair-recourse-and-effective-deterrence-against-frivolous-claims

[88] http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20INT/SB/SB533%20INT.PDF

[89] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/ten-year-statute-of-repose-act

[90] http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/billInfo/billInfo.cfm?syear=2013&sInd=0&body=S&type=B&bn=446

[91] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/the-common-sense-scientific-and-technical-evidence-act

[92] http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/1412/BillText/c1/HTML

[93] http://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/7015/BillText/er/PDF

[94] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/the-phantom-damages-elimination-act

[95] http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB1184.pdf

[96] http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB0978.pdf

[97] http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/sb22

[98] http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ab29

[99] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/the-uninsured-motorist-stipulation-of-benefits-act

[100] http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/perf/HB0339P.htm

[101] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/trespasser-responsibility-act

[102] http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/130178.pdf

[103] http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/130242.pdf

[104] http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB3407&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=75276&DocNum=3407&GAID=12&Session=&print=true

[105] http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09800HB2216&GA=98&SessionId=85&DocTypeId=HB&LegID=73506&DocNum=2216&GAID=12&Session=&print=true

[106] http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/PDF/IN/IN1502.1.pdf

[107] http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2013/html/SB/2500-2599/SB2525IN.htm

[108] http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2013/html/HB/1300-1399/HB1302PS.htm

[109] http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A4824-2013

[110] http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillenr/hb0347.pdf

[111] http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+CHAP0217

[112] http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb338%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=338

[113] http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hb2582%20intr.htm&yr=2013&sesstype=RS&i=2582

[114] http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Engross/SF0070.pdf

[115] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/volunteer-immunity-and-charitable-organization-liability-limit-act

[116] http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/workers-compensation-fraud-warning-act

[117] http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB1062%20ENR.PDF

</div>

==

rfk2: b2

1/04 conf folowed gop fundraiser at Az Biltomore; solicited changes to ESA, Nat

Env Pol Act, CAA, access to publ land, tort reform organized by coal lobby/DC task

force spkesman Jim Sims 129 connaught and griles there

===

monsanto protection (against lawsuits?

===

gangs of america:

Tort Reform: Part of the “Contract with America” that fueled

the Gingrich Revolution of 1994, in which Republicans gained

a majority of the House of Representatives, was “tort reform.”

Proponents of tort reform denounced the prevalence of frivolous

 lawsuits and passed legislation making it much more difficult

for investors and others to sue corporations and their accounting

firms. In 1995, Congress passed (over President

Clinton’s veto) the Private Securities Legislative Reform Act

limiting the rights of investors to sue management. It also

shielded accounting firms from being charged with aiding and

abetting fraudulent activities. The result was a slack environment

with little fear of lawsuits.

---===

J&J Shook, Hardy and Bacon

Shook, Hardy and Bacon (SHB) is a law firm based in Kansas City, Missouri. It also has offices in Geneva, Houston, London, Miami, Orange County, CA, San Francisco, Tampa and Washington D.C. For decades, the firm has represented the nation’s largest tobacco companies.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-0" title="">[1]</a>

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">American Legislative Exchange Council and “Tort Reform”</h2>

Shook, Hardy and Bacon has long been tied to the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Legislative_Exchange_Council" title="American Legislative Exchange Council">American Legislative Exchange Council</a> (ALEC). Its partners have served on the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Civil_Justice_Task_Force" title="Civil Justice Task Force">Civil Justice Task Force</a> and have been at the forefront of the "<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tort_reform" title="Tort reform">tort reform</a>" movement.

<h2 style="margin: 3px; font-weight: bold; border: 1px solid rgb(64, 127, 212); text-align: left; padding: 0.2em 0.4em; background: rgb(41, 102, 184);">About ALEC</h2>

</th></tr><tr><td style="">

<div style="padding: 2px 5px;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC" title="ALEC" class="mw-redirect">ALEC</a> is corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. ALEC legislative leaders are tasked with a duty to get the bills introduced and passed; ALEC members introduce the bills in statehouses as their own brilliant ideas—without disclosing that corporations pre-voted on them with politicians behind closed doors at ALEC resort meetings. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, and more than 20% become legally binding. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's <a href="http://alecexposed.org/" class="external text" title="http://alecexposed.org/" rel="nofollow">ALECexposed.org</a>, and check out breaking news on our <a href="http://www.PRWatch.org" class="external text" title="http://www.PRWatch.org" rel="nofollow">PRWatch.org site</a>.</div>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

A partner at the Shook, Hardy & Bacon Washington D.C. offices and a chair of the law firm's Public Policy Group, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Victor_Schwartz" title="Victor Schwartz">Victor Schwartz</a>, sits on the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC_Board_of_Scholars" title="ALEC Board of Scholars">ALEC Board of Scholars</a>.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-1" title="">[2]</a> He is a long-time co-chair of ALEC’s <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Civil_Justice_Task_Force" title="Civil Justice Task Force">Civil Justice Task Force</a>, as of 2011. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-2" title="">[3]</a> Schwartz has been called the "undisputed king of tort reform" (an issue promoted in ALEC model bills that are approved by the Civil Justice Task Force).<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-3" title="">[4]</a> He also is affiliated with the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) and the Washington Legal Foundation. In 2007, Schwartz was called one of Washington, D.C.'s 50 top lobbyists.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-4" title="">[5]</a>

<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Behrens" title="Mark Behrens">Mark Behrens</a>, also an SHB partner, ias an Advisor to ALEC's Civil Justice Task Force as of 2011.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-5" title="">[6]</a> Another partner, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Phil_Goldberg" title="Phil Goldberg">Phil Goldberg</a>, is also an Advisor to ALEC's Civil Justice Task Force as of 2011.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-6" title="">[7]</a>

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Shook, Hardy and Bacon clients and ALEC priorities</h2>

According to the American Association for Justice, Shook, Hardy and Bacon has:

“played a pivotal role in the tobacco industry’s campaign to ward off litigation over smoking-related illnesses. In one memorable memo, the law firm’s attorneys advised Phillip Morris to stop testing the effects of nicotine, saying “the performing and publishing of nicotine related research clearly seems ill-advised from a litigation point of view. Not coincidentally, ALEC was heavily involved in the tobacco fight, pushing for restrictions on tobacco litigation and attacking pension funds that dared to divest in tobacco companies, while being compensated to the tune of $200,000 for its work. Similarly, when Shook, Hardy and bacon began representing the pharmaceutical industry, ALEC was suddenly every drug manufacturer’s best friend.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-7" title="">[8]</a>

</blockquote>

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a name="SHB_Lobbying_and_ALEC" id="SHB_Lobbying_and_ALEC">SHB Lobbying and ALEC</a></h2>

<a name="SHB_Lobbying_and_ALEC" id="SHB_Lobbying_and_ALEC">In 2009, Shook, Hardy and Bacon attorneys </a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Behrens" title="Mark Behrens">Mark Behrens</a> and Corey Schaecher traveled to North Dakota to speak with legislators and their staff about ALEC’s asbestos bill, the Innocent Successor Liability Act, without registering as lobbyists. After days of interacting with elected officials, the “North Decoder” blog revealed their lobbying activities on January 23, 2009; within hours, ALEC submitted letters of authorization permitting Behrens and Schaecher to lobby on their behalf, the same day the corporation most likely to benefit from the legislation, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Crown,Cork,and_Seal&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Crown, Cork, and Seal (page does not exist)">Crown, Cork, and Seal</a>, also registered the two as lobbyists. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, this is the only instance in which ALEC has ever registered to lobby in any state.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-8" title="">[9]</a>

As a 501(c)(3), ALEC is not permitted to participate in lobbying activities. In its 2009 IRS Form 990, in response to the question “Did the organization participate in lobbying activities” (page 3 question 4), ALEC replied “no.”<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-9" title="">[10]</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-10" title="">[11]</a>

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Clients</h2>

Clients of Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP have included, but are not limited to:

<li>Philip Morris, now <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Altria_Group" title="Altria Group">Altria Group</a> (also involved in <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC" title="ALEC" class="mw-redirect">ALEC</a>)<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-11" title="">[12]</a></li>

<li>Eli Lily and Company<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-mark_hansen-12" title="">[13]</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Amgen" title="Amgen">Amgen</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-mark_hansen-12" title="">[13]</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bristol-Myers_Squibb" title="Bristol-Myers Squibb">Bristol-Myers Squibb</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-mark_hansen-12" title="">[13]</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=GlaxoSmithKline" title="GlaxoSmithKline">GlaxoSmithKline</a> (also involved in <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC" title="ALEC" class="mw-redirect">ALEC</a>)<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-mark_hansen-12" title="">[13]</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sanofi-Aventis" title="Sanofi-Aventis">Sanofi-Aventis</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-mark_hansen-12" title="">[13]</a></li>

<li>Guidant and Wyeth<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-mark_hansen-12" title="">[13]</a></li>

<li>Sprint Nextel<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-13" title="">[14]</a> and</li>

<li>Microsoft<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-14" title="">[15]</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hewlett-Packard" title="Hewlett-Packard" class="mw-redirect">Hewlett-Packard</a><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-16" title="">[17]</a></li>

</ul>

As of May 2010, clients included:

