Honoring John Edwards's fight
Charlie Burr
John Edwards won't be on the ballot, but Oregonians may still get a chance to honor his life's work by rejecting two anti-civil justice initiatives proposed for the November election. For the third time in less than a decade, Oregonians are again being asked to limit their own jury rights with Initiatives 51 and 53.*
The measures fit a growing pattern: big money campaigns to limit consumers' rights and access to justice.
Progressives should also note how our initiative system is once again being used to target key members of the Democratic coalition, much like Bill Sizemore's paycheck protection deception initiative designed to weaken unions. But it really doesn't matter if you're a progressive supporting Obama or a Republican supporting McCain, these measures violate basic principles of fairness and deserve bipartisan scorn.
Some background: In 2000, Oregonians rejected Ballot Measure 81, an effort that would have allowed companies to calculate the cost of doing business when manufacturing unsafe products. In 2004, a diverse coalition of health, consumer, labor, and senior advocates defeated an amendment to Oregon's Constitution that would have made it more difficult for grievously injured patients to have their day in court.
This year's attack on our jury system addresses a problem that doesn't really exist with an anti-consumer measure posing as a protection for Oregon consumers.
Initiative 51 is unfair.
Here's one of the most important things to know about the attorney fee measure: it affects consumers but not corporate wrongdoers. That's right. Initiative 51 would impose one-sided limits on the legal teams of everyday Oregonians while placing no limits on the armies of lawyers often enlisted for corporate defense. The agenda is clear--shift power from consumers to corporations seeking to avoid meaningful accountability.
Talk about taking away David's slingshot.
Initiative 51 is misleading.
Are you tired of initiatives that say one thing and do another? I know I am. And the attorney fees limit is this year's gold standard for hidden agenda politics and initiative abuse.
Tort reformers will frame the attorney fee initiative as a consumer protection measure. It's anything but. The real agenda is to make it more difficult for everyday consumers to have their day in court. Voters will have to decide whom to trust on consumer protection: consumer protection advocates like Public Citizen and the Public Interest Research Group or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a loose alliance of right-wing think tanks. Or maybe they should just ask the consumers and victims who actually pay attorney fees themselves.
Initiative 51 would hurt real people.
Four years ago, I managed the campaign against the medical malpractice initiative, Constitutional Amendment 35. In that capacity, I traveled the state and met a lot of great folks. I also had to the opportunity to work day in, day out with the people who mattered most in the debate: the victims of grievous medical injury.
One woman I met in Pendleton, Theresa Booth, was given a C-section by her doctors fully two months before her son Michael was actually due. The danger signs were everywhere, but the doctor proceeded anyway. As a result, Michael was born with profound birth defects: lungs that never fully formed, cerebral palsy, and injuries that will make for a lifetime of suffering. Theresa's case was really unbelievable.
Theresa and her family deserved their day in court. And without a big bank account, a contingency fee agreement between Theresa and her lawyer enabled her family to seek access to justice in the courts. If Theresa's case lacked merit, then her attorney would've received nothing.
Our contingency fee system provides the keys to the courtroom for thousands of Oregonians like Theresa. It discourages unjustified lawsuits by shifting financial risk to attorneys representing victims and consumers. And it helps level the playing field for working Oregonians going up against deeply powerful interests.
With John Edwards's departure, the Democratic primary lost a powerful advocate for justice and accountability this week. Progressives should work hard to reject these anti-civil justice measures so Oregonians don't lose a lot more this November.
------
*The Secretary of State will give Initiatives 51 and 53 new numbers when they qualify. Despite proponents' failure to follow initiative guidelines, this week's setback for tort reformers won't necessarily prevent either from appearing on the ballot if they comply with the Secretary of State.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
6:57 p.m.
Feb 2, '08
Thanks for the heads up.
Feb 2, '08
Well...the Chisholm court may try to accuse me of high crimes against progressives (if so, I was railroaded), but I have to say it. There's some damn good reasons John Edwards didn't get much traction in his presidential bid. One, he made his fortune as an ambulance chaser. He's the guy advertising on daytime TV. Mr. Contingency Plan. You "progressives" who think everybody is entitled to free health care get this guy who gets rich off law suits that cause all of our health care costs to skyrocket. There's a wide swath between "This doctor really messed me up through negligence" and "I got sick, he couldn't fix me so pay me millions." Edwards is and always was an ambulance chaser. He's a big phony, and if he ever did really give a shit about anything bigger than his own ego, he'd be retired now, devoting the majority of his time to his family, most importantly his terminally ill wife.
Feb 2, '08
I don't think the Chisholm court need bother accuse you of anything Brian, not when you do such a good job of hanging yourself.
9:36 p.m.
Feb 2, '08
Brian is an idiot troll who exemplifies exactly what Charlie says about lying bait & switch rhetorical techniques pushing these initiatives and many others. There are some genuine problems around the way medical malpractice and alleged malpractice are handled in this country, just as there is a huge problem of deaths caused by medical error (and a correspondingly larger one of harms short of death). But the rightwing proposals to deal with malpractice issues are phony & promote a different agenda.
It would be a good thing if Democrats took leadership in hammering out some real reforms that would protect more people before harm happens rather than compensate them afterwards, and create reasonable reforms to address the malpractice insurance cost crisis that were not primarily give-aways to the insurance industry at the expense of patients.
