Watchdog Blog

Amendment Goes Down the Hatch

by Kiren Gopal

In a resounding defeat of Senator Hatch’s medical liability amendment, the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee voted 13-10 yesterday against imposing an arbitrary cap on damages.  This is an important signal to the Finance Committee that restrictive limits on medical liability will not address our rising health care costs or incentivize a reduction in avoidable medical errors.  The amendment would have also imposed contingency fee limits, restrictive statutes of limitations, and raised the burden of proof.  Measures like these do nothing to combat the very real problem of medical malpractice.  “Between three and seven Americans die from medical errors for every one who receives a payment for any malpractice claim,” according to Public Citizen’s latest study.  Given these staggering statistics, limiting negligent provider accountability is not a sensible solution.   

Time to Put an End to the Paper Chase

Though presumably most senators (or their campaign staff) now use computers, they continue to file their campaign contribution forms on paper -- preventing us from learning quickly and easily how their campaign coffers are being filled and by whom.  The Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act (S. 482) would require Senate candidates to submit their campaign finance forms electronically, as House candidates already do. 

The bill could finally be up for a vote this week or next.  But, in spite of strong public support for the measure, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) has taken up the mantle from (recently embarrassed) Sen. Ensign (R-Nev.) to try and kill it by attaching an irrelevant and unconstitutional amendment.  Unbelievably, the Ensign/Roberts amendment would force nonprofit organizations to expose their donors when they file ethics complaints against senators.  We can't imagine which senators would vote for that one, but I suppose it could be interesting to find out. 

Please call your senators today and let them know the Roberts amendment is unconscionable and it's time to pass S. 482.  If you have another minute, you also may want to call Sen. Majority Leader Reid's office and ask that he bring this bill to the floor for a vote:  202-224-3542.

from Angela Canterbury and Glenn Simpson

Ignoring Patient Safety = $1 Trillion Waste

Former Bush administration Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill identified a simple but crucial element that should be front and center in the health care reform debate and legislation: improving patient safety, which would, in turn, reduce health care costs.

O’Neill rhetorically asked in this New York Times op-ed piece:

• Which of the reform proposals will eliminate the millions of infections acquired at hospitals every year?

• Which of the proposals will eliminate the annual toll of 300 million medication errors? 

• Which of the proposals will eliminate pneumonia caused by ventilators?

• Which of the proposals will eliminate falls that injure hospital patients?

• Which of the proposals will capture even a fraction of the roughly $1 trillion of annual “waste” that is associated with the kinds of process failures that these questions imply?

“So far,” O’Neill wrote, “The answer to each question is ‘none.’”

O’Neill calls it waste – that is, the unnecessary harms done to patients on a daily basis and, he estimates, a trillion dollars in annual costs to address those harms. He said that hospitals themselves can adopt simple processes, such as hand-washing and proper preparation of surgical sites, to cut down on costly injuries and deaths. He also suggested that members of Congress seek more information on the dire problem of hospital-acquired infections, provider errors and other similar “waste indictors.”  To sum up, he said: “(A)ny health care reform that does not address the pervasive waste and the associated burden of needless suffering for patients and staff alike will give us little to celebrate.”

Congress should heed O’Neill’s call. 

Misplaced Malpractice Reform

by Kiren Gopal

According to President Obama, health care reform should control costs, expand coverage, improve care, and guarantee choice.  As Congress works to find politically palatable solutions to achieve those goals and health care interests continue to lobby – to the tune of $1.4 million daily – some legislators instead choose to offer proposals to limit medical liability.

These proposals are based in part on the theory that frivolous malpractice claims are epidemic and represent a significant component of health care costs.  But according to the latest Public Citizen study of the National Practitioner Data Bank, nearly two-thirds of the individuals who were compensated in 2008 suffered an injury that resulted in “significant permanent injury, major permanent injury, quadriplegia, brain damage or the need for lifelong care, or death.” These claims can hardly be described as frivolous. Perhaps the most telling point from the NPDB study is that the medical malpractice liability system accounts for just 0.6 percent of national health care costs. Reducing accountability for medical malpractice is clearly an unsuitable focal point for reducing unnecessary costs. 

Sorry Works: Change We Can Believe In?

by Kiren Gopal

At a recent speech before the American Medical Association, President Obama expressed a concern for medical malpractice lawsuits and said that “we need to explore a range of ideas” to tackle the issue. However, the president hasn’t offered much in the way of clarification of his position on medical liability reform.  The only indication was a reported comment of a White House spokeswoman who “pointed to his support as a senator for a mediation program known as ‘Sorry Works.’”

In 2006, then-Senators Obama and Clinton introduced MEDiC (National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation).  They wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that the program would provide grant money to health care providers to “implement programs for disclosure and compensation.”  In practice, this means that health care providers would disclose medical errors to the patient, offer an apology, and then try to negotiate compensation.  Additionally, the data yielded from the program would be analyzed to determine best practices.  The potential benefits of such a program are manifold: improved quality of care, more effective doctor-patient communication, and lower administrative and legal costs.

Testifying on Behalf of More Accountability and Transparency

On May 14 at 10:00 AM, Congress Watch Advocacy Director Angela Canterbury testifies in support of the the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2009 before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. We believe that as our country faces challenges of historic proportions, one reform can save billions of taxpayer dollars and help fulfill the imperative for more transparency and accountability:  authentic whistleblower protections for all federal employees. Learn more about whistleblower protections, watch her testify live online and read her written testimony, then take action.

Arb Study Points Out System's Lack of Checks and Balances

Opponents of the Arbitration Fairness Act strained to see a glass half full in a new study on consumer arbitrations administered by the American Arbitration Association, but they didn’t realize that the tonic contained a poison pill.

The study – released Wednesday by the Searle Center, a conservative Northwestern University think tank – found that consumers received an award in 53 percent of the cases they initiated and received about 52 percent of the amount they sought in those cases. Businesses received an award in 84 percent of cases they brought and won 93 percent of what they ask for in those cases. This means that businesses got roughly 78 percent of what they sought compared to 28 percent for consumers.