<li>American Home Products Corporation</li>

<li>Applebee’s International, Inc.</li>

<li>Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.</li>

<li>Bank of America, N.A.</li>

<li>Barkley Evergreen & Partners, Inc.</li>

<li>Big Twelve Athletic Conference</li>

<li>British-American Tobacco Company, Ltd.</li>

<li>Business Men’s Assurance Company of America</li>

<li>Capstar Broadcasting Corporation</li>

<li>Cargill, Inc.; Conoco Inc.</li>

<li>Crititech, Inc.</li>

<li>Deutsche Financial Services Corporation</li>

<li>Dodson Group</li>

<li>E.I du Pont de Nemours and Company</li>

<li>Electric Energy, Inc.</li>

<li>Eli Lilly and Company</li>

<li>Farmland Industries, Inc.</li>

<li>Farmland Insurance Company</li>

<li>Farmland National Beef Packing, L.P.</li>

<li>First Union Corporation</li>

<li>Ford Motor Company</li>

<li>Fort Dodge Laboratories</li>

<li>G.D. Searle & Company</li>

<li>GTE Corporation</li>

<li>Helzberg Diamonds</li>

<li>HNTB Corporation</li>

<li>Interstate Bakeries Corporation</li>

<li>IPC International Corporation</li>

<li>Kansas City Royals Baseball Corporation</li>

<li>Kraft Foods, Inc. (also involved in <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ALEC" title="ALEC" class="mw-redirect">ALEC</a>)</li>

<li>La Petite Academy, Inc.</li>

<li>Lorillard Tobacco Company</li>

<li>Metricom, Inc.</li>

<li>Miller Brewing Company</li>

<li>Motorola, Inc.</li>

<li>Nucentrix Broadband Networks, Inc.</li>

<li>Orion Refi ning Corporation</li>

<li>Pharmacia Corp.</li>

<li>Philip Morris Companies Inc.</li>

<li>Phillips Petroleum Company</li>

<li>PJM Interconnection L.L.C.</li>

<li>ProQuest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</li>

<li>Sanofi -Synthelabo Inc.</li>

<li>Seaboard Corporation</li>

<li>Sears</li>

<li>Roebuck and Co.</li>

<li>Smith & Wesson Corporation</li>

<li>St. John’s Health System, Inc.</li>

<li>Tamko Roofi ng Products, Inc.</li>

<li>The Oz Entertainment Company</li>

<li>Tomkins Industries, Inc.</li>

<li>Union Pacific Railroad Company</li>

<li>Vulcan Materials Company</li>

<li>Warner-Lambert Company</li>

<li>Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Inc.<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_note-17" title="">[18]</a></li>

</ul>

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Political Contributions and Lobbying</h2>

<a href="https://opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2008&strID=C00367896" class="external text" title="https://opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2008&strID=C00367896" rel="nofollow">Open Secrets</a> reports that in 2010, Shook, Hardy & Bacon's PAC gave $5,400 to Republicans and $500 to Democrats.

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Personnel</h2>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Kincaid_Hardy" title="David Kincaid Hardy">David Kincaid Hardy</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_L._Allinder" title="William L. Allinder">William L. Allinder</a></li>

<li>John F. Murphy - Chair</li>

<li>Gene E. Voigts - Vice Chair</li>

<li>Alicia J. Donahue - Managing Partner</li>

<li>Michelle R. Mangrum - Managing Partner</li>

<li>Daniel F. Molony - Managing Partner</li>

<li>Frank C. Rothrock - Managing Partner</li>

<li>Samuel B. Sebree II - Managing Partner</li>

<li>James Shepherd - Managing Partner</li>

<li>Lea A. Souza-Rasile - Managing Partner</li>

</ul>

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a name="Contact_Details" id="Contact_Details">Contact Details</a></h2>

<a name="Contact_Details" id="Contact_Details">Website: </a><a href="http://www.shb.com" class="external free" title="http://www.shb.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.shb.com</a>

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Articles and resources</h2>

<h3 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tobacco_industry" title="Tobacco industry">Tobacco industry</a></li>

</ul>

<h3 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">External Articles</h3>

<li><a href="http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/24415.html" class="external text" title="http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/24415.html" rel="nofollow">"Philip Morris ETS Billing Categories -- Summary"</a>, December 1, 1990. Bates No: 2023590213-2023590299. This Philip Morris document is a bill from its law firm Shook, Hardy and Bacon of Kansas City. Lawyers describe by name "developed witnesses", or scientists willing to testify publicly on each topic affecting the company (87 pages total, scroll down).</li>

</ul>

<h3 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-0"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-0" title="">↑</a> See, e.g., Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP, <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=kmk94a00" class="external text" title="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=kmk94a00" rel="nofollow">Comments on Testimony of Dora Anne Mills, MD, MPH, Director, Maine Bureau of Health</a>, document in Tobacco Library, March 12, 1999</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-1" title="">↑</a> Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP <a href="http://www.shb.com/attorney_detail.aspx?id=16" class="external text" title="http://www.shb.com/attorney_detail.aspx?id=16" rel="nofollow">Victor E. Schwartz</a>, lawfirm biography, accessed June 6, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-2" title="">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council, <a href="http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Civil_Justice1&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14815" class="external text" title="http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Civil_Justice1&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=14815" rel="nofollow">Civil Justice Task Force</a>, organization website, accessed May 26, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-3" title="">↑</a> Terry Carter <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=y5qvyMHoQrgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false" class="external text" title="http://books.google.com/books?id=y5qvyMHoQrgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">Piecemeal Tort Reform</a>, ABA Journal, December 2001</li>

<li id="cite_note-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-4" title="">↑</a> Kim Eisler <a href="http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/4264.html" class="external text" title="http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/4264.html" rel="nofollow">Hired Guns: The City's 50 Top Lobbyists</a>, Washingtonian, June 1, 2007</li>

<li id="cite_note-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-5" title="">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council, <a href="http://www.alec.org/AM/pdf/insidealec_january2011.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.alec.org/AM/pdf/insidealec_january2011.pdf" rel="nofollow">Inside ALEC Jan. 2011</a>, organizational newsletter, January 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-6" title="">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council <a href="http://www.alec.org/AM/pdf/insidealec/InsideALEC_Feb2011_FINALpdf.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.alec.org/AM/pdf/insidealec/InsideALEC_Feb2011_FINALpdf.pdf" rel="nofollow">Inside ALEC Feb. 2011</a>, organization newsletter, February 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-7" title="">↑</a> American Association for Justice <a href="http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xbcr/justice/ALEC_Report.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xbcr/justice/ALEC_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ghostwriting the Law for Corporate America</a>, May, 2010</li>

<li id="cite_note-8"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-8" title="">↑</a> National Institute on Money in State Politics, <a href="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/search.phtml?searchbox=american+legislative+exchange+council&CurrentType=Lobbyist%20Clients" class="external text" title="http://www.followthemoney.org/database/search.phtml?searchbox=american+legislative+exchange+council&CurrentType=Lobbyist%20Clients" rel="nofollow">ALEC Lobbyist Client Results</a>, accessed July 4, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-9"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-9" title="">↑</a> <a href="http://www.northdecoder.com/Latest/alec-the-american-legislative-exchange-council-lied-on-its-2009-tax-return.html" class="external text" title="http://www.northdecoder.com/Latest/alec-the-american-legislative-exchange-council-lied-on-its-2009-tax-return.html" rel="nofollow">ALEC Lied on its 2009 Tax Return</a>, Northdecoder.com blog, Mar 28, 2011, accessed July 7, 2011.</li>

<li id="cite_note-10"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-10" title="">↑</a> American Legislative Exchange Council, <a href="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2009/520/140/2009-520140979-064206f4-9.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments//2009/520/140/2009-520140979-064206f4-9.pdf" rel="nofollow">2009 Form 990</a>, Internal Revenue Service filing, July 15, 2010</li>

<li id="cite_note-11"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-11" title="">↑</a> Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP <a href="http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/24415.html" class="external text" title="http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_pm/24415.html" rel="nofollow">Philip Morris ETS Billing Categories</a>, lawfirm report, December 1990</li>

<li id="cite_note-mark_hansen-12">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-mark_hansen_12-0" title="">13.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-mark_hansen_12-1" title="">13.1</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-mark_hansen_12-2" title="">13.2</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-mark_hansen_12-3" title="">13.3</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-mark_hansen_12-4" title="">13.4</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-mark_hansen_12-5" title="">13.5</a> Mark Hansen <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/shook_hardy_smokes_em/" class="external text" title="http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/shook_hardy_smokes_em/" rel="nofollow">Shook Hardy Smokes ‘Em</a>, ABA Journal, October 1, 2008</li>

<li id="cite_note-13"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-13" title="">↑</a> Bloomberg News <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/technology/26vonage.html" class="external text" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/technology/26vonage.html" rel="nofollow">Vonage Infringed 6 Patents of Sprint, U.S. Jury Rules</a>, New York Times, September 26, 2007</li>

<li id="cite_note-14"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-14" title="">↑</a> Steve Vockrodt <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2009/07/13/story12.html" class="external text" title="http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2009/07/13/story12.html" rel="nofollow">Microsoft uploads Shook Hardy & Bacon to its law firm short list</a>, Kansas City Business Journal, July 9, 2009</li>

<li id="cite_note-15"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-15" title="">↑</a> Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, "<a href="http://www.shb.com/attorney_detail.aspx?id=305" class="external text" title="http://www.shb.com/attorney_detail.aspx?id=305" rel="nofollow">Eric A. Buresh, Partner</a>, law firm biography, accessed June 25, 2011</li>

<li id="cite_note-16"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-16" title="">↑</a> David Yates, "<a href="http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/201659-hp-lawyers-take-class-certification-question-to-appeals-court" class="external text" title="http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/201659-hp-lawyers-take-class-certification-question-to-appeals-court" rel="nofollow">HP lawyers take class certification question to appeals court</a>," The Southeast Texas Record, September 25, 2007</li>

<li id="cite_note-17"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shook,Hardy%26_Bacon#cite_ref-17" title="">↑</a> American Association for Justice <a href="http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xbcr/justice/ALEC_Report.pdf" class="external text" title="http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xbcr/justice/ALEC_Report.pdf" rel="nofollow">ALEC: Ghostwriting the Law for Corporate America</a>, issue report, May 2010</li>

</ol>

---

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">PhRMA's Investment Pays Off in Wisconsin</h2>

Legislation introduced in Wisconsin during the year following PhRMA's contribution suggests the investment in "scholarships" paid dividends.

