wlf

this is a tag 6/16

capt 616

wlf 2 accidentally erased 10 23?

bucking for evil 7/15

tag 6/16 cir ~rico gw

12 tags!

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Washington_Legal_Foundation

the State of Ohio, Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General,Office of the Attorney General for the State of Rhode Island, Marty J. Jackley, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Vermont, Vincent F. Frazier, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Virgin Islands, Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington, and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of West Virginia, were on the brief for amici curiae States.Noel J. Francisco argued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were Warren D. Postman, Philip J. Perry, Jonathan D. Hacker, Floyd Abrams, Joel Kurtzberg, and Patricia A. Barald. Bert W. Rein, John E. Barry, Robin S. Conrad, Kathryn Comerford Todd, and Sheldon Gilbert were on the brief for amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in support of appellees.

Daniel J. Popeo, Cory L. Andrews, and Richard A. Samp were on the brief for amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation. Robert Corn-Revere and Ronald G. London were on the brief for amici curiae Association

==

vioxx

pharma mkt blog john mack

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

WLF Watches FDA Watching Drug Ads

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), a conservative watchdog group funded by businesses (including drug companies), last week launched the "FDA/DDMAC Watch" program to "scrutinize" FDA advertising regulations. DDMAC is the FDA's Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications, which oversees drug ads.:{

DDMAC Watch's first actionchallenged an FDA warning letter regarding a TV ad for Eli Lilly& Co.'s adult ADD therapy, Strattera (see "}:Watchdog Group Blasts FDA").

According to the WLF, the FDA is acting “"outside its legal authority"” when its writes such letters, and shows "“disregard for the First Amendmentby alleging that materials are misleading with no evidence of how consumers understand them." ” (See the WLF Letter to DDMAC).

In short, the Washington Legal Foundation claims, the FDA "“invented" much of its power to police drug advertising. ("Watchdog Group Blasts FDA").

:{WLF is to the first amendment what the NRA is to the second amendment. That is, every argument by WLF begins and ends with the first amendment as it applies to a special interest group -- i.e., businesses like the pharmaceutical industry.:{

The House(s) That Troy Built}:}:

:{

What's really interesting, however, are the ties that bind WLF, FDA, and the Pharma industry.

One of the main ties is Daniel E. Troy, former chief counsel to the FDA who joined WLF's board of directors just 4 days before the DDMAC Watch letter.}: According to the WLF Web site, Troy was "the first appointee to the Food and Drug Administration made by President George W. Bush."

"Troy managed to restrict FDA's ability to use its statutes creatively, and this in turn deterred mid-level managers from advocating new approaches to emerging scientific issues, leaving the agency looking - and feeling - weak." (See "FDAers Think Troy Weakened Them, Worry About Masoudi").

Before his stint at the FDA, Troy repeatedly sued the FDA.He argued that the FDA had only limited ability to regulate drug companies. Troy filed those suits through --- you guessed it -- the WLF! He also did legal work for Pfizer. Oh well, just another case of "What goes around, comes around."

:{

What About Those Warning Letters?}:

The WLF criticism of the Strattera warning letter, which I will get to in a moment, comes at a time when the FDA is sharply increasing the number of warning letters sent to pharmaceutical companies.

The FDA issues two types of letters: untitled letters or Notices of Violation and warning letters. The warning letter goes to the CEO and essentially says "we think you have really screwed up and in a way that we think is important to the public health and we expect you to put out some kind of additional information to correct the misinformation you sent." (I quote here John Kamp, Executive Director, Coalition for Healthcare Communication. Kamp was speaking at a CME conference in Princeton, NJ.)

An untitled letter is sent to the head of marketing and says "we think you have a problem, let's sit down and work something out." This type of letter is much less serious and effective than a warning letter. In fact, I've heard it said that untitled letters are considered rites of passage by pharma product managers, who frame them and hang them on their office walls. That's what I've heard some people say.

