October 1, 2003

October 1, 2003

325 Sharon Park Drive, Suite 332 Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-854-9796 650-854-8132 (fax) info@commonwealinstitute.org

COMMONWEAL INSTITUTE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank and communications organization committed to advancing a broad moderate to progressive agenda based on the principles of commitment to future generations, environmental protection, a balance between business and society, inclusiveness and fairness, separation of church and state, personal choice and privacy, and a comprehensive and nuanced approach to national security.

Introduction..............................................................................................................................................- 1 -

Section 1 – Tort Reform Organizations and the Far Right..................................................................- 3 -

Section 2 – Reaching the Public, Legislators and Judges....................................................................- 10 -

Section 3 – Effectiveness of the Tort Reform Campaign.....................................................................- 16 -

Section 4 – Conclusion............................................................................................................................- 19 -

Appendix 1 – Example Of Coordinated Dissemination of a Strategic Message................................- 21 -

Appendix 2 – An Example of Interconnectedness...............................................................................- 23 -

Appendix 3 – Examples of Ridiculing and Demeaning of Trial Lawyers..........................................- 25 -

Appendix 4 – Examples of the Involvement and Funding of Right-Wing Organizations That Advocate Tort Reform...........................................................................................................................- 26 -

Appendix 5 – Examples of the Involvement of Organizations That Advocate Tort Reform (no funding data included)...........................................................................................................................- 45 -

Appendix 6 – Examples of State Tort Reform Organizations............................................................- 50 -

Notes & References.................................................................................................................................- 52 -

1 Stern, Seth. "Now, trial lawyers could use a good lawyer - The long-maligned group faces a host of legislative moves to curb its influence." Christian Science Monitor. June 10, 2003. Viewed August 7, 2003 <http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0610/p02s02-usju.html>

Former ATLA President Richard Middleton, Jr., is correct in stating that "for more than three decades, business interests have invested billions of dollars to sell the public a distorted view of a legal system." Influencing public opinion has been a key strategic aim of the business-driven campaign for so-called "tort reform," which is designed to limit corporate liability, prevent civil lawsuits against corporations, and restrict citizens’ ability to pursue recourse in the courts.

In addition to these corporate backers of tort reform, however, there are also politically-oriented right-wing think tanks and other organizations, many not directly associated with industry, that have played a major role in promoting "tort reform."

This Commonweal Institute Report, The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law, shows that, in addition to the expected corporate-front organizations like the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), the "tort reform" movement is ideologically associated with a network of organizations, such as the Washington Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council, which are part of what they themselves call the "conservative move-ment." This web of "movement" organizations receives general operating support, project grants, and strategic guidance from a core group of ideological far-right-wing foundations that has been working for nearly thirty years to alter public attitudes and move the national agenda to the right.

This web of right-wing organizations funds and supports many other voices that speak on behalf of tort reform and other issues. The people who write the books are funded. The people who write the op-ed pieces are funded. The people who speak on radio and cable TV shows are funded. The people speaking to public interest organizations are funded. Even the people who initially write many of the templates for letters to the editor are funded. In addition to funding these individuals, the right-wing organizations provide them with institutional bases and access to publishers and media.

These right-wing movement organizations have a broad political agenda. They advocate an anti-government ideology that promotes privatization, deregulation, Social Darwinian competition and free markets as solutions to all social problems. By pushing underlying public attitudes ever closer to their ideology, the right-wing organizations have created a political climate favorable to politicians and public officials who advocate tort reform.

The right-wing movement has two major interests in tort reform:

1. 1. Their ideological interest is in weakening constraints on the conduct of corporate entities, and,

Trial lawyers and the system of tort law that they support are losing ground. When one looks at major print and broadcast media, at public opinion polls, and at the positions taken by politicians of both major parties, it is clear that there has been a steady shift toward the Right’s and the tort-reform movement’s attitudes and policies. There is very little reaching major media that frames issues in terms that favor trial lawyers and injured parties. As a result, there is a virtual monopolization of the marketplace of ideas by the Right and tort reform advocates.

Much of the success of the Right’s network of organizations comes because they are seen as "independent voices" that are not tied to the insurance industry or other businesses that benefit from the tort reforms they advocate. The independent voices function as a major means of "selling the public" on the purported need for tort reform. This tactic benefits special business interests and conservative movement organizations, and has made them formidable opponents of trial lawyers.

Trial lawyers, too, would benefit from credible independent voices educating and persuading the public of the value of a robust system of tort law. This report will help trial lawyers, and other groups under attack by the Right, recognize the power and effectiveness of the Right’s message communications infrastructure. Further, by implication, the report shows the potential benefits of funding comparable organizations to serve as independent voices in the public interest.