A personal letter from Bunny Greenhouse

Below is an important letter from Bunnatine Greenhouse who spoke up regarding the approval of a highly improper muti-billion dollar no bid contract to Halliburton for the reconstruction of Iraq. In retaliation for her courage she was removed from her position as the highest-ranking civilian contracting official at the Army Corps of Engineers.

My name is Bunny Greenhouse. I am the former Procurement Executive and highest-ranking Army Corps of Engineers civilian procurement official.

Today I am asking you to contact your Senators and Representatives to demand, in the strongest possible terms, that employees who disclose fraud in federal contracting are fully and properly protected in the 800 billion dollar stimulus package that Congress is currently debating. Here's why.

Shortly before the Iraq War commenced, I blew the whistle on improper contracting concerning the award of a multi-billion dollar no-bid, cost plus contract to Halliburton/KBR for the reconstruction of Iraq.

I was concerned that improper contracting activity would cost the taxpayers billions – and it did. The contract should not have been awarded. From my inside prospective, it was clear that the “fix was in” – the contract was going to be awarded to Halliburton no matter what I said or did.

Those who should have protested the contract remained silent. And their silence is not surprising because, as federal employees, we have no meaningful whistleblower protection! We can be fired for reporting fraud. We can lose our careers simply for doing our job and trying to protect the taxpayer.
I know this is true. It happened to me. The top brass demanded that I drop my protests. I refused. The top brass – many of whom had longstanding relations with government contractors – retaliated. They removed me from the Senior Executive Service and from anything having to do with contract oversight. When I went to federal court to demand protection the judge dismissed my case because as a federal employee I had no protection.

The bottom line is that without access to independent courts, real judges and juries, whistleblowers don’t stand a chance, and fairness and transparency will not see the light day.

Only Congress can fix this. The House of Representatives has already acted decisively by adding H.R. 985 to the stimulus bill, by a unanimous voice vote (now called H.R. 1, Section IV). President Obama's presidential campaign is on record as supporting the same whistleblower protections now found in House version of the stimulus bill.

So, the buck stops with the Senate. I urge you to contact your Senators and let them know that whistleblower protection is a critical part of the stimulus package for protection of the public trust. I urge you to contact your Representatives and tell them to hold strong -- and refuse to cut whistleblower protections from the bill. Federal employees, like me, who risk their careers to protect taxpayer money need to be protected.

Please act now! Pass this letter to your friends! Pass this letter to your co-workers! Pass this letter to your family! Send a letter to your Senator Now!

Billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake and it is up to the Senate to do the right thing.

Very truly yours,

Bunnatine H. Greenhouse
Former Procurement Executive
Army Corps of Engineers

Post Editorial Misses Mark on Whistleblowers: Protections in Stimulus Bill Help Workers Hold Government Accountable

Today our whistleblower coalition responded to the Washington Post's outrageous editorial from February 2, 2009.

A Joint Statement from a Coalition of Public Interest Groups

Monday’s Washington Post editorial, “Wrong Way to Protect,” did a disservice to its readers and the taxpayers when it opposed provisions in the economic stimulus bill that are designed to empower federal whistleblowers.

The editorial argues that the reform should be pursued through ordinary legislative channels rather than included in the stimulus, stating “This is not the way it’s supposed to work.”  This is exactly how it is supposed to work: Federal whistleblower protection legislation has had the benefit of hearings, and has been vetted in both chambers for several years.  This is not an extraneous measure, as the editorial suggests.  In both chambers, the original stimulus bills included whistleblower protections for state and local employees.  Members of the House had the good sense to recognize that the massive stimulus package creates an urgent need for federal employees, who are the taxpayers’ first line of defense against waste and fraud, to be given the same protections afforded state and local employees.  

Public Citizen Applauds House Vote to Encourage Federal Workers to Watchdog Spending of Taxpayer Dollars

We applaud the House of Representatives for answering the call on Wednesday for more meaningful transparency and accountability in the federal spending bill. House lawmakers passed a critical, bipartisan whistleblower protection amendment offered by Reps. Todd Platts (R-Pa.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) that will strengthen and expand protections for federal workers and contractors who report waste, fraud and abuse. We strongly urge the Senate to include the same commonsense whistleblower protections in its stimulus spending legislation.

This is a true victory for taxpayers who will be well-served if the final stimulus bill empowers hard-working federal employees and contractors who are uniquely positioned to observe and report if funds are mishandled. Workplace retaliation for reporting wrongdoing is real and ruthless. That’s why we have long fought for these critical protections. 

Deadline tonight: Tell your reps to vote for accountability in government

President Obama has asked Congress for a federal spending bill to get the economy moving again. Billions of tax dollars are already being spent in the bailout and billions more are needed to begin to dig us out of this financial crisis. But before we agree to this massive spending bill, we must know that someone will be watching the store. We must ensure that federal employees can blow the whistle waste, fraud or abuse - without fear of retaliation or reprisals!

We now have a chance to protect whistleblowers and make sure there is real accountability in the economic stimulus package! But we have to act quickly!

Two champions of accountability, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Representative Todd Platts (R-PA), have offered an amendment to the stimulus bill that would restore and strengthen protections for federal workers who blow the whistle. This is the same bill that we have long supported and that passed the House with overwhelming support in 2007.

Congress is voting this evening on whether the economic stimulus should include protections for federal workers who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse.

We need you to call your representative now and ask for support for federal government employees! You can find your member of the House here, or simply call the Capitol switchboard (202) 224-3121and ask for your representative.

Please tell your member of Congress to support federal employee whistleblower rights and vote yes on the Platts/Van Hollen Amendment today!

We’ve been fighting for these whistleblower protections for a long time. Passing the stimulus bill passes with these protections in place would be an outstanding victory for all of us who have fought for government accountability over the years. Please call your member of Congress today!

Let us know your thoughts on how your call went! Email us at action@citizen.org.

Obama’s Swift Actions Will Hold Government Accountable

Today, Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook lauded President Obama for swift actions to hold the government accountable. The statement follows:

President Obama campaigned with the promise of change, a commitment to government openness and a pledge to uphold high ethical standards. On his first full day in office, the new president showed a willingness to turn rhetoric into action.