:{:{According to the Philadelphia Inquirer ("Deluge of drug ads has FDA struggling to stop the hype"):}:

}:

In January 2002, the Office of the FDA Chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Troy, began reviewing the evidence behind all proposed enforcement letters with an eye toward scuttling any that might not hold up in court. Claude Allen, the deputy secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, the FDA's parent agency, ordered the change in policy.

:{Troy effectively hobbled the issuance of warning letters by the FDA.

}:

An October 2002 study by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said that, before Troy's reviews began, FDA notices went out within days after a problem ad was spotted.Under the new policy, clearing the letters took 13 to 78 days, the report said. "Some regulatory letters may not be issued until after the advertising campaign has run its course," the GAO found. (Phila Inquirer)

:{While the number of total enforcement letters sent by the FDA has hovered around 23-25 in the last three years, the number of warning letters increased dramatically in 2004 (before Troy left the FDA but during the VIOXX debacle). In that year the FDA issued 12 warning letters compared to 5 in 2003 and 1 in 2002. 2005 promises to be a record year -- already nine warning letters have been issued.

The FDA may be getting the impression that the drug industry is not listening. According to Kamp, "DDMAC is saying the same things over and over again [in warning letters], but the industry is just not getting it. FDA is turning up the heat. How much higher, might I add, does it have to get before we start paying attention?"

If the WLF represents the pharma industry -- and with Troy involved it's hard to dispute that it does -- then the industry is paying attention, but responding by criticizing the FDA. There has been some more positive response as well. Recent DTC policy changes by J&J and BMS come to mind (see "DTC Straight Talk" and "New DTC Principles Emerging").:{

So What's the Beef With the Strattera TV Ad?}:}:

:{

The FDA had asked Lilly on June 14 to pull its Strattera TV ad on the grounds that the flashy graphics made the warnings on side effects too difficult for consumers to comprehend (see warning letter and "Watchdog Group Blasts FDA").

WLF had this to say:

}:

:{"DDMAC cites no evidence demonstrating that consumers cannot process the information presented in the advertisement. In fact, theTV advertisement conveys its message regardingattention deficit disorder so many times that it is incomprehensible that consumers would miss it.The sole source of authority for DDMAC's allegations against Lilly is the individual judgment of the DDMAC reviewer who signed the letter."

}:

:{I don't recall seeing the ad myself, but the FDA presented promotional material, submitted by Lilly, which included screen shots from the ad. It looks distracting to me. I don't think you have to do a scientific study to tell whether or not an ad is effectively presenting labeling information. To suggest that "evidence" be produced is merely a ploy to delay the process so the ad can run it's course.

The problem is that the review by the FDA happens after the ad is already produced and running. It would be better, as proposed by BMS, that DTC ads be submitted to the FDA for approval BEFORE they run (see "New DTC Principles Emerging").

Guidance Needed

There is at least one point made by the WLF that I can agree with. It has to do witrh guidance from the FDA regarding TV DTC ads for Rx drugs:

}:

:{"DDMAC should start providing concrete guidance to industry to help them fulfill this objective and stop playing 'gotcha' with drug companies," said WLF Chief Counsel Richard Samp.

}:

Maybe Samp has a point. While the FDA has issued guidance regarding print DTC ads (see "Future of Drug Print Ads"), it hasn't done the same for TV DTC ads. Perhaps that will come sooner than Samp would like.

We honor former WLF Board members who have chosen to pursue public service:

The Honorable Susan G. Braden

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge

The Honorable M. Jane Brady

Judge, Superior Court of the State of Delaware

The Honorable Richard J. Leon

U.S. District Court Judge

The Honorable Bill Pryor

Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

==

Founder, Chairman and General Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation

Former Trustee, Captial Research Center

Former Nixon and Ford administration staffer, according to PR Watch http://www.prwatch.org/taxonomy/term/105?from=60 

Founded WLF in 1977after leaving his post as an attorney with the Department of Justice

J.D. Georgetown Law School

KEY DEEDS

24 January, 2007

Authored "The State of Our Energy is Dangerous," an editorial piece published in the Washington DC Examiner on January 24, 2007 asserting that "Environmentalists who claim that burning any fossil fuel emits carbon dioxide and contributes to global warming nevertheless oppose the one energy source that produces zero carbon dioxide - safe and reliable nuclear energy."