One of Governor Walker's first actions upon taking office was to push a package of tort reform measures lifted from the ALEC playbook. So-called "tort reform" bills benefit drug companies and other major corporations by making it harder for Americans to sue companies whose products or services result in injury or death. PhRMA has <a href="http://www.phrma.org/news-media/speeches/putting-patients-first-keep-health-care-america-best-world-putting-patients-firs" title="reference on long supported" target="_blank">long supported</a> "tort reform" and used ALEC to push it.

<a href="http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2011/data/acts/11Act2.pdf" title="reference on Wisconsin Act 2" target="blank">Wisconsin Act 2</a> was the first bill Walker signed into law on January 27, 2011. As the January 2011 "special session" of the Wisconsin legislature began, ALEC sent an <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/files/ORR_0383.pdf" title="reference on issue alert" target="blank">issue alert</a> to Wisconsin's ALEC politicans stating the organization "supports this legislation which contains numerous provisions that reflect ALEC's civil justice reform policy and model legislation." Act 2 adopted a variety of ALEC models, including the ALEC <a href="http://alecexposed.org/w/images/7/79/0G0-Constitutional_Guidelines_for_Punitive_Damages_Act_Exposed.pdf" title="reference on " constitutional="" guidelines="" for="" punitive="" damages="" target="blank">"Constitutional Guidelines for Punitive Damages Act"</a>, limiting the ability to hold corporations accountable for causing injury or death, and the ALEC <a href="http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/d/d0/0M1-Product_Liability_Act_Exposed.pdf" title="reference on " product="" liability="" target="blank">"Product Liability Act"</a>, making it easier for corporations like drugmakers to escape liability for manufacturing dangerous products or products with insufficient warnings about hazards. Passage of the bill was promptly lauded by ALEC in a <a href="http://www.emailwire.com/release/printPR.php?prID=56693" title="reference on press release" target="_blank">press release</a>, where they "commended newly-elected Gov. Walker and the new Wisconsin legislature for their leadership in responding quickly to their mandate to restore business confidence and for making tort reform one of their top priorities to achieve this goal."

<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/11060/wisconsin-gop-pushes-alec-anti-consumer-bill-protect-drug-makers" title="reference on In October 2011" target="blank">In October 2011</a>, Wisconsin GOP legislators <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/10/11071/alec-politicians-spin-special-interest-bill-protect-corporate-wrongdoers-job-crea" title="reference on introduced" target="blank">introduced</a> <a href="http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/se1_sb13" title="reference on LRB 2890" target="blank">LRB 2890</a>, a version of the ALEC <a href="http://alecexposed.org/w/images/3/3b/5S2-Drug_Liability_Act_Exposed.pdf" title="reference on " drug="" liability="" target="blank">"Drug Liability Act."</a> The bill gives drug and medical device manufacturers complete immunity from lawsuits based on strict liability if the product was approved by the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Food_and_Drug_Administration" title="reference on Food and Drug Administration" target="self">Food and Drug Administration</a> (FDA) and complied with FDA regulations (see the side-by-side comparison <a href="http://www.prwatch.org/files/Drug%2526_Medical_Device_side_by_side.doc">here</a>). Lawsuits might be unnecessary if there were limitless funds for independent clinical trials and if the FDA approval process worked perfectly to weed out dangerous products. But it does not. Numerous drugs have been approved by the FDA only to be recalled after people died or were seriously injured. PhRMA and its members <a href="http://ethics.state.wi.us/scripts/CurrentSession/LegProps.asp" title="reference on lobbied" target="_blank">lobbied</a> on this bill.

<h2 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Lack of Transparency Keeps Public in Dark...</h2>

<a href="http://www.prwatch.org/node/11342">http://www.prwatch.org/node/11342</a>

===

<a href="http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN165/00391.html">http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN165/00391.html</a>

A coalition of poisoning & polluting industries had joined forces to fight against potential damages claims in product liability suits — especially punative damages — which could be in the multi-million dollar region for companies who had not taken care of their customers's health. They also wanted to limit the ability of plaintiffs to file class action suits since individual damage claims could always be won by litigation exhaustion (the corporation with the most money to pay lawyers always wins).

This corporate-lobbying movement became known as the "tort reform" program, and it was led by the National Manufacturer's Association which ran the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) . There was also a more political group known as the Product Liability Coordination Committee (PLCC) which was backed by the Business RoundTable. The PLCC later became known as the TPLA (The Product Liability Alliance) and it was run by a Cromwell & Moring lawyer, Victor Schwartz, who worked closely with ATRA.

Also involved in product liability/tort-reform lobbying was the Manhattan Institute , founded by ex-CIA director William Casey, which, in 1986, had created the Project on Civil Justice Reform targeted specifically at journalists. It was funded initially by insurance companies, but the tobacco and other industries gave generously also.

Margery Kraus, a freelance lobbyist/PR who was involved with the CloseUp Foundation and did some work for RJ Reynolds was hired in to front APCO, and the new organisation successfully promoted itself as a genuine Washington public relations company. [Later she was award a Business Woman of the Year medal for 'founding' the company!] Initially, however, APCO was entirely under the control of Philip Morris and run by key US science-corruption executives, Ellen Merlo, Tom Borelli and Steve Parrish.

In 1992, ATRA's tort-reform efforts were suffering from internal disputes between the various corporations and trade-umbrella organisations. So Neal Cohen, a sports-writer, was hired in to take control of the tort-reform project for Phillip Morris, and not long after he took virtual control of ATRA itself. He revitalised the organisation (if a real organisation ever actually existed) by setting up numerous state-based astroturfs (run by local PR companies), which became known by the generic term CALAs ( Citizens Against Legal Abuse ).

These CALAs then lobbied their state governments to reduce product liability (especially punative) penalties, restrict the ability of consumers to utilise class-actions, and, in some States, to exclude tobacco-caused injuries from the State tort laws.

-----

crypto:

anti-sourcewatch

2/15/12 i note that 1st sourcewatch google result (paid) is watchdog, atrazine

<a href="http://www.judicialhellholes.org/2012/01/31/sourcewatch-exposedwebsite-backed-by-organic-food-industry-scrambles-to-take-down-court-documents-after-being-caught-in-the-act/?gclid=CN38sPXQoK4CFQF3hwodjWSy5Q">http://www.judicialhellholes.org/2012/01/31/sourcewatch-exposedwebsite-backed-by-organic-food-industry-scrambles-to-take-down-court-documents-after-being-caught-in-the-act/?gclid=CN38sPXQoK4CFQF3hwodjWSy5Q</a>

claims sw is pullling docs, tho talk pages?

The American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF) is a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, founded in 1997.  The primary purpose of the Foundation is to educate the general public about how the American civil justice system operates; the role of tort law in the civil justice system; and the impact of tort law on the private, public and business sectors of society.

Sherman Joyce

President

<a href="mailto:sjoyce@atra.org">sjoyce@atra.org</a>

Graduate of Princeton University and Catholic University Law School, he served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator John C. Danforth until 1984. In 1987, after being admitted to the Virginia Bar, he became minority counsel to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where he worked on product liability legislation. Mr. Joyce assumed his current position in August 1994.

</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> </td><td valign="top"><a name="mckinney" id="mckinney"> </a>

Darren McKinney

Director of Communications

<a href="mailto:dmckinney@atra.org">dmckinney@atra.org</a>

He joins ATRA after five years with the National Association of Manufacturers. As a former award-winning television journalist with a Georgetown University M.A. in American government and public policy, Darren has also worked in key communications positions for two members of Congress and the Treasury Department.

</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> </td><td valign="top">

Matt Fullenbaum

Director of Legislation

<a href="mailto:mfullenbaum@atra.org">mfullenbaum@atra.org</a>

Matt comes to ATRA from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) where he served as membership manager. Prior to joining IANA, he held positions in the economics and membership departments at the International Dairy Foods Association.[corp personhood court case?0 Matt earned a bachelor of arts degree from The George Washington University.

</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> </td><td valign="top">

Gretchen S. Post

Executive Assistant and Office Manager

<a href="mailto:gpost@atra.org">gpost@atra.org</a>

Gretchen joined the ATRA team in June 2003 bringing 26 years of Capitol Hill experience with her. She comes to ATRA from the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

----

nolo:

A toxic tort is a legal claim for harm caused by exposure to a dangerous substance -- such as a pharmaceutical drug, pesticide, or chemical. While advances in technology, manufacturing, and medicine have introduced thousands of new products into our daily lives, some of those products -- and the substances they contain -- can cause serious illnesses in humans. Sometimes chemicals which are thought to be safe turn out to be otherwise. Other times, substances known to be dangerous accidentally leak into the air or groundwater. Along with these new chemicals and drugs have come lawsuits -- called toxic tort litigation -- brought on behalf of individuals or groups of people who have been exposed to and harmed by dangerous substances.

This article discusses the basic law underlying toxic torts -- what plaintiffs must prove in order to prevail, situations in which most toxic tort cases arise, who to sue, special issues in toxic tort claims, and what types of damages are available to plaintiffs.

<h3 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Toxic Tort Claims and Defenses</h3>

In a toxic tort claim, the plaintiff (the person who sues) alleges that exposure to some dangerous substance caused an injury or illness. These claims are often brought on behalf of a group of people, in what is called a class action lawsuit. One example of a <a href="http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/class-action-term.html" class="related_info">class action</a> lawsuit is when a group of workers alleges exposure to asbestos while on the job. Another class action may arise when residents of a neighborhood allege that local groundwater has become contaminated by a pesticide. While class actions are common, a single individual may also bring a toxic tort lawsuit.