After eight years of government in the shadows and preferential treatment of corporate lobbyists under his predecessor, President Obama’s directives and executive orders on presidential records, the Freedom of Information Act, transparency and open government, and ethics are not only important in restoring public access to critical information and holding government accountable, but they serve to reaffirm the hope our nation has in his presidency. By issuing strict rules on the future lobbying activities of his administration, President Obama slowed the revolving door that has allowed so many high-ranking government officials to enrich themselves at the public’s expense. And by emphasizing the openness of government records, the orders help to ensure that abuses of power will not go unnoticed and uncorrected.

Update on Consumer and Civil Justice News

Happy holidays. With so many people on hiatus from last week until January 5, we thought a brief recap of some recent consumer and civil justice news might be useful:

• CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen responded to an absurd proposal from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to President-elect Obama: the way to get the country back on track economically is to exempt companies from legal liability. Cohen analogized this selfish and short-sighted appeal to "child who kills his parents and then begs for mercy because he is an orphan." I like to think of it as a drunk driver who gets pulled over and then suggests to the police that the best way to resolve the situation would be to give him his keys back and look the other way while he drives himself home. Cohen recognizes this shameless argument for what it is: nonsense.
• Following the Fed 's recent enactment of new credit card rules, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) called on lenders to comply with the reforms ASAP, rather than by the July 2010, date required by the rules. Other lawmakers have pledged to act quickly for more timely and comprehensive reforms. Last weekend, the New York Times editorialized that "promptly passing a credit card reform package" should be a priority for the next Congress.
• Class action lawsuits have been useful to consumers challenging baseless early termination fees (ETFs) in cellular telephone contracts. A recent story in the Times reported on efforts by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) to investigate rate setting for cell phone text messaging plans. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those rates appear to be as baseless as ETFs. In another similarity to ETFs, consumers have begun filing class actions over text messaging rates.
• New America Foundation's blog has been following an old but infuriating story about a shady student lending practice in which lenders, like Ohio-based Key Bank, partner with unlicensed and unaccredited trade schools, disburse student loan money to the schools, and then refuse to discharge students of their debts when the schools go out of business. There is an FTC rule designed to protect students in these situations. One way that Key Bank has been evading the rule and other charges of unfairness over its practices is by including Binding Mandatory Arbitration clauses in the promissory notes. Key Bank insists that these are old cases, and it has ceased student loan operations (for the time being), but Key also received $2.5 billion from U.S. taxpayers (via the U.S. Treasury) as part of the bailout package.

Meanwhile, we must wait until after the New Year for word on a potential economic stimulus bill. Until this week, all signs seemed to indicate that authority for judges to modify mortgages would be included as part of the package. Now that congressional Republicans have indicated a willingness to drag their feet, the question appears to be not only whether the provision will be included in the stimulus, but also when the stimulus will be enacted.  Stay tuned.

Happy new year to all!

Pollan for Secretary of Ag?

by Kendra Pierre-Louis

There’s a rumor circulating around the foodie and agricultural corners of the internet that President-Elect Obama might choose best selling author and New York Times contributing writer Michael Pollan as his new Secretary of Agriculture.

At first blush this seems to be a ludicrous idea.

After all, Michael Pollan’s own biography lists him first as a writer and secondly as a professor (he is the Knight Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley). His educational background, he received a B.A. from Bennington College, where he focused on literature, and an M.A. in English from Columbia University, only seems to add to the ridiculousness of the idea. Where is his agriculture experience? In fact, words such as “farmer”, “agriculturalist” or “agronomist” appear nowhere on his CV.

Mr. Pollan seems a foolhardy choice, until one examines the substance of his writing. From The Botany of Desire, to his most recent, In Defense of Food, Pollan shows a nuanced understanding of how our food systems should behave, namely to feed people in a manner that sustains life. Instead, our current food system lines the pockets of agribusiness while wreaking havoc on the environment and compounding our health and energy problems.

To even a casual observer our current system of agriculture does not make sense.

D.C. residents can die in combat but have no say in Congress

originally posted by Joe Newman on Citizen Vox

Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right, Left.

You can march off to battle,

But steer clear of the polls.

Fight for us, die for us

but don’t forget your role.

– from “The New Cadence” by Estilito Diaz

Unlike previous rallies in support of D.C. voting rights, the one today in front of the U.S. Capitol was different. There was a sense that the fight to give the District of Columbia a seat in Congress might be gaining momentum. As people all over the country are saying, it’s a new day.

It doesn’t hurt that the D.C. Voting Rights Act has supporters in high places. President-elect Barack Obama has indicated he’ll support the act, D.C.’s Delegate to the House of Representatives, Eleanor Holmes Norton, told the supporters gathered for the Veteran’s Day rally.

“He told me he will sign the bill,” Norton said. “It’s up to us to get him a bill to sign.”

The Other Bad News for Consumers: Forced Arbitration

Due to the extensive coverage of the recent economic meltdown and the presidential race, it's been easy to miss some other news very relevant to consumers and corporate accountability.  Over at Tortdeform, they have some excellent posts about issues covered by the New York Times. 

First, Kia Franklin relayed the news that a recent Department of Health and Human Services study cited 94% of nursing homes for violations of federal health and safety laws.  This underscores the need for legislation banning forced arbitration, which nursing homes use to immunize themselves from the accountability when they violate the law or hurt their residents through negligent treatment or abuse.  (Follow up on the Times story from Tortdeform here.  Read more about the nursing home arbitration bill here.)

Next, Justinian Lane recaps a study by two law professors about the reluctance of companies to use arbitration when dealing with one another.  The professors cited in the story have been following this issue for some time now, and their results have consistently shown the hypocrisy of corporations that tout arbitration as a fair, efficient, less costly method of dispute resolution between companies and consumers, or employers and employees, but not between one another.

Protecting the rights of government whistleblowers

originally posted by Alyssa Wolice at CitizenVox

It’s no secret that the government officials you elect to serve the public’s best interests often abuse their power and cost you your hard-earned dollars. So, when the average government employee witnesses the acts of corruption that continue to plague our political system, shouldn’t they have the freedom to speak up and protect the public’s rights without facing the risk of retaliation?