Source: The Examiner (Washington DC) 2007

29 January, 2007

Authored "Surrendering Energy Independence," a 1/29/07 paid advertorial in the New York Times which stated: "Yet environmentalists who claim that burning any fossil fuel contributes to global warming even oppose using the one dependable energy source that produces zero carbon dioxide - safe and reliable nuclear energy."

Source: Washington Legal Foundation 2007 (PDF)

DEEDS

:{24 July, 2006

Authored "Had Enough?," an editorial piece criticizing "decades of obstructionist lawsuits brought by environmental activists" and adding that "uncompromising elites still obsess about the habitats of plant and insect subspecies."

Source: WLF Website (2006)

9 July, 2001

Authored "Targeting American Prosperity," a 7/9/01}: paid advertorial in the New York Times arguing that "The world may be moving towards just such a conflict, as envious foreign competitors and international bureaucrats, allied with antibusiness activists, areattempting to handicap the U.S. economy under the guise of preventing "global warming." Their weapon of choice a deeply flawedinternational treaty imposing radical limits on energy use and production will turn American consumers and businesses into casualties of economic warfare." www.wlf.org/upload/7-9-01%20NYT.pdf

Source: New York Times 2001 (PDF)

ORGANIZATIONS

**Washington Legal Foundation**

Source: Washington Legal Foundation Website (2006)

SOURCES

Washington Legal Foundation Website (2006)http://www.wlf.org

WLF Website (2006)http://www.wlf.org/upload/072106IAF.pdf

The Examiner (Washington DC) 2007http://www.examiner.com/a-525494~Daniel_J__Popeo__The_state_of_our_energy_is_dangerous.html

Washington Legal Foundation 2007 (PDF)http://www.wlf.org/upload/1-29-072.pdf

New York Times 2001 (PDF)http://www.wlf.org/upload/7-9-01%20NYT.pdf

exxon secrets

==

Daniel J. Popeo, Chairman & General Counsel at Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), is the visionary who founded WLF in 1977. He served on the White House legal staffs of the Nixon and Ford administrations, worked in the Attorney General’s Office at the Department of Justice,and practiced as a federal trial attorney in the Honors Program of the Department of the Interior. He received his B.A. Cum Laude fromGeorgetown University and his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center.

---

Daniel Popeo, Founder of the Washington Legal Foundation, Dies at 61

Daniel Popeo, the founder of the Washington Legal Foundation and a well-known advocate for businesses and free markets, died on Feb. 21, the organization announced. He was 61.

The foundation posted a notice about Popeo’s death on its website, saying he will be remembered “as a visionary leader, a tireless advocate, a compassionate colleague and a wise and generous mentor.” There were no other details immediately available.

Popeo, who served on the White House legal staffs of the Nixon and Ford administrations, started the WLF, which is generally seen as conservative, in 1977. He attracted some prominent legal minds to tackle issues that impact the free enterprise system and individual rights. The group has been zealous in filing amicus briefs across the country in business-related litigation.

“Dan was a giant in that field,” said former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, the chairman of WLF’s Legal Policy Advisory Board. “The array of talent he could assemble on a given question was amazing.”

Thornburgh, of counsel at K&L Gates, said Popeo assembled discussion panels that had every top advocate who had argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.Popeo “spoke in no uncertain terms” when criticizing government policies in newspaper opinion pieces, but in private “he was a very self-effacing kind of guy, he was not a self promoter,” Thornburgh said.

And Popeo was persistent, persuasive and engaging. “I think he felt he had a good product to sell,” Thornburgh said. “He was a good guy.”

The WLF announcement said the organization will continue “its 34-year mission of defending free enterprise as the leading public interest law and policy center.”