Toxic tort claims usually arise in the following contexts:

<li>Occupational exposure - when industrial workers are exposed to toxins, at high levels for a short period of time or at lower levels over an extended period. Examples of this type of toxic tort litigation include lawsuits based on workers' exposure to asbestos and benzene on the job. (To learn more about asbestos and benzene litigation, see Nolo's articles <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/asbestos-mesothelioma-lawsuits-what-expect-30340.html">Mesothelioma and Asbestos: An Overview</a> and <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/benzene-exposure-health-risks-32205.html">Benzene Exposure, Health Risks & Litigation</a>.)</li>

<li>Pharmaceutical drugs - when pharmaceutical drugs cause unintended side-effects. Drugs that have been the subject of toxic tort litigation include the antidepressants Zoloft and Prozac. (To learn more about claims against pharmaceutical drug companies, see Nolo's article <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/product-liability-claims-pharmaceutical-drugs-30314.html">Product Liability Claims Involving Pharmaceutical Drugs</a>.)</li>

<li>Exposure in the home - when people breathe or ingest substances in their home, such as toxic mold. (To learn more about mold exposure, see Nolo's article <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/toxic-mold-basics-29685.html">Toxic Mold Basics</a>.)</li>

<li>Consumer products - when people use products, such as pesticides, that cause unintended illness.</li>

</ul>

The specific elements that a plaintiff must prove in a toxic tort case vary depending on the legal theories involved, but generally the plaintiff must show that 1) the substance was dangerous, 2) the plaintiff was exposed to the substance, and 3) the substance caused harm to the plaintiff. (To learn about the different theories of liability in toxic tort cases, see Nolo's article <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/toxic-torts-legal-theories-liability-32208.html">Toxic Torts: Legal Theories of Liability</a>.)

Defendants in toxic tort cases often mount a vigorous defense. They can poke holes in a plaintiff's case or present evidence that the plaintiff has not proved all of the necessary elements of their claims. Defendants can also present more procedure-based defenses. For example, a defendant might try to prove that a plaintiff did not bring their toxic tort lawsuit in a timely manner under the applicable statute of limitations laws. (To learn about the defenses available to defendants in toxic tort cases, see Nolo's article <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/toxic-tort-litigation-common-defenses-32209.html">Toxic Tort Litigation: Common Defenses</a>.)

<h3 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Special Issues in Toxic Tort Cases</h3>

Although each toxic tort case is unique -- depending on the toxin involved, the way plaintiffs were exposed, and the alleged resulting illness -- there are some common issues that crop up in many toxic tort cases.

<h4 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Proving Causation</h4>

The battleground in most toxic tort cases is causation. There are several reasons for this. In many cases it is difficult to trace the source of the chemical or substance that caused the injury. Also, many illnesses caused by exposure to toxins don't manifest until years after the exposure. Plaintiffs must weed out intervening factors( such as exposure to other chemicals) in proving the key element of their case: that it was the specific chemical manufactured or distributed by the defendant that caused the plaintiff's illness.

<h4 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Stale Evidence</h4>

When a lawsuit is brought years after the initial exposure to the chemical at issue, evidence may be hard to come by. Documents related to the original exposure may no longer be around, witnesses can be hard to track down, and memories may become fuzzy over time.

reliance on Scientific Evidence

Toxic tort lawsuits are hugely dependant on science. Studies linking substances to certain diseases or health conditions can make or break a case. Changing scientific developments can instantly change the legal landscape. For example, lawsuits alleging that a certain workplace chemical caused cancer could fail for years, but if a single study linking the chemical to cancer emerges, plaintiffs in the same type of lawsuit may begin winning large damage awards.

<h3 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Who to Sue in Toxic Tort Cases</h3>

Figuring out who to sue in toxic tort cases is another tricky problem. Plaintiffs often don't know who manufactured a dangerous product. For example, suppose a patient is taking a drug that is manufactured by several different pharmaceutical companies. If the patient develops cancer years later, it may be difficult to determine which company manufactured the particular drug the patient took. Similarly, residents who live in an industrial area might allege a link between their health problems and airborne contaminants in the area, but the residents may not know which local factory is actually responsible for the release of those contaminants.

As a rule, plaintiffs usually sue anyone and everyone that could have any possible link to the dangerous substance. This may include:

<li>manufacturers and distributors of chemicals</li>

<li>manufacturers and distributors of machines or devices that expose workers to chemicals</li>

<li>owners and lessors of premises where the plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals</li>

<li>manufacturers of equipment that failed to keep the plaintiff safe from chemicals, or</li>

<li>companies that stored the chemicals.</li>

</ul>

1 | <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/toxic-torts-overview-32204-2.html">2</a>

The types of <a href="http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/damages-term.html">damages</a> available to plaintiffs in toxic tort cases might include compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys fees.

<h4 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Compensatory Damages</h4>

These are the damages that reimburse the plaintiff for the cost of injuries or for any money spent as a result of the injuries. Compensatory damages include medical expenses, lost wages, lost earning capacity, compensation for pain and suffering, and loss of consortium (companionship). (To learn more about compensatory damages, see Nolo's article <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/damages-defective-products-cases-30082.html">Damages in Defective Products Cases</a>.)

Plaintiffs can also seek a type of damages unique to toxic tort cases -- compensation for medical monitoring. In medical monitoring, plaintiffs (usually in a class action lawsuit) exposed to a toxin are screened periodically in order to detect and provide early treatment for medical problems linked to the toxin. Courts are split as to whether medical monitoring damages can be awarded to people who show no sign of illness, or are limited to people who already exhibit symptoms of the disease. Either way, medical monitoring damages are set up in one of two ways: through a fund that plaintiffs can dip into as costs arise, or as a lump-sum payment intended to cover any future medical monitoring costs.

<h4 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Punitive Damages</h4>

The purpose of punitive damages is to punish the defendant. These damages are generally only available in toxic tort cases if the defendant's conduct was especially egregious or outrageous.

<h4 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Injunctive Relief</h4>

Plaintiffs in toxic tort cases may be able to get an injunction, which is an order prohibiting the defendant from taking certain actions (the marketing of a harmful product, for example).

<h4 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Attorneys' Fees</h4>

In most lawsuits, each side pays its own attorneys' fees. However, some statutes specifically state that a defendant must pay a plaintiff's attorneys' fees in certain situations. For example, in the realm of toxic torts, many environmental cleanup statutes allow plaintiffs to recover their attorneys' fees from defendants.

<h3 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Getting Help</h3>

Claims involving toxic torts are usually not the kind of lawsuits in which you can represent yourself effectively. The legal and scientific issues in such cases are often complex and sophisticated. Depending on your case, you may wish to retain the services of a lawyer who specializes in toxic tort litigation or the precise toxin at issue.

You may also want to consult with a lawyer to find out if there is an existing <a href="http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/class-action-term.html">class action</a> lawsuit regarding the specific chemical or drug that concerns you, and if so, whether it is advisable for you to join that class action. (If there is an existing class action, consider contacting the lawyers for the class directly; they will likely be very interested in talking with you.) Such initial consultations are usually free of charge.

For help in choosing a good personal injury attorney, read Nolo's article <a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/finding-personal-injury-lawyer-29840.html">Finding a Personal Injury Lawyer</a>. Go to Nolo's <a href="http://www.nolo.com/ldir/browsebyresults.do?specialtyId=1&specialtyName=Personal%20Injury">Lawyer Directory</a> for a list of personal injury attorneys in your geographical area (click on the "Types of Cases" and "Work History" tabs to find out about the lawyer's experience, if any, with toxic tort litigation).

by: <a href="http://www.nolo.com/law-authors/kathleen-michon.html" rel="author" class="authorLink">Kathleen Michon</a>, J.D.

</div>

ugust 18, 2012

<h1 style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Lawyers From Suits Against Big Tobacco Target Food Makers</h1>

<h6 class="byline" style="line-height: 12.8px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">By <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/stephanie_strom/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by STEPHANIE STROM">STEPHANIE STROM</a></h6>

Don Barrett, a Mississippi lawyer, took in hundreds of millions of dollars a decade ago after suing Big Tobacco and winning record settlements from R. J. Reynolds, Philip Morris and other cigarette makers. So did Walter Umphrey, Dewitt M. Lovelace and Stuart and Carol Nelkin.

Ever since, the lawyers have been searching for big paydays in business, scoring more modest wins against car companies, drug makers, brokerage firms and insurers. Now, they have found the next target: food manufacturers.

More than a dozen lawyers who took on the tobacco companies have filed 25 cases against industry players like ConAgra Foods, PepsiCo, Heinz, General Mills and Chobani that stock pantry shelves and refrigerators across America.

The suits, filed over the last four months, assert that food makers are misleading consumers and violating federal regulations by wrongly labeling products and ingredients. While there has been a barrage of litigation against the industry in recent years, the tobacco lawyers are moving particularly aggressively. They are asking a federal court in California to halt ConAgra’s sales of Pam cooking spray, Swiss Miss cocoa products and some Hunt’s canned tomatoes.

“It’s a crime — and that makes it a crime to sell it,” said Mr. Barrett, citing what he contends is the mislabeling of those products. “That means these products should be taken off the shelves.”

The food companies counter that the suits are without merit, another example of litigation gone wild and driven largely by the lawyers’ financial motivations. Mr. Barrett said his group could seek damages amounting to four years of sales of mislabeled products — which could total many billions of dollars.

“It’s difficult to take some of these claims seriously, for instance, that a consumer was deceived into believing that a chocolate hazelnut spread for bread was healthy for children,” said Kristen E. Polovoy, an industry lawyer at Montgomery McCracken, referring to a lawsuit that two mothers brought against the maker of Nutella. “I think the courts are starting to look at the implausibility of some of these suits.”

A federal judge in California in 2009 dismissed a case against PepsiCo, which accused the company of false advertising because Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries cereal does not contain real berries. He ruled that “a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist.”

While the lawyers are being questioned about their motives, they are not alone in pursuing the food industry.

