Trial Lawyers Fund Edwards ...Relies on Group That Could Be Campaign Liability

Washington Post ^ | 9/3/02 | Jim VandeHei

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Nonetheless, if opponents target the size of Edwards's court awards, aides say, he will try to steer the debate to the benefits derived by his injured clients. "He's proud of what he did for children and their families over the course of a couple of decades practicing law in North Carolina," says his spokesman Mike Briggs.

Regardless of the specifics of cases, Bush and his business allies believe Edwards's association with trial lawyers, who polls show are unpopular with voters, will be a liability.

They are gearing up for a massive campaign this fall to paint trial lawyers as the root of problems ranging from escalating medical costs to the growing number of small businesses going broke. Internal Chamber of Commerce documents show that several companies, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc., DaimlerChrysler AG, Home Depot Inc. and the American Council of Life Insurers, have anonymously given at least $1 million each in recent years to fund the Institute for Legal Reform to combat trial lawyers. This campaign will coincide with Bush's effort to clamp down on what he sees as frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits...

Steve Bing, a Hollywood producer and top Democratic donor, sent Edwards a $250,000 check. But nearly every other dollar donated to Edwards's soft-money account since early 2001 came from trial lawyers -- $1,859,000 to be precise, according to the Public Citizen analysis.

He gets a much higher percentage of his money from lawyers than do other potential Democratic candidates, who rely more heavily on unions, businesses and individuals.

In the past three months, nearly two dozen lawyers have sent him checks of $25,000 or more. Four lawyers have given him $100,000 each. They include Fred Baron of Dallas, who has handled asbestos cases, and John E. Williams of Houston. Another Houston lawyer, John M. O'Quinn, who has helped sue tobacco companies, gave Edwards $50,000... CLICK

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Don't think for a minute the Washington Post is attempting to educate our helpless minds. Edwards is being targeted for a reason, Clinton wants him out. This is part of the process.

[Congressman Billybob]

Edwards is at the top of a very scummy heap, namely trial lawyers. Of course he should have other trial lawyers hung around his neck like a covey of albatrosses. A man SHOULD be known by those to whom he sells out.

Edwards reminds me of this joke: Q. "What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?" A. "One is a bottom-dwelling scum sucker, and the other is a member of the carp family."

I don't think this prevaricating sleazoid in a suit will ever get anywhere near the White House without a visitor's pass. Still, the very idea that anyone takes him seriously as a presidential candidate, especially when a majority of his homestate people -- us Tarheels -- no longer even trust him as a Senator, says a lot about the people of the United States. And what it says is pathetic.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column: "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"

[white trash redneck]

Clinton wants him out. This is part of the process.

Don't you just love it when the RATs eat their own!

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

I'm curious, his state elected him, his party has aligned itself with the health reform he has actuated, the trial nits are contributing generously to the party, and the private medicine walls slowly crack (in fear of extreme litigation) providing a few more holes through which we can view social health care. Where has he gone wrong?

[Paladin2b]

I can't speculate as to what the Washington Post's motives are in this story, BUT I would caution conservatives who rightly want to drop-kick this chicken-fried shyster right out of the body politic that harping on his trial lawyer background isn't going to be the silver bullet we would hope. The NC GOP thought all it had to do to re-elect Faircloth was to continually repeat the mantra that Edwards was an ambulance chasing sleaze. He is certainly that, but they lost, because they didn't properly gauge the extent to which the "feminization" of American politics has taken hold, even in the Tar Heel State. I don't want the national party to make the same mistake. This guy just rates off the charts in soccer mom focus groups, and pointing out that he and his ilk cost us all hundreds of billions a year in added costs doesn't get any traction when the vast majority of voters now believe that "the corporations" are a bottomless source of wealth.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

The corporations are a bottomless source of wealth for who? What is the intended consequence inherent to these Leftists incessant attacks? When have you ever heard/read of the Leftists speak of American economic prosperity?