Popeo worked at the Department of Justice, and practiced as a federal trial attorney in the honors program of the Department of the Interior, according to an author profile on Forbes.com.

==

WLF is to the first amendment what the NRA is to the second amendment. That is, every argument by WLF begins and ends with the first amendment as it applies to a special interest group -- i.e., businesses like the pharmaceutical industry.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

"Monkeying Around" WIth The WLF

While reading the editorial page of the New York Times yesterday, I came acrossthis ad 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 here 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 interview 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, this post 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 this link explains…

:{(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-bearingto 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.}:

As SourceWatch continues…

:{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.}:

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.

This link 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 here 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.

http://liberaldoomsayer.blogspot.com/2007/08/monkeying-around-with-wlf.html

Capital Legal Foundation

One of the many Scaife legal foundations. Later changed its name to the Washington Legal Foundation. Sued CBS on behalf of General William Westmoreland.

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) was established in 1977 to "fight activist lawyers, regulators, and intrusive government agencies at the federal and state levels, in the courts and regulatory agencies across the country" [1]. WLF is classified as a national, non-profit, tax-exempt public foundation under section501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Mission

The foundation states that it has "one goal" which is:

"to defend and promote the principles of freedom and justice." Since it was founded 25 years ago, WLF has developed into the nation's preeminent center for public interest law, advocating free-enterprise principles, responsible government, property rights, a strong national security and defense, and balanced civil and criminal justice system.

Income Statement (FYE 12/2007)

Total Revenue $5,315,75

WLF is a unique institution with three essential cornerstone programs:

• shaping public policy through aggressive litigation and advocacy
• publishing timely legal studies
• educating policy-makers and the public through extensive communications outreach

[...] With this unique approach, litigating precedent-setting issues in the courts and before government agencies, publishing and marketing timely and relevant legal studies, and ensuring maximum exposure for its work with policy-makers and the media, the Washington Legal Foundation is able to shape public policy and work with allies in government and our legal system to strengthen America's free enterprise system."^[1]

Funding

The foundation has received donations from the tobacco industry and has run quarter-page ads in the New York Times, opposing what it calls "junk science."

Media Transparency report that between 1985 and 2005 WLF have received 73 grants totalling $8,356,000^[2]

EIN: 52-1071570 Washington Legal Foundation (unadjusted for inflation) from a range of foundations including:

• **Rodney Fund**
• **F.M. Kirby Foundation**
• **Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation**
• **The Carthage Foundation**
• **John M. Olin Foundation**
• **Claude R. Lambe Foundation**
• **Sarah Scaife Foundation**

WLF and Tobacco

Internal tobacco industry documents also reveal that WLF sought and obtained funding from Philip Morris and the now defunct Tobacco Institute. From documents available to date the funding includes:

• Philip Morris
  • 1995: $250,000 [2]
  • 1996: $275,000 [3]
  • 1997: $275,000 [4]
  • 1998: $250,000 [5]
  • 1999: $200,000 (budgeted) [6]
• The Tobacco Institute
  • 1995: $35,000 [7]
  • 1996: $35,000 [8]
  • 1997: $35,000 [9]
  • 1998: $20,000 [10]

-

In 1994, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson (who preceded Mike Leavitt as head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the tobacco control functions of federal government) joined the policy advisory board of the Washington Legal Foundation. WLF, which receives funding from the Philip Morris tobacco company (PM), publicly defends the tobacco industry. In 1998, the WLF ran an inflammatory, pro-tobacco advertisement titled "In all Fairness: A Constitutional tragedy in the making" in several large papers including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the National Journal, the CongressDaily AM, and others. Easily recongizeable in the article are many of the tobacco industry's arguments (freedom of speech, the Bill of Rights, "slippery slope" arguments about enacting "prohibition" as well as emotion-laden phrases like "anti-tobacco zealots").[11]

In addition to running this type of ad, the WLF has also repeatedly sued government agencies that oversee public health functions, like the Food and Drug Administration and the Enivronmental Protection Agency, who they sued over workplace smoking policies.