Protect the Elderly from Forced Arbitration

by David Arkush and Christine Hines

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee followed its counterpart in the House and approved an important arbitration bill to protect residents in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act, S. 2838. The legislation, which a House committee approved in July, will make it easier to hold these facilities accountable for negligent or reckless acts that harm their residents. It prevents nursing homes from forcing residents to agree to arbitration before a dispute arises, allowing residents to turn to the courts in the event their nursing homes cause them serious injuries or death. Without this protection, nursing homes can force residents to take disputes to private arbitrators chosen by the nursing home itself. Guess who wins cases there?

Obama’s Mistake on Public Financing (and how McCain is skirting the law, too)

Originally by Andy Wilson at TexasVox.org

Today’s New York Times reported that life is not all peaches and cream for the Obama campaign after they opted out of the presidential public financing system.  (See Article “Straining to Reach Goal, Obama Presses Donors“)

Pushing a fund-raiser later this month, a finance staff member sent a sharply worded note last week to Illinois members of its national finance committee, calling their recent efforts “extremely anemic.”

The signs of concern have become evident in recent weeks as early fund-raising totals have suggested that Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing may not necessarily afford him the commanding financing advantage over Senator John McCain that many had originally predicted.

But the campaign is struggling to meet ambitious fund-raising goals it set for the campaign and the party. It collected in June and July far less from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s donors than originally projected. Moreover, Mr. McCain, unlike Mr. Obama, will have the luxury of concentrating almost entirely on campaigning instead of raising money, as Mr. Obama must do.

It is not yet clear whether the Obama campaign will be able to ratchet up its fund-raising enough in the final two months of the campaign to make up the difference.

Public financing is a boon to any politician who accepts it, as it allows her or him to run free from the strings attached to big-dollar-donations and to focus the campaign’s time on where it should be spent: connecting with voters.  This is why when I explained Public Financing to Congressman Nick Lampson, currently running in the most competitive House race in the country, he was exuberant to think of a time when he would no longer have to dial for dollars. Considering the other two competitive House races in Texas, in CD 7 and 10, think of the race it would be if the campaigns were on equal footing moneywise and ideas, not dollars, affected the outcome of the race.

More Information Means Safety for Consumers

Anyone who has been following the progress of the consumer product safety reform legislation, H.R. 4040, closely knows that a proposed database housing consumer complaints has been one of the major points of contention during the legislative process.  (We have previously discussed the database here.)  While the conference committee negotiates the contours of the safety database, we have this story:

In 2002, engineers from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) privately warned nail gun makers that the nail gun industry’s efforts to reduce the rising number of injuries with its tools wouldn’t really work; this, according to recently disclosed federal documents.

For some reason, the CPSC engineers’ views, warnings, and requests for additional study of nail guns safety features, were not addressed or disclosed publicly to US consumers.  Meanwhile, thousands of workers and home consumers continued to buy or rent nail guns at giant hardware stores nationwide during the country’s most recent housing boom.  Because of this, those sent to hospitals—both workers and home consumers—with hand, foot, knee, and head injuries that were caused by air-powered nail guns climbed to 42,000 in 2005, up significantly from 12,982 in 2000, according to federal hospital injury data.

This is a perfect example of the necessity of a public repository of consumer safety complaints.  If the proposed database had existed at the time of these nail-gun injuries, the hospital injury data would have been entered in the database and available to the public.  Consumers could have seen the upward trend in nail gun-related injuries and known to avoid that particular product.  This is not a one-time story.  As one of our recent reports demonstrates, industry and the CPSC are failing drastically to warn consumers promptly about serious product hazards.

With a product safety database available on the Internet, consumers will not have to rely as much on the manufacturers or the CPSC to protect them.  They will be able to help themselves by doing their own research.  A free exchange of information will save government resources and make everyone safer.

Civil Justice Is Not About Special Interests

By Graham Steele & David Arkush

Far too often, the press covers civil justice issues purely as battles between special interests -- business versus "the trial lawyers" -- without much discussion on how the policies at issue would affect the public.  We weren't surprised when the Wall Street Journal presented our opposition to pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration as kowtowing to the trial lawyers.  The editorial board of the WSJ is unabashedly conservative and pro-business, and a battle between powerful, well-resourced special interests provides a compelling narrative.  We were happy to set them straight.  But this story line persists with too many of the civil justice issues that we work on here at Public Citizen -- and in too many publications from which we expect better.

If you read the CL&P blog over the weekend, you saw an example in a brief excerpt of a recent NY Times Magazine article about the "tort war" between the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America).  The article mentions two important pieces of legislation, the Arbitration Fairness Act and the Sunshine in Litigation Act, but discusses them in the frame of the "tort reform battle" rather than reporting on their value to the American public generally:

At the federal level, trial lawyers are pushing for a law that would make it easier for consumers to sue instead of having to submit to binding arbitration, as many contracts — for credit cards, for example — now require. The trial lawyers are also trying to make it harder for defendants to keep legal proceedings secret.

These proposed laws might benefit trial lawyers, but much more important is that they will benefit the public. That's why we're working to pass them:

Whistleblowers: Best Defense Against Corruption

By Angela Canterbury. Originally published on The Hill's Congress Blog.

For years now, corrupt interests have co-opted our government for political gain and private profiteering. Our best line of defense when the law is ignored and regulation fails are the informed insiders who believe so strongly in the importance of accountability and saving taxpayer dollars - and often saving lives - that they are willing to risk their careers and safety to expose government wrongdoing.

It is a national disgrace that speaking out about government fraud, misconduct, waste and corruption is still such a risky endeavor. More often than not, whistleblowers suffer from some form of serious retaliation, including threats, demotion or outright firing for exposing wrongful conduct. Conscientious civil servants deserve strong statutory protections, not risk and intimidation. Yet many end up sacrificing because the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act has been interpreted and enforced in a way that weakens the protections Congress intended - protections that government whistleblowers desperately need.

It’s time to end the discrimination and retaliation - as well as the unmistakable and deeply chilling message it sends to all employees that they should keep quiet, or else. Congress should complete the marathon legislative effort to restore a credible Whistleblower Protection Act.

