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.
Continue reading "Nursing Home Arbitration" »
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.
Continue reading "Manufacturers Lose Bid to Evade New Lobbying Law" »
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.
Continue reading "Who's got more money?" »
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.
Continue reading "Will the Pro-Civil Justice Candidates Please Stand Up?" »
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 $250,000.00 bill to taxpayers and the delayed release of information to the public.
Continue reading "Time for Devil in the Details to Go Digital" »
by David Arkush and Taylor Lincoln
Wall
Street Journal readers have heard a lot about binding
mandatory arbitration recently. On Saturday, the newspaper’s editorial board used the Chamber of Commerce's biased survey on
arbitration as justification for a fact-twisting polemic against the
civil justice system. Today, the paper reported on a lawsuit against the National Arbitration Forum by the city of San Francisco, and readers weighed in with views on arbitration far more reasonable than those of the editors.
The Journal's editorial touted a recent
Chamber survey claiming that 82% of voters would prefer to resolve a
dispute with a company in arbitration in contrast to only 15% in
litigation. Of course, survey participants were not informed that if a company
forces you into arbitration, the company picks who resolves the dispute (what
would Memphis think if Kansas got to pick the referees for tonight’s NCAA
championship game?). Participants also
weren’t told that these biased decisions are binding and almost always final --
meaning no appeals even if the decisions contain “silly factfinding” or are just plain “wacky.” (The are quotes
from the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court!) Needless to say, the
Journal’s opinion writers didn’t mention these flaws in the survey.
Continue reading "WSJ's Recent Run on Forced Arbitration" »
Yesterday, Roll Call ($) 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.
Continue reading "Bundlers in Limbo" »
The U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) yesterday launched a campaign to scuttle important consumer legislation pending in Congress. The attack is aimed at the Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 1782/H.R. 3010) which is designed to protect consumers, employees and others from having binding arbitration imposed as the only means by which their disputes may be resolved. For those of you who don’t know, the current problem with arbitration is its growing use by business to provide an edge in resolving disputes with their customers – and it’s appearing everywhere. If you have a cell phone, credit card, bank account, auto loan, brokerage account, or a number of other goods services, chances are you’ve signed away your right to sue if things go wrong, without even knowing it!
This recent attack by the Chamber is in response to Public Citizen’s detailed report issued last fall which found that arbitrators employed by the National Arbitration Forum ruled against consumers in 94.7 percent of the 19,000 cases involving credit card holders.
Continue reading "U. S. Chamber of Commerce Attacks Arbitration Fairness Act, Surprised?" »