In recent weeks, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has sued General Mills and McNeil Nutritionals over their claims on Nature Valley and Splenda Essentials products, and warned Welch’s it would sue unless the company changed the wording on its juice and fruit snacks. The Federal Trade Commission won settlements from companies like Dannon and Pom Wonderful for claims about their products’ health benefits. And PepsiCo and Coca-Cola face lawsuits over claims that their orange juice products are “100% natural.”

The latest playbook — like the one that paid off in the wave of tobacco litigation — could prove potent, as the food companies’ own lawyers have warned.

Other plaintiffs’ lawyers have largely taken aim at food products marketed as “healthy” or “natural,” subjective claims that can be easily disputed by expert witnesses. Unlike foods labeled “organic,” there are no federal standards for foods that are called “healthy” or “natural.”

The new batch of litigation argues that food companies are violating specific rules about ingredients and labels. Mr. Barrett’s group, for example, has brought a case against Chobani, the Greek yogurt maker, for listing “evaporated cane juice,” as an ingredient in its pomegranate-flavored yogurt. The Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly warned companies not to use the term because it is “false and misleading,” according to the suit.

“If you’re going to put sugar in your yogurt, why not just say it’s sugar?” said Pierce Gore, a lawyer affiliated with Mr. Barrett’s group.

Food companies dispute the accusations, defending their packaging and marketing. Nicki Briggs, a spokeswoman for Chobani, said the lawsuit was “frivolous” and “without merit.”

Even so, such cases are raising concerns within the industry.

At a recent food and beverage conference attended by more than 100 lawyers, Madeleine M. McDonough, a lawyer at Shook, Hardy & Bacon who is co-chairwoman of the agribusiness and <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/food_safety/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about food safety." class="meta-classifier">food safety</a> practice, warned in a session on fraud litigation that it was imperative for companies to comply with federal regulation. “Otherwise, we are dead in the water,” she said, according to two lawyers present, including J. Price Coleman, who is working with Mr. Barrett’s group.

If the lawsuits prove successful, the liability could be sizable. The lawyers are looking to base damages on products’ sales. While companies do not typically break out figures for individual items, Chobani’s revenues are expected to total $1.5 billion this year. The lawsuit filed by Mr. Barrett cites 18 flavors of yogurt, more than half its line.

The lawyers are being selective about where these suits are filed. Most have been filed in California, where consumer protection laws tend to favor plaintiffs. Food companies are already fighting a legal battle there, spending tens of millions of dollars to stop a ballot initiative that would require them to specify genetically modified ingredients.

The lawyers who took on Big Tobacco decided the time was ripe to go after Big Food. Consumers are increasingly conscious of their eating habits as rates of heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, obesity and other health problems rise. State and local governments are also becoming alarmed at the escalating costs of caring for people with those diseases and are putting pressure on food companies.

“People want to put good, healthy, nutritious food in their bodies,” said Keith M. Fleischman, a former federal and state prosecutor who is now working with the tobacco lawyers group. “They are very aware of what’s on labels.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers realize that critics may counter that their lawsuits do not have real victims.

Mr. Barrett fought tobacco cases for years on behalf of smokers dying of cancer — and lost because juries agreed with the tobacco companies that smoking was a personal choice. Not until he and Richard Scruggs sued on behalf of states, which had spent hundreds of millions of dollars caring for sick smokers, did they win their record settlement.

“Food companies will argue that these are harmless crimes — the tobacco companies said the same thing,” Mr. Barrett said. “But to diabetics and some other people, sugar is just as deadly as poison.”

Consumers like Christine Sturges, one of the plaintiffs in a suit against ConAgra, has gluten allergies and reads labels vigilantly.

When she heard about a lawsuit involving the Pam cooking spray, she took a closer look. “There was nothing scary on it, just this innocuous word, ‘propellant,’ ” said Ms. Sturges, a hairdresser from Los Gatos, Calif.

After digging deeper, she learned that “propellant” included petroleum gas, propane and butane. “I’d been spraying that on muffin tins to make muffins for my grandchildren — oh my God!”

The only way Ms. Sturges could have known what the “propellant” consists of was to have read the materials data safety sheet that ConAgra files separately with the government, according to Mr. Gore.

The suit also claims, among other things, that Swiss Miss and Hunt’s labels bear improper claims about nutrients and antioxidant properties.

“We researched regulations and labels for two years before filing our first case, and our cases don’t remotely resemble the Cap’n Crunch’s Crunch Berries case,” Mr. Gore said. “Frankly, that one made me laugh.”

nyt

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/business/lawyers-of-big-tobacco-lawsuits-take-aim-at-food-industry.html?pagewanted=all&r=0&pagewanted=print">http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/business/lawyers-of-big-tobacco-lawsuits-take-aim-at-food-industry.html?pagewanted=all&r=0&pagewanted=print</a>

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/texas/tort.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/texas/tort.html</a>see below links hilight:THOMAS R. PHILLIPS rove
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of TexasTrustee, Center for American and International Law
Thomas R. PhillipsPartner at Baker BottsAustin, TexasLaw PracticeCurrent Baker Botts L.L.P.Previous South Texas College of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of law, Supreme Court of TexasEducation Harvard Law School500+connectionsView Thomas R.’s full profile. It's free!Your colleagues, classmates, and 400 million other professionals are on LinkedIn.View Thomas R.’s Full ProfileSummaryThomas R. Phillips is a partner in the Austin office of Baker Botts L.L.P., concentrating in general litigation, including appellate, trial strategy, and alternate dispute resolution. He joined the Firm after serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas from 1988-2004 and Judge of the 280th District Court of Harris County from 1981-88.
Since rejoining Baker Botts, Phillips has argued numerous appeals in the Supreme Court of Texas and in the courts of appeals of Texas, involving, among other issues, fraud, breach of contract, administrative law, public nuisance, statutory interpretation, health care delivery, public pension systems, electricity deregulation, pharmaceutical liability, professional liability, state taxation, eminent domain, and federal and state constitutional appeals. 
He currently serves on the board of the Texas State Historical Association and was a member of the Texas Historical Commission from 2005-12. 
A native of Dallas, Phillips earned a B.A. from Baylor University in 1971 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1974. He has been awarded honorary doctoral degrees from St. Edward’s University and Texas Tech University.Link to professional bio: http://www.bakerbotts.com/thomas-r-phillips/ExperiencePartnerBaker Botts L.L.P.September 2005 – Present (10 years 11 months)Spurgeon E. Bell Distrnguished Visitng ProfessorSouth Texas College of LawAugust 2004 – May 2005 (10 months)Visting ProfessorSouthern Methodist University Dedman School of lawAugust 2004 – December 2004 (5 months)Chief JusticeSupreme Court of TexasJanuary 1988 – September 2004 (16 years 9 months)District Judge280th District Court of Harris CountyJuly 1981 – January 1988 (6 years 7 months)AssociateBaker & BottsSeptember 1975 – June 1981 (5 years 10 months)OrganizationsConference of Chief JusticesPresident, 1997-98Starting January 1988American Law InstituteAdvisor, Principles of Election Law, 2011-present; Advisor, Federal Judicial Code Project, 1996-2001Starting 1990Litigation Counsel of AmericaFellowStarting 2014The Center for American and International LawTrusteeStarting 1992Dwight D. Opperman Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU Law SchoolDirectorStarting 2006South Texas College of LawDirector2006 – 2011American Judicature SocietyDirector, 1989-95, 1999-2005Starting 1987Texas Judicial CouncilChair, 1997-20041988 – 2004American Bar AssociationCommission on the 21st Century Judiciary, 2002-03; Task Force on Lawyers' Political Contributions, 1997-98Starting 1975State Bar of TexasChair, Pattern Jury Charge Committee Volume IV, 1985-88; Vice Chair, Committee on Administration of Justice, 1986-88; Member, Committee on Rules of Evidence, 1983-88Texas Historical CommissionCommissioner2005 – 2012Texas State Historical AssociationDirectorStarting 2014Baylor University Presidential Search Advisory CommitteeMember2009 – 2010Texas Bipartisan Federal Judicial Evaluation CommitteeMemberStarting 2013NCAA Division I Committee on InfractionsPublic Member2006 – 2008Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election ReformMember2005 – 2005Mitt Romney Campaign Justice Advisory CommitteeMember2011 – 2012Bastrop County Historical SocietyDirector2004 – 2008The Philosophical Society of TexasMemberStarting 1990PublicationsThe Merits of Merit Selection32 Harv. J. L. P. P. 672009Authors:Thomas R. PhillipsFree Speech for Judges and Fair Appeals for Litigants: Judicial Recusal in a Post-White World55 Drake L. Rev. 6912007Authors:Thomas R. PhillipsState Supreme Courts: Local Courts in a Global World38 Texas Int'l L. J. 5572003Authors:Thomas R. PhillipsElectoral Accountability and Judicial Independence64 Ohio St. L. J. 1372003Authors:Thomas R. PhillipsThe Constitutional Right to a Remedy78 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 13092003Authors:Thomas R. Phillips
=- tort reform in texas: "rove's genius at work"Tort reform was one of President Bush's top campaign issues in 2004 -- and one that frequently received the most applause at campaign fundraisers. Karl Rove saw the power of this issue almost 20 years earlier in Texas. He grasped its significance before others did, capitalized on it in the races that he ran in the 1980s and made tort reform a propelling factor in the Republicans' ascendancy in Texas. Discussing this chapter in Rove's political career is Sam Gwynne, editor of Texas Monthly; Bill Miller, a Texas political consultant; Kim Ross, a lobbyist for the Texas Medical Association; and Tom Phillips, former chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