Time for Congress to Pass Strong Consumer Protection Law

By Joe Newman
Cross-posted from CitizenVOX

Right now, leaders in the House and Senate are preparing to make decisions behind the scenes that will have a tremendous impact on consumer protection in this country. If they can put aside partisan differences and ignore the lobbyists from the manufacturing industry, they have a chance to craft a bill that should help to stem the flood of life-threatening, hazardous products that led to a record number of recalls last year. On Thursday, parents and consumer activists rallied near the Capitol to urge Congress to pass the strongest protections possible. It’s especially an important issue for parents. Last year some 25 million hazardous toys and children’s products, many laden with high concentrations of lead, were recalled.

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have each passed a version of the Consumer Product Safety Reform Act (S. 2663/H.R. 4040) and senior members from both houses of Congress are meeting in conference to negotiate a compromise bill.

The Senate and House bills take important steps toward better protecting American consumers by giving the CPSC more resources, improving product testing standards and increasing the penalties manufacturers face for violating the law, among other improvements.

You can take action by writing your member of Congress and urging them to pass the strongest bill possible.

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.

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.

A Win in the Senate!

Today the Senate passed the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Reform Act by a vote of 79-13.  After about three and a half days on the Senate floor, the bill emerged a bit stronger than it was going into the week.  This is a real victory for consumers.  You can read our coalition press release here and my press statement here.

We hope to see more changes at the CPSC than this bill provides, but we'll leave those for another day.  Tonight, we can relax and celebrate a little!

Consumers Are Winning on Product Safety in the Senate

by David Arkush

Here's an update on the CPSC bill (S. 2663) on the Senate floor this week.  The short story is, consumers are doing very well in the Senate so far this week.  Here are some highlights:

• On Tuesday, pro-consumer senators fought off the first attack on a strong CPSC bill: an attempt to replace the current Senate bill with weaker bill that passed the House in December.  You can view our comparison of the House and Senate bills here.  The attempt lost 57-39.  Not only did this stop a broad frontal assault on the Senate bill; it showed that opponents of the bill cannot muster the 40 votes they would need for any major blocking action.

Industry and Republican Allies Gear up to Fight Moderate Consumer Health and Safety Bill

by David Arkush and Graham Steele

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate recently spent weeks negotiating a moderate, bipartisan consumer product safety bill, the “CPSC [Consumer Product Safety Commission] Reform Act of 2007” (S. 2663). After these negotiations concluded, and with the bill cued go to the Senate floor soon, industry is making a last-ditch effort to derail or further weaken it. This week, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and a few other Senate Republicans, apparently playing the role of mouthpiece for industry, circulated a strategy packet for defeating the CPSC bill. The packet includes a list of “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the CPSC ‘Reform’ Act,” which is riddled with misstatements about the bill. Apparently, industry knows it can’t win an honest debate against an important consumer safety law, so it’s going dirty.

Freedom of Information, Sort Of

For more than 40 years, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been the pillar of the framework for transparent government – the primary advocacy instrument for deterring and exposing unchecked executive power.  However, since 9/11, FOIA has been hobbled by a doctrine of secrecy executed with administrative delays and ploys to keep government records “in the shadows.”

The OPEN Government Act, signed into law on December 31, is the first legislative update to FOIA since 1996 and a reassertion of checks and balances.  Now it will be easier for people to get information from their government.  The law provides for an online tracking system for requesters, a government-wide office to deal with disputes and concerns, penalties for offices that take too long to respond, a limit to agency “search” and “duplication” fees, and reimbursement of attorney fees in some situations where requesters must go to court.

But it wasn’t easy.

The FOIA improvement became law only after months of obstruction, foot-dragging and secret holds.  There is no doubt we had some solid champions in Rep. Waxman (D-CA), Sen. Leahy (D-VT), and Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) who kept the bill alive in shark-infested waters.  However, it might have never passed it at all without good, old-fashioned rabble rousing. 

After the bill passed the House in March 2007 by a huge margin, an anonymous senator placed a “secret hold” on it. Proponents decried the stubborn irony of preventing more access to our government records with secret holds and other back-door maneuvering by the White House.  Calls and emails poured into congressional offices, news articles and blog posts demanded the holder be revealed. 

We (the rabble) finally outed Senator Kyl as the secret holder.  Once exposed, Kyl surprisingly began to negotiate. Not surprisingly, Kyl was representing the terms of the White House.  Still, the bill began to move, and finally passed the Senate by unanimous consent. 

But it was not yet time for champagne.

It turned out that there were some issues with the bill that passed.  Some of us suspected foul play and poison pills . . . more noise and negotiations ensued.  Suddenly an imperfect, but passable fix bill emerged in December.  It was quickly pushed through at congressional warp speed with veto-proof support.  Perhaps everybody needed a win – to quiet the rabble.  In the end, even Bush could not refuse to sign the bill into law.

But this hard-fought battle is only a half-victory.

To be sure, the new law will tear down some of the bureaucratic blockade often used intentionally to prevent government operations from seeing the light of day.  Still, even with this victory, the rule-making authority of the executive branch makes it possible for the “War on Terror” to continue to be used to obviate the “informed consent of the governed."  The Ashcroft doctrine of withholding documents as long as some argument for a “sound legal basis” exists still stands.  This policy is a reversal of the Clinton-Reno instruction to officials to interpret FOIA in favor of disclosure – unless it was “reasonably foreseeable that disclosure could be harmful.”

We can expect the Bush-Cheney Administration will use every tactic available to keep their deeds under a cloak of secrecy.  Ready the rabble.

Halliburton Victim Twice Over

Today, Jamie Leigh Jones will appear before the House Judiciary Committee and tell how she was gang raped by her co-workers in Iraq while working for a Halliburton subsidiary called KBR. Afterwards, her assaulters confined her to a shipping container and warned that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be fired. That’s where she was found by agents sent by the U.S. embassy to rescue her — after her father called their congressman, Representative Ted Poe (R-Texas).

Now, Jamie Leigh Jones has been victimized twice over. Because KBR/Halliburton requires employees to sign contracts containing a binding mandatory arbitration (BMA) in the fine print, Jones is being denied her constitutional right to bring her perpetrators before a jury and be heard.

But Jamie Leigh Jones will be heard by Congress today — and then, lawmakers should waste no time in re-opening the doors of justice for Jones and the rest of us. It’s time to ban binding mandatory arbitration in employment and consumer contracts once and for all. There may be no other device being used today by Halliburton and other corporate giants that does more to systematically deny rights to workers and consumers.

Congress is beginning to focus.