An April 1994 activity report by Philip Morris employee Roy E. Marden states he was "Working with the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF)in the development of a strategy to counteract and attack the efforts of the antis [public health advocates]..."[12]

WLF was listed as a think tank housing "policy analysts sympathetic with our views" in a February 25, 1999 memo from BSMG Worldwide to Philip Morris describing strategies to "support a full court press to thwart the filing of a federal lawsuit against the tobacco industry in order to force the industry to settlement." The objective of the strategy was to "[Enlist] allies and other potential third parties to help provide a "echo chamber" of opinion in local, regional,and national media, consistent with our messages.[13]

Attacking IOLTA legal assistance

Interest On Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA) legislation is enacted in almost all US states and allows the interest on money held by lawyers on behalf of a third party to go to good causes. The system generated over $148 million dollars in 2002, the funds being used to assist poor people in obtaining legal representation.

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 persued 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 WLF Chairman Daniel 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.

Contact information

Washington Legal Foundation

2009 Massachusetts Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-588-0302

Email: info AT wlf.org

WebL http://www.wlf.org/**

Articles and Resources

Sources

1. ↑ "Resources: WLF Mission", accessed December 2007.
2. ↑ "Recipient Grants: Washington Legal Foundation", accessed December 2007.

Related SourceWatch Articles

External Articles

• Media Transparency, Washington Legal Foundation
• P.L.A. - A Journal of Politics, Law and Autism, "The Outrageous Washington Legal Foundation"

This article may include information from Tobacco Documents Online.

---

seems to get a lot of coverage on RW? blog: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/environment/

501(c)(3) nonprofit

Employer Identification Number: 52-1071570

The Washington Legal Foundation is a nonprofit legal organization. Founded in 1977, it advocates for free market principles, limited and accountable government, individual rights, business civil liberties, and legal ethics. It carries out its mission through publishing, litigation, and outreach programs.

The Washington Legal Foundation has received significant funding from the tobacco industry, as well as Bradley, Olin, and Scaife foundations. Former andcurrent board members include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Sen. George Allen (R-VA), Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MI), and Kenneth Starr.

**http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Washington_Legal_Foundation**

==

FREEDOM HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a North American Trading Co. and International Tobacco Partners, Ltd., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Eliot SPITZER, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York and Arthur J. Roth, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Taxation and Finance of the State of New York, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 04-4996-CV.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: February 1, 2005.

Decided: May 18, 2005.

Richard Samp is Chief Counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, a nonprofitpublic interest law firm located in Washington, D.C. WLF litigates in support of individual rights and the free-enterprise system and against excessive government regulation. Samp has been with WLF since 1989. He practices regularly before the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts, with a speciality inhealth care law. He regularly represents patients seeking to obtain health care without undue interference from the federal government and filed an amicus curiae brief in Peake v. Sanders in support of the Respondents, on behalf of a coalition of veterans groups.

Samp is a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School. Before joining WLF,he clerked for a unnamed] federal judge in Michigan and was a litigator at the Washington, D.C., law firm of Shaw Pittman.

Education

A.B., Harvard College

J.D., University of Michigan

Publications

Restraining **Park Doctrine** Prosecutions Against Corporate Officials Under the FDCA 

Engage Volume 13, Issue 3 October 2012 

February 1, 2013

Touching on the Merits When Deciding Class Certification Motions: Ohio's Experience 

Class Action Watch Volume 11, Issue 1 

May 30, 2012

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd - Post-Decision SCOTUScast 

SCOTUScast 07-20-11 featuring Richard A. Samp 

July 20, 2011

Graham County **Soil & Water Conservation District** v. United States ex rel. Wilson - Post-Decision SCOTUScast 

SCOTUScast 08-04-10 featuring Richard A. Samp 

August 4, 2010

SCOTUScast 3-13-09 featuring Richard Samp 

Peake v. Sanders 

March 13, 2009

Speech and Privacy Regulation in the World of Drugs and Healthcare 

October 1, 2002