photo of gwynne sam gwynneExecutive editor, Texas Monthly
read the full interview1988 is, in many ways, a watershed for Rove. It shows you how an issue can … help Republicans accelerate this trend towards Republicanism. And the issue was tort reform. I think that the country is about to get a big dose of this [issue], but we've been having big doses of this for a long time [in Texas] -- in fact, since Karl Rove started to run Supreme Court justices back in the late '80s. The Supreme Court basically swung 100 percent, too. Rove ran almost every single one of them.
The kind of cases that would come to the Supreme Court would be, somebody works for an oil refinery down in Corpus Christi or something, and somebody gets hurt, or let's say, claims long-term poisoning by the atmosphere -- big case like this [is] your typical tort case. So a worker for the company would be poisoned or claiming he was poisoned, and then he would sue the company. And of course, the trial lawyers, the tort lawyers, would come in behind this guy, and the corporate defense lawyers would take [on] the major oil company that was being sued. This then would go up through the various lower courts, state courts and appellate courts. And some of these cases would get to the [Texas] Supreme Court.
So let's say the Supreme Court sided with the little guy all the time, which they did in the '80s. It became, in effect, a plaintiff's court. The Supreme Court in Texas was ruling almost every time in the favor of plaintiffs. The effect of this ... is you get higher malpractice rates for doctors; insurance costs a lot more money. Some people perceive it as an ill to society to have too many verdicts in favor of plaintiffs. If a woman gets scalded by McDonald's coffee, maybe she shouldn't get a $5 million award. This is the realm that we're in now.
So Karl comes in and says, "You know, we're going to run [with] tort reform. And he does for a whole decade.
How does he come up with this idea?
He wasn't the first one to think about it, but he understood what it was, and he understood how it could be used. He began deliberately to work for candidates for whom that issue was important. I think one of the reasons perhaps that someone in Texas would think of tort reform before someone in Iowa is because we have some of the most famous plaintiffs venues in the country here. In the Golden Triangle of Beaumont area of Texas, you have a lot of plants that made asbestos and other things or that used a lot of chemical and oil refinery. The border is perhaps the most notorious place. That's where the famous McDonald's verdict came from. Texas was a place where a smart trial lawyer could venue shop and get himself a good jury and get, you know, a $30 million verdict against a large company and win it and then take obviously half of it. This was the place where that sort of thing happened. So I think that Karl ... saw it as a coming issue, and a big one. And believe me, not everybody saw this.
The other side of it was … if you looked at the biggest givers to the Texas Democratic Party in the '80s and the '90s, you would see at the top of that list trial lawyers. So it became this giant pitched battle, because it wasn't just necessarily about the kind of verdicts and the ease with which someone might get a verdict for a plaintiff, but it was also about the back end, which was the financing of the entire Democratic Party. Karl saw it as an adversary proposition in that particular way, and he also saw, through these Supreme Court candidates, that this was the wave to ride. And he rode it.
Now, the Supreme Court candidates in the state of Texas or almost anywhere else are "down ballot," as they say in the business. We're not talking about the governorship, for example. We're talking about something that is important to a certain group of people: business interests, trial lawyers, a handful of other people. … How does he figure out that this is the vulnerable spot? Is that Rove's genius at work or what?
I think it's Rove genius at work. I think he understands the significance of the issue before most people do. Most people do not understand that it's going to be this giant, pitched battle, which it becomes in the '90s -- I mean, a real pitched battle. It's a battle for the soul of Texas politics because it's a battle for the money, the lifeline money of Democrats, which is now drying up. …

Bill MillerTexas political consultant
How does tort reform become an issue in a state like this? And how important was it?
Well, what happened in tort reform is that Republicans were still thwarted in winning statewide office in many ways. And there was not a breakthrough moment until 60 Minutes came to the state in '89 and did an expose, is justice for sale on the Texas Supreme Court? They had done some filming at a retreat where judges were there, and there were big trial lawyers, and it was just too friendly for words. You looked at the pictures and you think, "This really doesn't measure up."
And many of the decisions coming out of the court were angering -- and that's putting it mildly -- business interests in the state. Suddenly, you had this TV profile about the Supreme Court.
Bill Clements had won election to the governorship after being thwarted in '82, and the chief justice retired. So he appointed a fellow named Tom Phillips to become chief justice. Tom is as straight as the day is long -- nicest guy you'll ever want to meet. He had a great issue, and he had Karl Rove as his consultant and they took [on] the court. They beat the Democrats, and then the Democrats began seeing that this is going to be a hard place to live successfully.
The other members of the court left. Other appointments were made. And suddenly the court was beginning to switch to Republican. And this is down ballot, which is not normally how you win statewide races. You win at the top rather than the bottom. But because the court had tort reform and Karl, it was a great environment to elect Republicans. You could raise a huge amount of money. You had a great gut emotional issue, and you were in business.
What makes it a great gut emotional issue?
If you have tort reform, and you have a news profile that basically slams your opposition -- in this case the trial bar; it makes them look like total sellouts, buying justice, buying the result on the court -- that is something that people can feel. It's a visceral reaction. It's dishonest. And then you got the 60 Minutes label on this, and all of a sudden you've got money, you got a good candidate, you got a visceral issue. When people see it, they get emotionally tight about it.
What's your assessment of the effect, in terms of Texas politics, of those victories?
Well, I think that what happened is the trial bar became the bogeyman in state politics. Anybody who took money from trial lawyers became part of tort reform [opposition]. And so in legislative races and other races, any time the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates took an enormous amount of money from the trial bar, then you could say, "They're in the back pocket of the trial bar." It gave you an issue going forward, and you could paint your opponent as being against tort reform and in the pocket of the trial bar. That worked as a miracle drug for politics.
In other words, if you just got some money from the trial lawyers --
Your opponent had to defend taking that money. And you know, the environment was such that defense was never credible. The more you talk about it, the deeper the hole. …
Part of the story of the Supreme Court and tort reform was that the system was awash in all kinds of funny money. … And Phillips made this promise or pledge…
He did a self-limitation on contributions. In Texas you can give as much money as you choose to in state races, and Tom Phillips was the first candidate, I believe, who sort of self-limited what he would receive. At the end of the day it didn't really affect the amount of money he raised, because he raised millions and millions of dollars. He just raised it in slightly smaller amounts than the big chunks that you see otherwise.
How smart an idea was that, at the time?
Well, it was a perfect idea for coming out of what you had seen that you're working against the trial bar, which had given enormous-sized checks. So it made him look like he was trying to clean up the system and look straight and narrow. And that was exactly the perception that people had of him. And that's exactly the way he is, really. …

kim rossLobbyist, Texas Medical Association
…How does [Karl Rove] attach himself to this issue, or the issue attach itself to him?
He knew intuitively, as most of us would have, that you had to have, as Mark Twain says, "a devil for the crusade." And if this was the crusade in the context of a judicial race, of which no one really cares about, you had to demonize somebody and in this case it was central casting. [The Supreme Court justices] were doing it to themselves. They were writing opinions that were offensive on their face. And essentially one particular opinion stated, "I don't care what this court previously said. I don't care what the legislature said. In fact, I was in this legislature when this law was passed. It was a political compromise. I've been elected to the court, and therefore I have a mandate to change these laws because they just aren't right." And there was a level of hubris, and we had a side that allowed us to exploit that. And it just so happened, because that was that era when the trial lawyers were a very convenient device for us to use to begin to educate voters in terms of a philosophical shift.
And Karl's particular skill position, his expertise?
Communication. He has a gift for messaging, among other things, as history has shown us. But a great sense of campaigning, knowing where the votes were, knowing what messages worked with which voters. … Karl retailed it and convinced a very cynical lobby to impose self limits … on what [amount of money] they would accept, again distinguishing himself. It was a ingenious approach.
Of course the chief justice [Tom Phillips] was a very, very bright man -- but so was Karl. And [Phillips] sat us in a room and he said, "I know you all want to send me more money. I will not accept more than this," what we thought were fairly minimal amounts, knowing the other side was going to outspend us. And Rove said, "And that's the point. Their strength becomes their weakness." And I was nodding my head and thinking, "That's very smart and bold and very risky, but also arguably by far the best strategy to take if you want to take the risk." …
So what tort reform really is, is a catch phrase, an organizing principle. It's like "Right to Work…"
Yeah, it's an organizing principle to bring together swing voters and, more importantly, to consolidate business [and] professional communities together. And frankly … tort reform has a kinder, gentler face. … It's a way of softening the blunt instrument that tort reform is when you're asking to limit damages or to allow to counter sue or limit standards for expert witnesses and all the things that are the esoterica of what, essentially, is saying, "Plaintiff, you had this right, but we're taking it away because we think you've abused it." And you do it by putting a lab coat on and arguing about access to care and the cost of medical care, not whether or not Dow Chemical is going to pay this or this and punitive damages on a suit where they might or might not be guilty. …
Was tort reform a big issue in [the 1994 Texas governor's race]?
It was. Yeah, it was.
And that was Karl driving that in or that was Bush?
I think it would be indistinguishable. I mean, it was a mantra-like issue for their natural core constituencies, including doctors. And it was also something that they could run right at Ann [Richards] with, because she had tons of trial lawyer support. It was a wedge issue, but it would have been imprudent not to use it. …
How important was the success of tort reform in that first term for Bush, for Bush's re-election? …
It established his pro-business credentials in a real simple and obvious way. It was not in and of itself the one thing, but it was delivering on a promise. It was certainly consolidated business and professional support for him in ways it would make him virtually unassailable from a Democrat ever again, which was something still to consider in those days in Texas. …

