How Liberal Groups Use Campaign Finance Laws to Squelch Political Speech

New York Post ^ | April 26, 2005 | Ryan Sager

[JBW]

ANYONE still clinging to the notion that cam paign-finance reformers are interested in "clean government" solely for its own sake should take a look at Illinois — specifically a race for a state Supreme Court seat last year that turned into the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history.

The race was a money magnet — with more than $9 million spent by the time the dust cleared. Why? Because tort lawyers from all over the country go to Illinois' Madison County to file lawsuits against deep-pocketed corporations. If Democrat Gordon Maag won the Supreme Court race, the trial-lawyer gravy train would probably keep on rollin'. If Republican Lloyd Karmeier won (he did), he was expected to start hitting the breaks (he has).

***

"I think they would like to cut anybody out of the debate who disagrees with their agenda," says Edward Murnane, the president of the Illinois Civil Justice League.

To bolster his case, he points to the liberal foundation funding behind the Illinois Campaign Reform Coalition, an umbrella group in the state lobbying for sweeping restrictions on political speech. That funding is detailed in another report just released by his group.

It turns out that the eight groups under the umbrella (ICPR, the Sunshine Project, the Citizen Advocacy Center, Protestants for the Common Good, the Better Government Association, Common Cause Illinois, Illinois Public Interest Research Group and the League of Women Voters of Illinois) have received about $3 million in grants from George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Joyce Foundation since 1997.

[JBW]

The forces opposing litigation reform are especially wealthy and adept at using the law to prevent reform.

[JBW]

Unfortunately, the debate over litigation reform is a complex one. It's difficult to explain to non-lawyers how the procedural rules of litigation create incentives for weak cases and how the mere filing of a lawsuit imposes costs on the defendants and on society.

Muddling the debate through barely-veiled advocacy groups only harms the discourse and makes it more difficult for the voters to understand the issues.

For more: http://www.jonathanbwilson.com/2005.04.01_arch.html#1114516037236

[goldstategop]

Constitutionally Forcible Rape, whether on the federal or state levels, has never been about cleaning up money in politics. The true objective of the effort is to silence the conservative voice in politics.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[yoe]

The forces opposing litigation reform are especially wealthy and adept at using the law to prevent reform.

George Soros and Teresa Kerry who fund dozens of leftist, anti-American organizations.

[xzins]

the mere filing of a lawsuit imposes costs on the defendants and on society

I'm willing to live with the exceptions if they will require all who sue others to pay costs if their suit fails....and penalties if it fails miserably or is thrown out.

And that a false suit is an actionable offense.

[Edgerunner]

We can't depend on the media (most of it) to defend free speech. It is hopelessly bound to the leftist philosophy...

[JBW]

That argument is at the heart of my book: Out of Balance: Prescriptions for Reforming the American Litigation System. I develop an offer of judgment rule that allows parties defending claims to shift their attorneys' fees onto the parties asserting claims if they refuse a reasonable settlement offer.

[xzins]

Shouldn't there be some kind of grand jury to determine if a lawsuit should go forward; if it has any merit?

Is your book on amazon?

[JBW]

Thanks for asking. The book is in its final stage of proofreading and should be available for online sales in mid-late May through www.iuniverse.com. It will be available through amazon and barnes & noble a few weeks later. I'll have some kind of announcement when that happens.

Your idea of some kind of "pre-screening" device has been suggested by others. (A grand jury is a criminal procedure concept and wouldn't apply to civil suits, but one can imagine other kinds of pre-screening procedures). In particular some states have proposed reforms for med-mal cases based on pre-screening.

In my view, pre-screening will create more problems than it will solve. In the long run, the most efficient way to reduce the amount of civil litigation is to cap punitive damage awards (in the manner suggested by the Supreme Court in its recent State Farm case) and to allow for fee-shifting through a modified offer of judgment rule.

Thanks for your interest in the book!

[xzins]

I am interested. Ping me when it's out.

Also, so far as capping punitive damage awards, there would have to be some formula for determining both the level and/or extent of damage, the intent to damage and/or the level of negligence, the value of the object lost; and the means of the offender. (And probably a few things I've overlooked.)

If I run over your cat, then we have: (1) a dead cat is pretty extensive for the cat, but no so extensive for the living human; (2) Big difference if I targeted that cat, was ignorantly on my cell phone, or was distracted by traffic; (3) Cat's generally range from free to a couple hundred bucks, but sometimes they're loved; (4) and let's say I'm a middle class kind of guy so there's not much I can afford, and, therefore, a thousand bucks (a 50th of a middle class income) will teach me a big lesson. Put those all on a continuum and multiply and you come up with some kind of numerical cap.

Is that what you're recommending?

In terms of med-mal, I've always thought some kind of arbitration agreement prior to receiving medical care is a good way for docs to go.

[JBW]

I'll ping you when it's out. There should also be a press release and other media coverage.

Your questions about punitive damages are headed in the right direction. The Supreme Court recently decided, in case called State Farm, that punitive damages were an unconstitutional denial of due process if they exceeded certain boundaries.

Justice Kennedy, writing for a five justice majority, wrote that punitive damages, generally, should not be more than 1:1 when compare to compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are the measure of a plaintiff's actual economic loss that are recoverable through a lawsuit. (In a med-mal case, for example, the plaintiff's compensatory damages might include his medical expenses and his estimated loss of future earnings resulting from the medical error).

In some cases, Justice Kennedy continued, punitive damages could be as much as ten times compensatory damages, but only if the defendant had engaged in especially "reprehensible" conduct. In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy described certain kinds of reprehensible conduct to include repeatedly wrong acts, intentionally wrong acts, acts involving trickery or deceit, etc.

In my book, I propose for state legislatures to adopt laws that mirror this 1:1 versus 1:10 ratio in capping punitive damages. Currently, there are about 30+/- states that have some kind of limitation on punitive damages. Only a few have a cap that is based upon a ratio to compensatory damages.

I hope this explanation helps.