Watchdog Blog

Heritage Foundation Opposes Consumer Information, Well-Working Markets

This piece from Heritage is really rich -- it argues against Senate legislation that would require the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to host a public database of consumer complaints.

[Background: Product safety legislation has passed both the House and Senate and is being negotiated in an informal conference. The House provision on the database would require CPSC only to create a plan for the database, then report back to Congress. We and other consumer groups support the Senate bill over the House bill because CPSC should have the authority -- even the requirement -- to create the database as soon as possible, not just develop a plan to create it and then await further instruction. Making this information available to the public would help consumers protect themselves when the CPSC fails to act -- and the agency is notoriously slow to act, whether by informing the public about hazards or issuing new safety rules. With a public database, consumers could do their own research on products to see whether problems exist.]

There are several serious flaws in Heritage's argument, starting with its surprising conclusion. The piece criticizes the Senate's database provision by arguing that the CPSC should not host a database at all, but then it concludes by promoting the House provision, which would require the CPSC to "craft a detailed implementation plan" for a database -- presumably so the agency can implement it. If Heritage really believed its argument, we could expect it to oppose the database all together, not to support the crafting of an implementation plan.

Where Customers are Never Right

Over at Creditcards.com -- a website that helps people pick (you guessed it) credit cards -- there is an article warning consumers about binding mandatory arbitration.  They highlight the dangers of forced arbitration and its differences from the civil justice system. 

One of the most alarming is that unlike court judges, arbitrators do not have to obey the rule of law.  They can ignore key evidence and flout the law because their decisions are usually secret (unless both parties agree to make them public) and are rarely appealable to a real court.  It’s no surprise then that Public Citizen’s report, The Arbitration Trap, uncovered that consumers lose 94 percent of the time in arbitrations in California.

Want to avoid forced arbitration?  Your only choices are to get an AARP card (if you happen to be a senior citizen) or join one of the credit unions that doesn't require it. 

If you get trapped in arbitration, read their tips to help keep things fair.

Nursing Home Arbitration

The Wall Street Journal recently published ($) an excellent front-page article describing one of the more egregious incarnations of binding mandatory arbitration – nursing home admission agreements. The money quote:

Nursing homes' average costs to settle cases have begun dropping, according to an industry study, even as claims of poor treatment are on the rise. The industry notes arbitration is slicing the number of patients winning big punitive judgments, the added penalties for severe negligence that can pump up the size of jury awards. Meanwhile consumer advocates, plaintiffs’ lawyers and even some arbitrators are decrying the practice.

The article goes on to describe the case of one Mary Hight, whose nursing home wouldn’t call an ambulance despite her being dehydrated and ill for days. Her daughter, Janice Cowart, resorted to pushing her uphill to a nearby hospital, where she died the next day. Even though the “arbitrator found the home was negligent both in allowing Ms. Hight to become dehydrated and failing to get her to an emergency room,” he only awarded $90,000. After legal fees from the arbitration, “We didn’t get one cent,” said John Estep, Janice Cowart’s brother.

Manufacturers Lose Bid to Evade New Lobbying Law

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) lost round one of their attempt to overturn the part of last year's landmark lobbying reform law which requires it to reveal the businesses funding the goliath lobbying organization.  Public Citizen, the Campaign Legal Center, and Democracy 21 filed an amicus brief [pdf] explaining how the disclosure requirement is constitutional, and should be kept intact.  U.S. District Judge Kollar-Kotelly agreed with us.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly dismissed NAM’s constitutional challenge, stating in her opinion:

The Court has conducted a searching review of the NAM’s opening brief, the Opposition filed by Defendant Taylor and the Opposition filed by the Legislative Defendants, the two amici briefs filed in this case by Citizens for Reform and Ethics in Washington (''CREW'') and Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and Public Citizen (jointly the ''CLC Amici''), and the NAM’s Reply brief, as well as the relevant statutes and case law.

Double Standards and Fair Elections

From Joe Newman over at Citizenvox.org:

There’s an interesting breakdown on the FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) site of how the herd mentality of the media seems to have a double standard when it comes to the presidential candidates and their views on public financing of the general election. While Public Citizen is non-partisan, we do feel strongly about public financing of elections as one of the best ways to reduce the influence of special interests in politics. Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) have introduced the bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act, which would create a voluntary system to publicly fund congressional elections. You can help this effort by signing on to be a “citizen co-sponor” of this legislation.