tom massetChief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court (1988-2004)
… So the plan for your campaign, what was the bottom line? One of the decisions early on was that you would only accept certain amount of donations. What did you guys sit down and decide and why?
One of the things I liked about working with Karl is, although he was not a lawyer, he instantly perceived why a race for judge needed to be entirely different than a race for any other political office. And why it would be bad for the state -- and fatal politically -- for a judicial candidate, to be taking a position on substantive policy issues that were currently being debated around the state; why judicial candidates had to be seen as, and in fact be completely in adherence with both the spirit and the law of all the ethical codes and the ethical norms that surrounded being a judge.
I think he felt the tension between judges standing for election and judges being judges in a way that most political consultants simply had no patience with. Their view was -- many of them at any rate -- go out and try to jump on some of the bandwagons of momentary public interest, whether that was English-only in the schools, or abortion, or guns, and be seen as a popular advocate for something and win a lot of votes. And the next time an election comes up, if there were other hot issues, by then you could get in front of those. Karl completely rejected that and was instrumental in seeing that the Republican Party rejected that. …
I made it clear that I was soliciting people to vote for me, not because I was a Republican, but because of the job I would do as a judge. Karl was quite good at crafting that message, and persuading other people to accept that message. I'd never run a contested race before for any office. And I was seen, I think quite rightly, as a neophyte in terms of actual experience. …
The "Clean Slate '88" vote -- how important was that? And how did that come about? Why did that group take on the important role that they did?
1988 was a very unusual year because ordinarily there were three justices on the ballot each year, on a nine-justice court, but, because of resignations, there were six races for the Supreme Court on the ballot in 1988. So it was absolutely a chance to shape the whole Texas Supreme Court. …
And so with an opportunity for six of the nine seats to be decided in one election, a lot of groups that might otherwise have just sat aside and watched … decided to get involved. And there was a coalition built -- which I'm really not aware of the details, because it was conducted separate from the campaign -- that decided to back a bipartisan slate. That was seen to be very important at the time, not only because they genuinely felt that some Republicans and some Democrats were going to be better justices, but also because the state was not a Republican state. … The heritage of the Civil War and FDR, made the Democratic Party the dominant party at the courthouse level in Texas by a huge margin, perhaps 10 to 1 [among] all elected officials in the state.
This "Clean Slate" effort tried to break through that. We tried to go out into areas of the state that had never voted for a Republican before, except perhaps for Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, maybe Sen. Tower, Sen. Gramm. [We] tried to go out and convince those people that it was safe to vote Republican way further down the ballot, at least in some of the races; that you couldn't look at these judge races on a partisan basis. You had to look at the individuals. The judges weren't going to behave in a party fashion. There wasn't going to be a party platform for the cases they heard.
So what was Karl Rove's involvement with that kind of an organization, and also in understanding that the vote had to be pushed out into the rural areas?
… Karl had some excellent ideas of how to take an abstract plan -- let's make a judicial race interesting to 2 million voters -- and put that into practice in a way that people will decide it was important enough to study who all these candidates were in these court races, and cast a vote not based on which party had felt which way about the Civil War, but based on right now, what was important to the people of the state of Texas.
So in 1988, [six] out of nine Supreme Court judges were replaced. … Did that sort of set the stage for a lot of other Republicans, and Republican donors to realize that this was a doable thing?
I'm sure the fact that [so many Republicans candidates won] the Supreme Court was important in building the Republican Party. For whatever reason the Republicans left very few races unopposed after that on the statewide ballot. I think [there were only] maybe five or six judicial races where there was a Democratic incumbent for the rest of the decade. At most five or six did not have an opponent. And, of course, by the end of the 1990s, Republicans were running unopposed, at least in judicial races. …
The bigger issue of tort reform, what was Karl Rove's point of view on the issue and in the support that it garnered?
Well, I think there was a widespread feeling in Texas at the time among the average citizen, as well as among other people, that the trial lawyers were too powerful within the legislature. The plaintiff's personal injury lawyers, as a small group, had wielded an inordinate amount of power in the legislature. And Texas's very lax venue laws -- those are laws that say where you can [hold a] trial -- allowed a disproportionate number of cases to be tried in areas of the state that had no real connection with the dispute, but were areas where juries were known to be liable to give a very large award if their sympathies could be properly invoked.
And that reputation was very damaging to the state of Texas in terms of discouraging businesses to locate in Texas, or expand, or discouraging professionals like doctors to locate their practice uniformly across the state rather than just in particular areas. And [many thought] it would be a good thing for Texas if the legislature would overhaul some of the tort laws, and if the judges would have somewhat more respect for the common-law precedence that had obtained in Texas for a long time, and not be quite so "activist," was the popular term in overruling those precedents. And I think Karl felt that. …
Were you surprised that Karl sort of rode this issue and pushed it and that it still is such a popular issue today, an important issue?
Well, Gov. Bush ran in 1994 against Gov. Richards on four planks, and tort reform was one of those planks, and he got what he wanted from the legislature on all four of those planks. And since then, some citizen groups have formed in Texas that have been remarkably successful in persuading legislators to adopt their suggested changes in tort law. And they've done it without going through the normal, capitol lobbyist crowd.
I think Karl has seen that, and it has been a salient issue in Texas. And so I'm not surprised that he's interested in that issue, but I don't think you can draw a direct line from Supreme Court races in 1988 to the proposals that President Bush is making before Congress now. …=

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" style="line-height: 12.8px;"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">tp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/architect/texas/tort.html

</td><td>

</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">

</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">

Executive editor, Texas Monthly

1988 is, in many ways, a watershed for Rove. It shows you how an issue can … help Republicans accelerate this trend towards Republicanism. And the issue was tort reform. I think that the country is about to get a big dose of this [issue], but we've been having big doses of this for a long time [in Texas] -- in fact, since Karl Rove started to run Supreme Court justices back in the late '80s. The Supreme Court basically swung 100 percent, too. Rove ran almost every single one of them.

The kind of cases that would come to the Supreme Court would be, somebody works for an oil refinery down in Corpus Christi or something, and somebody gets hurt, or let's say, claims long-term poisoning by the atmosphere -- big case like this [is] your typical tort case. So a worker for the company would be poisoned or claiming he was poisoned, and then he would sue the company. And of course, the trial lawyers, the tort lawyers, would come in behind this guy, and the corporate defense lawyers would take [on] the major oil company that was being sued. This then would go up through the various lower courts, state courts and appellate courts. And some of these cases would get to the [Texas] Supreme Court.

So let's say the Supreme Court sided with the little guy all the time, which they did in the '80s. It became, in effect, a plaintiff's court. The Supreme Court in Texas was ruling almost every time in the favor of plaintiffs. The effect of this ... is you get higher malpractice rates for doctors; insurance costs a lot more money. Some people perceive it as an ill to society to have too many verdicts in favor of plaintiffs. If a woman gets scalded by McDonald's coffee, maybe she shouldn't get a $5 million award. This is the realm that we're in now.

So Karl comes in and says, "You know, we're going to run [with] tort reform. And he does for a whole decade.

How does he come up with this idea?

He wasn't the first one to think about it, but he understood what it was, and he understood how it could be used. He began deliberately to work for candidates for whom that issue was important. I think one of the reasons perhaps that someone in Texas would think of tort reform before someone in Iowa is because we have some of the most famous plaintiffs venues in the country here. In the Golden Triangle of Beaumont area of Texas, you have a lot of plants that made asbestos and other things or that used a lot of chemical and oil refinery. The border is perhaps the most notorious place. That's where the famous McDonald's verdict came from. Texas was a place where a smart trial lawyer could venue shop and get himself a good jury and get, you know, a $30 million verdict against a large company and win it and then take obviously half of it. This was the place where that sort of thing happened. So I think that Karl ... saw it as a coming issue, and a big one. And believe me, not everybody saw this.

The other side of it was … if you looked at the biggest givers to the Texas Democratic Party in the '80s and the '90s, you would see at the top of that list trial lawyers. So it became this giant pitched battle, because it wasn't just necessarily about the kind of verdicts and the ease with which someone might get a verdict for a plaintiff, but it was also about the back end, which was the financing of the entire Democratic Party. Karl saw it as an adversary proposition in that particular way, and he also saw, through these Supreme Court candidates, that this was the wave to ride. And he rode it.

Now, the Supreme Court candidates in the state of Texas or almost anywhere else are "down ballot," as they say in the business. We're not talking about the governorship, for example. We're talking about something that is important to a certain group of people: business interests, trial lawyers, a handful of other people. … How does he figure out that this is the vulnerable spot? Is that Rove's genius at work or what?

I think it's Rove genius at work. I think he understands the significance of the issue before most people do. Most people do not understand that it's going to be this giant, pitched battle, which it becomes in the '90s -- I mean, a real pitched battle. It's a battle for the soul of Texas politics because it's a battle for the money, the lifeline money of Democrats, which is now drying up. …

Texas political consultant

How does tort reform become an issue in a state like this? And how important was it?

Well, what happened in tort reform is that Republicans were still thwarted in winning statewide office in many ways. And there was not a breakthrough moment until 60 Minutes came to the state in '89 and did an expose, is justice for sale on the Texas Supreme Court? They had done some filming at a retreat where judges were there, and there were big trial lawyers, and it was just too friendly for words. You looked at the pictures and you think, "This really doesn't measure up."

And many of the decisions coming out of the court were angering -- and that's putting it mildly -- business interests in the state. Suddenly, you had this TV profile about the Supreme Court.

Bill Clements had won election to the governorship after being thwarted in '82, and the chief justice retired. So he appointed a fellow named Tom Phillips to become chief justice. Tom is as straight as the day is long -- nicest guy you'll ever want to meet. He had a great issue, and he had Karl Rove as his consultant and they took [on] the court. They beat the Democrats, and then the Democrats began seeing that this is going to be a hard place to live successfully.

The other members of the court left. Other appointments were made. And suddenly the court was beginning to switch to Republican. And this is down ballot, which is not normally how you win statewide races. You win at the top rather than the bottom. But because the court had tort reform and Karl, it was a great environment to elect Republicans. You could raise a huge amount of money. You had a great gut emotional issue, and you were in business.

What makes it a great gut emotional issue?

If you have tort reform, and you have a news profile that basically slams your opposition -- in this case the trial bar; it makes them look like total sellouts, buying justice, buying the result on the court -- that is something that people can feel. It's a visceral reaction. It's dishonest. And then you got the 60 Minutes label on this, and all of a sudden you've got money, you got a good candidate, you got a visceral issue. When people see it, they get emotionally tight about it.

