Watchdog Blog

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.

Wall Street Investors Oppose Arbitration

Who doesn't like binding mandatory arbitration?  In addition to Comcast customers, KBR employees, car dealerships, and credit card holders, now public investors have voiced their opposition.

According to a recent survey by the Securities Industry Conference on Arbitration (SICA), participants in the NASD and NYSE arbitrations overwhelming felt they were unfair and were dissatisfied with the outcome.  The North American Securities Administrators Association offers a glimpse into why--

Currently, almost every broker-dealer includes in their customer agreements a predispute arbitration provision that forces public investors to submit all disputes that they may have with the firm and/or its associates to mandatory arbitration. Securities arbitration cases are heard by a three-member panel that includes one “non-public” or securities industry member, and two “public” members, who may have worked in the industry. Neither of the public arbitrators is required to be an investor advocate, even though the non-public arbitrator is required to be an industry representative.

It's no wonder that many investors could feel "trapped."

Some interesting numbers:

• Nearly half of the customers who expressed their views believed their arbitration panel was biased;
• 62 percent believed the arbitration process was unfair;
• 70 percent were dissatisfied with the outcome;
• 49 percent stated that the arbitration process was too expensive, and;
• A striking 75 percent of customers who compared their arbitration process to their civil litigation process indicated that arbitration was “very unfair” or “somewhat unfair” compared to court.

Download the full report.

Obama's Answer

On February 15, we sent a letter to Senator Barack Obama urging him to keep his promise to opt-in to the Presidential Public Financing system if he were the Democratic nominee, and the Republican nominee also used public funds. The likely Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, has agreed to these terms, but a spokesperson for the Obama campaign recently made a statement that conflicts with the committment made by Senator Obama. 

Read Obama's response printed in USA Today:

Both sides must agree
I will seek a good faith pact that results in real spending limits.

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

Whose Records are They?

Today's Washington Post published a letter to the editor written by our own Angela Canterbury, advocacy director for Public Citizen's Congress Watch, in response to an editorial about the battle for the Clinton White House records: 

The Feb. 8 editorial "Clinton Records Watch" pointed out that there is a process to follow regarding the release of presidential records. However, one cannot ignore the fact that the process has been altered to give former presidents, former vice presidents and their representatives veto power over the release of records.

In 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13233, an expansive order that eviscerated the post-Watergate Presidential Records Act, which made presidential records the property of the government, and then the public.

Legislation to repeal the order passed the House by a veto-proof margin but is stuck in the Senate. First Sen. Jim Bunning held and then released the bill, the Presidential Records Act Amendments (H.R. 1255/S. 886), and now Sen. Jeff Sessions is blocking it. A single senator should not be allowed to stand between the public and its right to know.

Moreover, all of the senators running for president should demonstrate their interest in transparency by co-sponsoring this bill. So far, Sen. Barack Obama is the only one who has done so. Sens. John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton should join him and help to pass the bill to show the American public that they truly believe presidential records belong to the people -- not the president.

Why is Sessions Keeping Bush's Secrets?

Some presidents just have more to hide than others. 

We have been working to expose the secrets of the current administration, but now another senator is standing in the way.  Senator Jeff Sessions is the latest to block a bill that would return the presidential records to the American people.   

Bush's Executive Order 13233 was a direct attack on the Presidential Records Act of 1978, a law passed in the wake of Watergate that makes presidential records the property of the American people.  A president should not be allowed to legislate and lock away his records with a stroke of a pen.

But this is not just about Bush.  It's about the records of ALL presidents.

The bipartisan bill to undo the Bush order has passed the House by a veto-proof margin and is close to becoming a law, but Senator Sessions is still standing in between the people and their right to know. 

What you can do: Call Senator Sessions' office and ask why he is blocking S. 886 and tell him to stop obstructing a vote.

Time to Put Safety First

Defective and dangerous products - from lead-painted toys to vacuum cleaners that catch fire - are being allowed onto our store shelves and into our homes.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has failed to do its job and protect American consumers. 

Public Citizen just released a study showing that manufacturers often wait nearly three years before telling the CPSC about defective products that can kill people - and the agency typically takes another seven months to warn the public.  Some of these products include infant swings implicated in six deaths.

We need a strong, effective agency that can warn the public quickly about dangerous and defective products - and enforce the law against violators.  Under current law, the CPSC must ask permission from manufacturers to get vital safety information to the public.  What's more, the agency can't fine companies enough to make sure that they comply with the law.

The status quo is unacceptable - the CPSC should protect American consumers, not manufacturers!

The Senate commerce committee recently reported out the Consumer Product Safety Reform Act of 2007 (S. 2045), a bill that would give the CPSC much-needed muscle.  Now it goes to the full Senate for approval.  But, as happens all too often in Washington, D.C., bills that are carefully honed in committee become unrecognizable after amendments, concessions and the inevitable congressional horse trading take their toll on a proposal’s original intent.

Please urge your senators to ensure that the Senate bill passes intact - without weakening changes - for everyone's health and safety.