Meanwhile, the allegation that malpractice insurance and jury awards are the source of rising healthcare costs is laughable. It is a long way down the list, behind improper use of emergency facilities for primary care due to lack of universal insurance, increasing use of high cost technologies, opaque, fragmented, unequal and unfair billing practices by providers involving massive cost-shifting among payers, related enormous bureaucratic overhead costs among both providers and insurers, and almost exclusive use of fee-for-service in doctor compensation (or in compensation of HMOs that hire doctors on salary), to name a number of more important factors. Insofar as malpractice issues are a factor, it is not mainly because of improper compensation of victims of malpractice, but because it heightens the incentives and conflicts of interests faced by providers already created by the fee-for-service structure with respect to judgments about what tests and procedures to order and recommend.
And Charlie exactly right -- these measures are primarily as means to cut victims of malpractice off from the current means we provide for compensation (secondarily they are a political attack on lawyers). Any honest approach to this issue would first begin by creating entirely different structures for access to fair and adequate compensation, and only then look at changing the current system to address its problems.
Feb 2, '08
I am sick and tired of struggling to defeat hostile ballot measures. As all of us know, the initiative process originated as a progressive reform to circumvent special interests and their control of the legislature.
I doubt that the sponsors of these ballot measures seriously expect them to pass. I suspect that this is an devious (but clever) diversion to prevent trial lawyers and other groups sympathetic to injured people from promoting progressive causes.
10:46 p.m.
Feb 2, '08
Kevin Looper did a great job in going over many of these ballot measures at Rebooting Democracy and reasons why they might be on the ballot. I'll have to dig through the notes on my laptop and see if I can see if I jotted down why this one was up.
Feb 3, '08
"taking away David's slingshot"
That's a great way to explain 51.
Feb 3, '08
Brian is an ignorant douche bag.
Edwards made his money on "orphan" cases that no one else would take because of the financial risk involved with trying to beat large teams of $400-an-hour scumbag corporate lawyers, who also made millions, but they did trying to protect CEO's who produced and marketed products they KNEW were potentially harmful.
None of Edwards' cases can accurately be described as "I got sick, he couldn't fix me so pay me millions."
That's a ridiculously assinine lie.
Ironically, Edwards takes the most heat for his wealth. But of all the candidates who were running, he's one of the few who made his money BEFORE he got into public service.
Moreover, Brian seems to hate the risk/reward aspect of capitalism, and he wants to bog down serious and important national debate with lies and misinformation.
I can only wonder: Brian, why do you hate America so much?
Feb 3, '08
You "progressives" who think everybody is entitled to free health care...
Brian: I don't believe in kicking dogs that people are beating up. However, since I respect dogs but not trolls, let me pile on with a comment about your piece of nonsense quoted above.
No progressive I know of or have heard from is advocating "free" health care. They are talking about affordable health care and achieving this, in part, by cutting out the waste in the current health system and cutting back on the profits made by insurance companies. A health care system for all has to be paid for by one means or another - taxes, insurance policy premiums, or a combination of both. A system that covers all people will mean it is free for those who do not make enough to pay their share - such as those getting screwed by corporations by having to work for less than a living wage.
Now, before you try to respond with some sophomoric comment about socialized medicine, let me explain three points to you. (a) Two of the earliest programs for national health care were supported by two of Europe's most prominent conservatives - Otto von Bismarck of Prussia/Germany and Winston Churchill of Britain. Both recognized the importance of healthy people to make their military organizations strong and their economies vibrant. (b) Unlike American "conservatives" and trolls who think only of themselves Bismarck and Churchill gave at least equal thought to their countries. (c) In the World Health Organization Report on national (socialized) health care systems for 2000 all industrialized nations in Europe, Japan and elsewhere had better overall ratings that the United States which came in 37th, just ahead of embargoed Cuba at 38th.
It would do you a lot of good, Brian, to break out of your bubble and learn what it is like for some people without health care insurance and others who had good health insurance but were hit by a serious illness that eventually pushed them into bankruptcy. You might also give some thought to the possibility that the Grace of God, the gods, the luck of the draw or whatever might not shine on you and you will be in the position of some of these millions of people who came up short.
Feb 3, '08
Honor a rich litigation attorney by increasing litigation!! Welcome to America!
Actually, Charlie probably has a point on these intiatives. Like many intiatives, they might sound appealing, but leave a lot to be desired. Lawyers do help check corporate power, I suppose.
Still, I think there are way too many lawyers in America. I've heard several lawyers say that we should cut the # of lawyers by 1/3 and the law schools by 1/3. In OR, they agreed that Willamette should be the one to get the boot.
Feb 3, '08
Still, I think there are way too many lawyers in America. I've heard several lawyers say that we should cut the # of lawyers by 1/3 and the law schools by 1/3. In OR, they agreed that Willamette should be the one to get the boot.
It is a good bet many lawyers would like to see less of their counterparts around. Less competition, higher fees.
If you don't need a lawyer then every lawyer is unnecessary. If you do need one, then you may find yourself wishing for more of a choice.
For the record, I'm not a lawyer.
5:45 p.m.
Feb 3, '08
Everybody hates lawyers, until they need one. Brian, you give idiots a bad name.
Feb 3, '08
I must be dense.
I don't see anything in the wording of that measure that says or even implies that "only non-corporate lawyers are affected".
Can someone explain how this measure does what is being suggested?
Thanks.
Feb 4, '08
Hey,
Edwards has suspended his campaign not dropped out.
That means you can still vote for him. You don't have to change your vote to honor anyone. Write him in if OR dosen't put hom on the ballot.