A Holiday Wish: Safer Toys

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is supposed to monitor and protect us from dangerous toys and thousands of other products.  Instead, it has been notoriously cozy with the manufacturing industry.  The result: deadly toys and products on our shelves and in our homes.

On Thursday, December 12, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce failed to adequately strengthen the “Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act” (H.R 4040).

The House bill does not do nearly enough to strengthen the agency, which presently doesn't have the same power as other regulatory agencies.  Many improvements in authority and standards are needed.  Congress at the very least should require CPSC to give consumers an “early warning” about potentially dangerous products, mandate broader pre-market testing requirements of toys, provide for more timely product recalls, and allow CPSC to stop potentially hazardous imports at ports of entry.

Representatives Edward Markey (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) should be commended for their efforts in trying to improve the bill.  But the committee has rejected their sensible amendments - including one by Eshoo to reduce the allowable level of lead in children's products.  It seems the Democratic leadership on the committee has cut a deal with the Republicans to pass a watered-down, industry-friendly bill. 

Are most of the committee members really more interested in protecting industry profits and their campaign contributions than consumers?

It’s not too late for the committee to put safety first, as they will resume consideration of the bill again Tuesday, Dec. 18.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has been giving many gifts to industry. Now it’s time for Congress to go back to the workshop and put something better under the tree for consumers.

A Lemon Court

Car dealers aren't doing much for their image these days - so, buyers beware.  Though it's not surprising, Mother Jones reports that car dealers are increasingly turning to a sneaky little device to relieve themselves of accountability when a deal goes bad: binding mandatory arbitration. If you were to try to sue them for say, selling you a lemon, you might find yourself tapped in arbitration.  Binding mandatory arbitration is a losing proposition for consumers, as we found in our recent report on how credit card companies use the predatory practice.

Ironically, these same car dealers fought tooth and nail just a few years ago to ban similar arbitration clauses in their contracts with car manufacturers:

The National Automobile Dealers Association wrote members of Congress in 2000 that if they weren't outlawed for the dealerships, mandatory binding arbitration clauses would allow "multinational motor vehicle manufacturers…to be able to unilaterally deny small business automobile and truck dealers rights under state laws that are designed to bring equity to the relationship between manufacturers and dealers." Congress agreed and passed legislation protecting the dealers.

The good news is that Congress is considering a ban on binding mandatory arbitration in consumer and employment disputes.  Please take a minute now to let your members of Congress know that you want to keep your right to take shady businesses to a public court with a judge or jury, instead of being trapped in a rigged, for-profit system where bad business practices flourish.

Party at Joan's

Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial accusing us of being hand-puppets of their favorite boogie men-- the trial lawyers--because we oppose binding mandatory arbitration.  According to the Journal, our work to preserve the constitutional right to a trial by jury makes us all cabernet-swilling sell-outs. 

In her published letter to the editor, Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook sets them straight: 

"Party at Joan's"
November 17, 2007; Page A9

Your Nov. 7, broadside ("Party at Ralph's") on arbitration was baseless. We
oppose mandatory not voluntary arbitration requirements buried in the fine print of consumer contracts because they shred consumers' legal rights in favor of a secret, expensive, business-dominated system.

The consumer attorneys attending a reception at Public Citizen's office are
legal aid and private attorneys who toil in some of the least glamorous
corners of the law. They see firsthand the unfairness of this
industry-created system to avoid accountability. They work for consumers
harmed by home foreclosures, truth-in-lending violations, unfair debt
collection practices, predatory lending, auto dealer fraud and other
marketplace abuses.

To acquire a credit card, buy a home or car, open a bank account, use a cell
phone or get cable television, consumers usually must sign a contract
mandating arbitration to settle disputes. A mere signature effectively
eliminates their constitutional right to the public courts, extinguishes the
right to appeal, favors corporate repeat offenders whom arbitrators want to please and imposes substantial upfront costs.

Hey, it's better than indentured servitude

The lending industry gets a lot of flak for the way it conducts business.  Tactics such as targeting the working poor and racial minorities, imposing prepayment penalties, forcing pre-dispute arbitration clauses into contacts and setting other devious debt traps have received a lot of scrutiny.  Sure, no one likes to see a veteran and his family get kicked to the curb.  But you have to admit, it's a heck of a lot better than indentured servitude.

Kidding aside, Congress is taking action to help protect consumers.  Or is it? 

On Thursday, the House passed the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007 (H.R. 3915) in a 291-127 vote.  While it would do some good like requiring lenders to evaluate a borrower's ability to repay a loan, there are several provisions that consumer advocates and public interest groups are warning will make things worse for borrowers [PDF].

For example, a broad preemption provision would make current and stronger state laws on predatory lending obsolete.  Homeowners whose loans were sold off--usually to some Wall Street investment group--would be unable to fight back in foreclosure because there would be no meaningful federal protection from abuses by the new owners of their loans.

See if your Rep. voted for H.R. 3915.  If so, tell them they just took a big step backwards for consumers (House directory | 202-224-3121).

Consumers Win in Hearing on Capitol Hill

Written by Paul Bland

On October 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held its second hearing on H.R. 3010, Rep. Hank Johnson's Arbitration Fairness Act. (This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the bill.) H.R. 3010 would ban the use of pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration in consumer, employment, franchise and medical contracts. (The first hearing was held on June 12th. I testified at it, and my testimony and a transcript of the hearing can be found on the Public Justice website.)

Three members of the Subcommittee attended the hearing. The first is Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda T. Sanchez. Rep. Sanchez has not yet co-sponsored the bill, but she spoke very sympathetically towards the situation of consumers and employees who have been treated poorly in mandatory arbitration systems. It also can’t be understated that Rep. Sanchez showed that she has put a lot of time into understanding the details of the issue, and she (along with her staff) have obviously put a great deal of work into interviewing and locating witnesses and giving both sides an opportunity to develop an extensive record. The second is Rep. Johnson, the sponsor of the bill, who is a courtly freshman representative from Georgia and a powerful orator. The third member was Ranking Subcommittee member Chris Cannon, who is a huge and uncritical fan of mandatory arbitration. In the course of carrying the water of the Chamber of Commerce on the issue, Rep. Cannon’s duties apparently include trying to craft personal attacks on anyone who comes forward with an individual story of having been abused by mandatory arbitration.