What's your assessment of the effect, in terms of Texas politics, of those victories?

Well, I think that what happened is the trial bar became the bogeyman in state politics. Anybody who took money from trial lawyers became part of tort reform [opposition]. And so in legislative races and other races, any time the Democratic Party and the Democratic candidates took an enormous amount of money from the trial bar, then you could say, "They're in the back pocket of the trial bar." It gave you an issue going forward, and you could paint your opponent as being against tort reform and in the pocket of the trial bar. That worked as a miracle drug for politics.

In other words, if you just got some money from the trial lawyers --

Your opponent had to defend taking that money. And you know, the environment was such that defense was never credible. The more you talk about it, the deeper the hole. …

Part of the story of the Supreme Court and tort reform was that the system was awash in all kinds of funny money. … And Phillips made this promise or pledge…

He did a self-limitation on contributions. In Texas you can give as much money as you choose to in state races, and Tom Phillips was the first candidate, I believe, who sort of self-limited what he would receive. At the end of the day it didn't really affect the amount of money he raised, because he raised millions and millions of dollars. He just raised it in slightly smaller amounts than the big chunks that you see otherwise.

How smart an idea was that, at the time?

Well, it was a perfect idea for coming out of what you had seen that you're working against the trial bar, which had given enormous-sized checks. So it made him look like he was trying to clean up the system and look straight and narrow. And that was exactly the perception that people had of him. And that's exactly the way he is, really. …

Lobbyist, Texas Medical Association

…How does [Karl Rove] attach himself to this issue, or the issue attach itself to him?

He knew intuitively, as most of us would have, that you had to have, as Mark Twain says, "a devil for the crusade." And if this was the crusade in the context of a judicial race, of which no one really cares about, you had to demonize somebody and in this case it was central casting. [The Supreme Court justices] were doing it to themselves. They were writing opinions that were offensive on their face. And essentially one particular opinion stated, "I don't care what this court previously said. I don't care what the legislature said. In fact, I was in this legislature when this law was passed. It was a political compromise. I've been elected to the court, and therefore I have a mandate to change these laws because they just aren't right." And there was a level of hubris, and we had a side that allowed us to exploit that. And it just so happened, because that was that era when the trial lawyers were a very convenient device for us to use to begin to educate voters in terms of a philosophical shift.

And Karl's particular skill position, his expertise?

Communication. He has a gift for messaging, among other things, as history has shown us. But a great sense of campaigning, knowing where the votes were, knowing what messages worked with which voters. … Karl retailed it and convinced a very cynical lobby to impose self limits … on what [amount of money] they would accept, again distinguishing himself. It was a ingenious approach.

Of course the chief justice [Tom Phillips] was a very, very bright man -- but so was Karl. And [Phillips] sat us in a room and he said, "I know you all want to send me more money. I will not accept more than this," what we thought were fairly minimal amounts, knowing the other side was going to outspend us. And Rove said, "And that's the point. Their strength becomes their weakness." And I was nodding my head and thinking, "That's very smart and bold and very risky, but also arguably by far the best strategy to take if you want to take the risk." …

So what tort reform really is, is a catch phrase, an organizing principle. It's like "Right to Work…"

Yeah, it's an organizing principle to bring together swing voters and, more importantly, to consolidate business [and] professional communities together. And frankly … tort reform has a kinder, gentler face. … It's a way of softening the blunt instrument that tort reform is when you're asking to limit damages or to allow to counter sue or limit standards for expert witnesses and all the things that are the esoterica of what, essentially, is saying, "Plaintiff, you had this right, but we're taking it away because we think you've abused it." And you do it by putting a lab coat on and arguing about access to care and the cost of medical care, not whether or not Dow Chemical is going to pay this or this and punitive damages on a suit where they might or might not be guilty. …

Was tort reform a big issue in [the 1994 Texas governor's race]?

It was. Yeah, it was.

And that was Karl driving that in or that was Bush?

I think it would be indistinguishable. I mean, it was a mantra-like issue for their natural core constituencies, including doctors. And it was also something that they could run right at Ann [Richards] with, because she had tons of trial lawyer support. It was a wedge issue, but it would have been imprudent not to use it. …

How important was the success of tort reform in that first term for Bush, for Bush's re-election? …

It established his pro-business credentials in a real simple and obvious way. It was not in and of itself the one thing, but it was delivering on a promise. It was certainly consolidated business and professional support for him in ways it would make him virtually unassailable from a Democrat ever again, which was something still to consider in those days in Texas. …

Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court (1988-2004)

… So the plan for your campaign, what was the bottom line? One of the decisions early on was that you would only accept certain amount of donations. What did you guys sit down and decide and why?

One of the things I liked about working with Karl is, although he was not a lawyer, he instantly perceived why a race for judge needed to be entirely different than a race for any other political office. And why it would be bad for the state -- and fatal politically -- for a judicial candidate, to be taking a position on substantive policy issues that were currently being debated around the state; why judicial candidates had to be seen as, and in fact be completely in adherence with both the spirit and the law of all the ethical codes and the ethical norms that surrounded being a judge.

I think he felt the tension between judges standing for election and judges being judges in a way that most political consultants simply had no patience with. Their view was -- many of them at any rate -- go out and try to jump on some of the bandwagons of momentary public interest, whether that was English-only in the schools, or abortion, or guns, and be seen as a popular advocate for something and win a lot of votes. And the next time an election comes up, if there were other hot issues, by then you could get in front of those. Karl completely rejected that and was instrumental in seeing that the Republican Party rejected that. …

I made it clear that I was soliciting people to vote for me, not because I was a Republican, but because of the job I would do as a judge. Karl was quite good at crafting that message, and persuading other people to accept that message. I'd never run a contested race before for any office. And I was seen, I think quite rightly, as a neophyte in terms of actual experience. …

The "Clean Slate '88" vote -- how important was that? And how did that come about? Why did that group take on the important role that they did?

1988 was a very unusual year because ordinarily there were three justices on the ballot each year, on a nine-justice court, but, because of resignations, there were six races for the Supreme Court on the ballot in 1988. So it was absolutely a chance to shape the whole Texas Supreme Court. …

And so with an opportunity for six of the nine seats to be decided in one election, a lot of groups that might otherwise have just sat aside and watched … decided to get involved. And there was a coalition built -- which I'm really not aware of the details, because it was conducted separate from the campaign -- that decided to back a bipartisan slate. That was seen to be very important at the time, not only because they genuinely felt that some Republicans and some Democrats were going to be better justices, but also because the state was not a Republican state. … The heritage of the Civil War and FDR, made the Democratic Party the dominant party at the courthouse level in Texas by a huge margin, perhaps 10 to 1 [among] all elected officials in the state.

This "Clean Slate" effort tried to break through that. We tried to go out into areas of the state that had never voted for a Republican before, except perhaps for Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, maybe Sen. Tower, Sen. Gramm. [We] tried to go out and convince those people that it was safe to vote Republican way further down the ballot, at least in some of the races; that you couldn't look at these judge races on a partisan basis. You had to look at the individuals. The judges weren't going to behave in a party fashion. There wasn't going to be a party platform for the cases they heard.

So what was Karl Rove's involvement with that kind of an organization, and also in understanding that the vote had to be pushed out into the rural areas?

… Karl had some excellent ideas of how to take an abstract plan -- let's make a judicial race interesting to 2 million voters -- and put that into practice in a way that people will decide it was important enough to study who all these candidates were in these court races, and cast a vote not based on which party had felt which way about the Civil War, but based on right now, what was important to the people of the state of Texas.

So in 1988, [six] out of nine Supreme Court judges were replaced. … Did that sort of set the stage for a lot of other Republicans, and Republican donors to realize that this was a doable thing?

I'm sure the fact that [so many Republicans candidates won] the Supreme Court was important in building the Republican Party. For whatever reason the Republicans left very few races unopposed after that on the statewide ballot. I think [there were only] maybe five or six judicial races where there was a Democratic incumbent for the rest of the decade. At most five or six did not have an opponent. And, of course, by the end of the 1990s, Republicans were running unopposed, at least in judicial races. …

The bigger issue of tort reform, what was Karl Rove's point of view on the issue and in the support that it garnered?

Well, I think there was a widespread feeling in Texas at the time among the average citizen, as well as among other people, that the trial lawyers were too powerful within the legislature. The plaintiff's personal injury lawyers, as a small group, had wielded an inordinate amount of power in the legislature. And Texas's very lax venue laws -- those are laws that say where you can [hold a] trial -- allowed a disproportionate number of cases to be tried in areas of the state that had no real connection with the dispute, but were areas where juries were known to be liable to give a very large award if their sympathies could be properly invoked.

And that reputation was very damaging to the state of Texas in terms of discouraging businesses to locate in Texas, or expand, or discouraging professionals like doctors to locate their practice uniformly across the state rather than just in particular areas. And [many thought] it would be a good thing for Texas if the legislature would overhaul some of the tort laws, and if the judges would have somewhat more respect for the common-law precedence that had obtained in Texas for a long time, and not be quite so "activist," was the popular term in overruling those precedents. And I think Karl felt that. …

Were you surprised that Karl sort of rode this issue and pushed it and that it still is such a popular issue today, an important issue?

Well, Gov. Bush ran in 1994 against Gov. Richards on four planks, and tort reform was one of those planks, and he got what he wanted from the legislature on all four of those planks. And since then, some citizen groups have formed in Texas that have been remarkably successful in persuading legislators to adopt their suggested changes in tort law. And they've done it without going through the normal, capitol lobbyist crowd.

I think Karl has seen that, and it has been a salient issue in Texas. And so I'm not surprised that he's interested in that issue, but I don't think you can draw a direct line from Supreme Court races in 1988 to the proposals that President Bush is making before Congress now. …

</td><td>

</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4">

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

</div>

</div>

</div>