Who's got more money?

Money, money, money.  It seems that's all we hear in the news about the upcoming election.  It should be about ideas and leadership, not dollars.  Fortunately, there's a solution: public funding of elections.

Now is a vital time to act. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) will soon introduce a House version of the bill Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced in the Senate: the Fair Elections Now Act.  Under Fair Elections, candidates would no longer need to worry about chasing money from wealthy special interests.  They can focus on the voters and the critical challenges facing our nation today. 

It is important that we get many representatives to sign on to support this reform.

During Fair Elections Action Week, April 14-18, 2008, let's call on Congress to end the corrupting influence of money in politics. Actions and events will take place all across the country and you can be a part of the movement.

Will the Pro-Civil Justice Candidates Please Stand Up?

Public Citizen is proud to join the Drum Major Institute and its coalition of organizations to support the “Pro Civil Justice Presidential Platform.”  Our goal is to get the attention of the presidential candidates and ask them to support our civil justice platform:

•Provide counsel for people who cannot afford it any important case;
•Ban forced arbitration in consumer contracts;
•Stop federal preemption of state consumer protection laws;
•Reduce secret settlements that keep health and safety information from the public;
•Ensure injured patients’ right to justice; and
•Effectively regulate the insurance industry to curb unfair practices.

These issues have been conspicuously absent from the candidates’ stump speeches.  We are not sure why, but we are going to find out.

Time for Devil in the Details to Go Digital

These days almost everything can be done electronically: paying bills, buying music, watching movies . . . the IRS even allows tax returns to be submitted online.

But not in the Senate. There, they prefer to waste taxpayer dollars on paper and keep voters in the dark about campaign dollars.

The current system for senators to submit campaign finance reports to the Federal Election Commission is a maze of back-and-forth between agencies that requires printing and re-typing the same information repeatedly.  The result is an annual $250,000.00 bill to taxpayers and the delayed release of information to the public.

WSJ's Recent Run on Forced Arbitration

by David Arkush and Taylor Lincoln

Wall Street Journal readers have heard a lot about binding mandatory arbitration recently. On Saturday, the newspaper’s editorial board used the Chamber of Commerce's biased survey on arbitration as justification for a fact-twisting polemic against the civil justice system. Today, the paper reported on a lawsuit against the National Arbitration Forum by the city of San Francisco, and readers weighed in with views on arbitration far more reasonable than those of the editors.

The Journal's editorial touted a recent Chamber survey claiming that 82% of voters would prefer to resolve a dispute with a company in arbitration in contrast to only 15% in litigation. Of course, survey participants were not informed that if a company forces you into arbitration, the company picks who resolves the dispute (what would Memphis think if Kansas got to pick the referees for tonight’s NCAA championship game?). Participants also weren’t told that these biased decisions are binding and almost always final -- meaning no appeals even if the decisions contain “silly factfinding” or are just plain “wacky.” (The are quotes from the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court!) Needless to say, the Journal’s opinion writers didn’t mention these flaws in the survey.

Bundlers in Limbo

Yesterday, Roll Call ($) pointed out that a hard-won ethics reform is languishing because the Federal Election Commission (FEC) remains without a quorum.  The political wrangling over the Commission – and downright stubbornness of the Republicans in their insistence on the appointment of Hans von Spakovsky has left candidates and lobbyists in limbo.

Public Citizen worked to pass the landmark lobbying and ethics reform bill last year in the wake of continual congressional scandals.  One of the benefits of this new law is that it requires federal candidates – running for Congress or the presidency – to disclose if lobbyists are “bundling” campaign contributions of their behalf.  The FEC is supposed to implement and enforce this new law, and they are out-of-commission (so to speak).

Roll Call quoted Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division:

The delay in implementing the rule is depriving the public of important information. It’s best the public knows as much as it can.  We’d rather have disclosure of all the bundlers, but lobbyists are the best place to start. By definition, they’re in business to ask the government for favors, so their contributions should be looked at the most skeptically.