There were two panels. On the first panel:

Laura MacCleery, Director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch Division, who spoke about Public Citizen's report ("The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers") summarizing more than 34,000 arbitrations handled by the National Arbitration Forum in California, and who also spoke in some detail about the problem of arbitration clauses that ban class actions. I have written in several forums that our law firm’s experience (interviewing hundreds of consumers, and dozens of consumer lawyers, strongly supports the conclusions of Public Citizen’s groundbreaking report). Laura spoke with fervor and energy, and was very articulate. Rep. Cannon tried to get her to admit that Public Citizen’s report is very limited in scope, but Laura pointed out (correctly) that it covered EVERY SINGLE case that the National Arbitration Forum reported handling in California over a period of several years.

Written by Paul Bland

On October 25, 2007, the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held its second hearing on H.R. 3010, Rep. Hank Johnson's Arbitration Fairness Act. (This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the bill.) H.R. 3010 would ban the use of pre-dispute binding mandatory arbitration in consumer, employment, franchise and medical contracts. (The first hearing was held on June 12th. I testified at it, and my testimony and a transcript of the hearing can be found on the Public Justice website.)

Three members of the Subcommittee attended the hearing. The first is Subcommittee Chairwoman Linda T. Sanchez. Rep. Sanchez has not yet co-sponsored the bill, but she spoke very sympathetically towards the situation of consumers and employees who have been treated poorly in mandatory arbitration systems. It also can’t be understated that Rep. Sanchez showed that she has put a lot of time into understanding the details of the issue, and she (along with her staff) have obviously put a great deal of work into interviewing and locating witnesses and giving both sides an opportunity to develop an extensive record. The second is Rep. Johnson, the sponsor of the bill, who is a courtly freshman representative from Georgia and a powerful orator. The third member was Ranking Subcommittee member Chris Cannon, who is a huge and uncritical fan of mandatory arbitration. In the course of carrying the water of the Chamber of Commerce on the issue, Rep. Cannon’s duties apparently include trying to craft personal attacks on anyone who comes forward with an individual story of having been abused by mandatory arbitration.

There were two panels. On the first panel:

Laura MacCleery, Director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch Division, who spoke about Public Citizen's report ("The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers") summarizing more than 34,000 arbitrations handled by the National Arbitration Forum in California, and who also spoke in some detail about the problem of arbitration clauses that ban class actions. I have written in several forums that our law firm’s experience (interviewing hundreds of consumers, and dozens of consumer lawyers, strongly supports the conclusions of Public Citizen’s groundbreaking report). Laura spoke with fervor and energy, and was very articulate. Rep. Cannon tried to get her to admit that Public Citizen’s report is very limited in scope, but Laura pointed out (correctly) that it covered EVERY SINGLE case that the National Arbitration Forum reported handling in California over a period of several years.

Congress Delivers on Lobbying and Ethics Reform!

Finally – real ethics reform passed in Congress!  Yesterday the Senate approved S. 1 – the “Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007” – with a veto-proof majority of 83 to 14. On Tuesday, the House also passed the bill with flying colors by 411 to 8.

This terrific legislation will give the public important new information about the cozy relationships between industry lobbyists and members of Congress, and limit the outrageous gifts and travel junkets that laid the groundwork for the culture of corruption on Capitol Hill.   

Today marks the final chapter of a long struggle. We first kicked off the drive to fix Capitol Hill over three years ago. Back then, our “wish list” of reforms was largely ignored by members of Congress and the media – even laughed at as a political impossibility. Then Jack Abramoff’s world – and that of many prominent members of Congress – started to unravel. 

As the investigations into kickbacks and bribes became indictments, our call for reform – and the increased public disgust with Washington – became more and more difficult to ignore. When Abramoff worked out a plea deal in January 2006 to name those whom he bribed to the FBI, you’d have thought the gig was up. But the leadership of the 109th Congress burrowed into the warm sand like ostriches and ignored the need for reform.  In return for their indifference, the voters changed up the Congress in 2006, citing corruption as a top concern.

But institutional change is hard even for a Congress elected on a promise to “end the culture of corruption.” As the bill moved forward, the “K Street” crowd lobbied hard, warning members not to bite the hands that keep lawmakers fat and happy. Public Citizen’s activists did not back down, sending thousands of faxes, emails and making hundreds of call to the Hill to tell Congress it must see this through. 

House Overwhelmingly Approves Ethics Bill - Next: The Senate

It always amazes me what a roll-call vote can do. Behind the scenes, in back-room negotiations, many members of Congress have been laboring away trying to water down – if not kill – lobbying and ethics reform legislation.

Yet when the same bill was submitted to a roll-call vote, where members go on record voting “yea” or “nay,” the bill on ethics sailed through. The House passed a landmark lobbying and ethics bill today by a vote of 411-to-8. Looking at the floor vote, most of the public would not know that many members of Congress had wished this bill would die a quiet death.

About two weeks ago, the bill had one foot in the grave.

A Good Day for Consumer Justice

Many Americans are unknowingly stripped of their rights when they sign up for health insurance, cable television or credit cards.  Buried in the fine print of these contracts are clauses that force harmed consumers into a private system that is stacked in favor of giant corporations - sometimes with devastating consequences (see the comments).  Binding mandatory arbitration clauses are proliferating in contracts everywhere.

But now we can tip the scales back in favor of consumers.  Yesterday, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Representative Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) introduced a groundbreaking legislation to restore the rights of millions of consumers, the Arbitration Fairness Act.  This measure bans the use of binding mandatory arbitration in employment, consumer, franchise or civil rights disputes.

Public Citizen's President Joan Claybrook had this to say at today's press conference:

Let me be blunt. Privatizing justice benefits big corporate interests like national banks and insurance companies but does not help ordinary people. Corporations have figured out that simply by inserting an arbitration clause in contracts for everyday consumer goods and services or employment, they can usually evade accountability for any harm they cause or laws they break -- laws meant to protect consumers and employees from the misuse and abuse of corporate power in the marketplace.

