Watchdog Blog

Fair Elections Action Week

The Fair Elections Action Week is coming up in just a few weeks!  People are taking action now so that we can show Congress that Americans want an end to pay-to-play politics by instituting a system of public financing.

We are closer than ever to cleaning up Washington.  The Fair Elections Now Act is gaining support in the Senate and we anticipate the introduction of the companion bill in the House to happen very soon!  A voluntary system of public funding for congressional elections would allow members of Congress to serve without taking huge sums of special interest money.  Elections should be about voters, not campaign cash.

Join us for the Fair Elections Action Week on November 12-16 when we will send a strong message to Congress that it's time for public funding of elections!  Actions and events will take place all over the country – some sponsored by Public Citizen and our coalition partners, others happening in the living rooms and kitchens of people ready for a change.

It’s easy to help make it a success by showing your support and spreading the word now!

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.

Bundlers Lurking in the Smoky Backroom Again in 2008

Bundlers bring more to the table than just cash. Just ask anyone on the receiving end of a Norman Hsu or Jack Abramoff special delivery. While not all bundlers will be as obviously scandal-tainted as a man wearing a bright yellow prison jumper, Hsu and Abramoff weren’t the first, and likely won’t be the last big fundraisers to bring along a little corruption with the loot.

Bundling is the new smoked-filled room of campaign fundraising. In fact, bundlers are starting to knock other means of financing right off the map. They are swamping the candidates with more money from than the frontrunners could possibly get from the presidential public financing system, thus helping to hasten its tragic demise.

Whether bundlers deliver $50,000 or $1 million, they expect something in return. The favor may be as simple as a photo opportunity that allows them to enhance their status with business associates, or it may be even more nefarious, like a government contract or tax break. In a world of six- and seven-figure campaign contributions, corruption and scandal may not be far behind.

Become a Bundler and Travel the World

WhiteHouseforSale.org has become the go-to source for finding out who is bundling for whom.

Many wonder what all these people are paying for. What happens to bundlers who “invest” in the winning candidate?  If Bush's treatment of his bundlers is any indication, then the current crop of bundlers can look forward to rewards like easy access to power and appointments to plum positions here and overseas.

Read and watch CBS's investigation of the bundlers behind the presidential candidates, including comments from Congress Watch division director Laura MacCleery.

What do bundlers get for all their dough?

Charles Swindells became Ambassador to New Zealand; John Palmer, the ambassador to Portugal. Charles Cobb's wife, Susan got the post for Jamaica. All raised at least $100,000.

What's most troubling about bundling is the common occurrence of industry shills buying their way into positions of power with piles of campaign contributions.  At the regulatory agencies, this cronyism can translate into relaxed enforcement, big tax breaks and special earmarks for big business.  It seems that bundling is a seriously good investment.

Credit Card Report on Marketplace and More

Last week we released our report on credit card companies forcing consumers into binding mandatory arbitration and interest has been very high.

Listen to a short piece on American Public Media's program, Marketplace, or you can read more on The Consumerist where Ben Popken blogged about what consumers are up against, as did Elizabeth Warren on TPM Cafe.  We are really pleased to have the word spread so that together we can end the predatory practice of mandatory arbitration. 

You can download The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Card Companies Ensnare Consumers here.  Also, learn what you can do to protect yourself and tell Congress to stand up for consumers. 

Workin' Too Hard For His Money

On Thursday, John Edwards announced that his campaign will accept public financing for his presidential campaign. Edwards told reporters that the decision was about taking “a principled stand” in favor of public financing and challenged his top opponents, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to do the same.

The public funding system was designed to help candidates like Edwards, whose polling in states like Iowa clearly demonstrates his ability to appeal to voters, just not the ones with the deepest pockets. That system hasn’t kept up with the times, however. Both Clinton and Obama will probably raise $100 million by the end of this year, money they’ll be able to spend freely. Edwards, meanwhile, will have his spending in most areas restricted to less than half of that. The frenetic pace set by this season’s primary schedules unfortunately tilts the playing field toward the most heavily-funded candidates. Restoring the public financing system would put some much needed balance back into the contest, giving all voters a better voice.