How? First, the contracts are take-it-or-leave-it, so individuals have no choice but to accept the arbitration clause if they want the product, service or job, even if they are required by law to buy the service, as is the case with auto insurance, or required by life's uncertainties to purchase a much-needed service like health insurance.

Sen. DeMint – Remove Your Hold Against Congressional Ethics Reform

For the second time in two weeks, Senate Republicans have blocked the lobbying and ethics reform legislation. First it was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) who obstructed final consideration of the legislation; now it is Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.).

Both senators claim that they are not opposed to ethics, or even the new reform legislation, for that matter. They just want assurances that favored legislative proposals will be addressed. For DeMint, he wants the Senate to guarantee passage of earmarking reform, before he will allow the lobbying and ethics bill – which contains DeMint’s exact earmarking reform language – proceed to conference committee to iron out the differences with the House bill.

Don’t buy these excuses for a second.

Last year, when the Republicans controlled Congress and had a golden opportunity to clean up its act and pass lobbying and ethics reform legislation, the Republicans chose instead to let the legislation quietly die in conference. How convenient: they went on record voting for reform, but did not actually have to stomach any reform.

This year, the reform legislation rolled through both the Senate and the House, but must again be reconciled in conference before final passage. If DeMint and McConnell succeed at blocking conference proceedings, they will have succeeded at killing the legislation – all the while avoiding a public vote against reform.

Enough already! Americans are demanding lobbying and ethics reform. DeMint – end your filibuster against ethics.

Read Public Citizen’s letter to DeMint and our press release touting the tough letter.

UPDATE: Read the letter and press release by Public Citizen and its coalition partners.

Fireworks, Barbecue and a Vote for DC

As we celebrate the Fourth of July with fireworks, cookouts and a relaxing day off of work, the promise of our democracy remains unfulfilled for many.

More than half a million people live in the capital of the United States without voting representation in Congress. Citizens of the District of Columbia pay U.S. taxes, fight and die for the U.S. during wartime, and are governed by the laws that Congress passes.  And yet, shockingly, DC citizens have only a non-voting delegate in the House of Representatives.

This gross injustice could be righted soon - but we need your help.  The Senate is considering a floor vote on the DC Voting Rights Act, which the House passed in April.  There are some senators who are considering blocking this bill, even after it passed overwhelmingly out of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.   Senators have not blocked a piece of voting rights legislation since the days of Jim Crow.  Now is not the time to turn back the clock.

Citizens in the District of Columbia don't have senators of their own to call, so they need you to stand up for them and our democratic values.  Contact your senators today and urge them to vote for the DC Voting Rights Act!

We can't claim democracy for other countries or hope to clean up Washington if taxpayers in the nation's capital continue to be disenfranchised.

Let your senators know that it's high time that DC citizens have voting representation in Congress.  It's the patriotic thing to do.

Hearing on Fair Elections

Ordinary voters are being drowned out by corporate and wealthy special interests that co-opt our elected officials and raid the treasury for earmarks and tax breaks.  The result is policy for Big Pharma, Big Oil and Wall Street.  We can change all that with the Fair Elections Now Act.

The Senate Rules Committee is holding the first congressional hearing in more than a decade on publicly funded elections.

Watch it live on June 20, 10:00 a.m. EST!

Take a minute to become a Citizen Co-Sponsor of the bill and tell your Senators to break free from corporate and wealthy special interests.

Why do you think publicly funded elections are so important?

UPDATE: You can still watch the hearing at the link above.

Colbert on Revolving Door

The much touted lobbying & ethics bill is heading to committee to reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions and one of the key provisions we have been fighting for may not survive.  Is it too much to ask for slightly stricter revolving door provisions?  Can't members of Congress wait one more year before they cash-in on K Street and turn around to lobby their former colleagues?

Apparently not.

Stephen Colbert finds this debate ridiculous.  Let's demand this reasonable and necessary reform.

Joan Claybrook and Bill Moyers on What’s at Stake

Tune in tonight when award-winning journalist Bill Moyers sits down with Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook for an in-depth examination of what makes the lobbying and ethics reform bill the single most important piece of legislation Congress can enact. Bill Moyers Journal airs on PBS. Check your local listings for the exact time of the broadcast or watch online afterwards and learn what is at stake.

Here’s a preview of the Moyers show.  Here’s what you can do.

Gotcha! Senator Secret is Senator Kyl

Senator Kyl finally confirmed that he is the senator with the secret hold on the OPEN Government Act.  We first blogged about the ironic secret hold on this transparency bill last week.  Since then, our activists and others like the Chamber of Commerce have been sending letters and flooding the Senate with calls to smoke out the senator in hiding.

Kyl (R AZ) finally buckled under the pressure yesterday, admitting he placed the secret hold because of Department of Justice concerns.  We have plenty of DOJ concerns ourselves.  It’s clear DOJ under Attorney General Gonzales is opposed to any transparency and accountability. 

Shame on DOJ, shame on Senator Kyl.

What opposition?

This past week the House finally passed the long-awaited lobbying reform bill.  After months of wrangling, significant reforms in the relationship between lobbyists and Congress passed overwhelmingly. 

Check out Craig Holman's excellent piece in The Politico.  Here's what Craig has to say about those who fought the reforms:

The curmudgeons were those in the middle layer of the caucus – folks who have been around Capitol Hill for 10 or 20 years. Members such as Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and Alcee L. Hastings (D-Fla.) railed against the reforms. These lawmakers have close fundraising relationships with the lobbying corps and perhaps also are eyeing million-dollar lobbying jobs in the near future. Hastings, now serving his eighth term, scoffed at the reformers, who “want Congress to be in sackcloth and ashes.”

The old bulls’ opposition was so vocal that Democratic leaders continued to water down the bill to buy their votes. In the most tragic cut of all, a back-room deal was worked out to strip the reform bill of its revolving door restrictions in exchange for a vote to send the measure to the floor. But Abercrombie et al. still continued to decry other provisions, such as the bundling disclosure, threatening to kill the measure on the floor.

Though these guys still voted against the reform bill, they were about the only ones. The measure passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 396-22.

This is a hard-won victory that we share with our allies in the House, our coalition partners, the voices of reason in the media and blogosphere, and most of all, with our very committed activists. 

Now let's make sure the members of the conference committee don't shred these reforms when joining the Senate and House versions of the bills.