A Network of Seemingly-Independent Organizations

Studies like the "The CALA Files"4 show that, since its inception in the 1980s, the industry-funded "tort reform movement" has pursued a strategy of creating and funding numerous seemingly-independent advocacy organizations that push tort-reform argu-ments, work to discredit opponents, and use marketing methods to change underlying public attitudes over the long term. Well-known tort reform organizations include the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) – "a coalition of more than 300 major corporations and trade associations," according to "The Cala Files" – and its numerous state Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) organizations, as well as several state Lawsuit Abuse Watch (LAW) organizations. (For examples of national and state organizations that advocate tort reform, see Appendices 4, 5 and 6)

Their strategy has included the use of phony "grassroots" campaigns designed to give an impression of widespread public support for an issue, the circulation of false or misleading lawsuit scare-stories, the creation of organizations and websites like "LawyersStink.com"5 that seek to defame and diminish lawyers in the public mind, and the dissemination of anti-lawyer jokes and cartoons. (See Appendix 3)

Most importantly, the tort reform movement is associated with a network of organiza-tions, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council. All are part of the self-described "conservative movement."

The Funding Behind the Right-Wing Movement Organizations

Right-wing organizations in this network all receive major general operating support, project grants and coordinated strategic guidance from a core group of interlocking, ultra-conservative foundations that has been working for nearly thirty years to alter public attitudes and move the national agenda to the right. This core group of right-wing foundations includes the Scaife, Castle Rock (endowed by the Adolph Coors Foundation in 1993), Bradley, Olin and Koch foundations. (See Appendix 4)

These foundations are associated with the extreme right of the political spectrum. The Bradley Foundation's money comes from Lynde Bradley, a member of the John Birch Society.7 The Coors Foundation previously financed the John Birch Society.8 The Koch Foundations were founded by Charles and David Koch, sons of Fred Koch, founder of the John Birch Society. David Koch, the 1980 Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, funds many libertarian organizations, and is co-founder of the libertarian Cato Institute.9 William Simon of the Olin Foundation was a member of the secretive Christian-Right Council for National Policy, and chairman of an organization set up by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.10 Richard Mellon Scaife and his foundations were the primary funders of the anti-Clinton efforts of the 1990s, which included funding the vitriolic magazine, American Spectator.11 As for today’s John Birch Society, it is currently engaged in a "Get US Out!" (of the UN) campaign, a philosophy reflected across the right-wing movement.12

There are now over 500 organizations, of which Heritage Foundation is the most influen-tial, all receiving funding from this core group. A 1999 study, $1 Billion for Ideas: Conservative Think Tanks in the 1990s,13 shows how well-funded these organizations are. The study found that the top 20 of these organizations spent over $1 billion on their ideological campaign in the 1990s, not only on tort reform, but on a number of other issues they are advancing.

The right-wing funders, their organizations and associated politicians are closely linked, centrally coordinated and act in concert – that is why they can be considered components of the same movement. Since these individuals and organizations owe some portion (if not all) of their livelihood to a very small core group of funders, they cannot be expected to act independently.

Right-wing funding patterns support lock-step coordination. One example of this coordination is a weekly meeting hosted by Grover Norquist, of the Scaife/Coors/Olin /Bradley (among others)-funded Americans for Tax Reform,14 and attended by representatives of the funding foundations, major right-wing organizations like the National Rifle Association, the Christian Coalition and the Heritage Foundation, the Republican Party, House and Senate Republican leadership, right-wing associated media, and the White House.15 Robert Dreyfuss, in his Nation article "Grover Norquist: 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan," writes, " ‘The meeting functions as the weekly checklist so that everybody knows what's up, what to do,’ says Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, a conservative pollster who has been a regular attendee for years."16

A USA Today story, "Pipeline Leads to White House" says of Norquist, "To the extent that there is a conservative network, Grover is at the switchboard."17 Explaining how Norquist’s weekly meetings are used to keep varied organizations and individuals in line, a Guardian Limited story says:

David Brock, in his book Blinded By the Right, described from inside this "movement" how different parts of the right-wing web and their funders interacted during the attempt to remove President Clinton from office. Brock writes that funding was supplied by Richard Mellon Scaife, with Federalist Society (partly funded by Scaife) lawyers and judges working behind the scenes assisting Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and supplying information to the (partly Scaife-funded) American Spectator magazine.19

The interconnectedness of these organizations – leveraging the work of individuals and organizations tied to this movement – increases their effectiveness in disseminating messages to the public through seemingly independent channels. Individuals whose education was directly or indirectly funded by scholarships from the core group of funders and obtained at educational institutions that receive funding from this core group then graduate to work at organizations that receive funding from this core group, producing work that is funded by grants and fellowships from this core group. Their research cites other research pieces, published by others similarly receiving funding from this core group. Their books are published by publishers receiving funding from or ideologically associated with this core group, promoted by media and businesses ideologically associated with this core group, reviewed by other individuals similarly associated with this core group, and sold in part through channels ideologically associated with the goals of this core group. In addition, still other organizations that receive funding from this core group then refer to this work to validate and give the appearance of credibility to their own work or messaging. (See Appendix 2)

1. -

This interconnectedness gives their "research" an aura of credibility by citing each other's work and presenting it as conducted by independent, authoritative sources. The majority of the "conservative" experts and scholars writing newspaper op-ed pieces, books and magazine articles, and even the organizations that generate the "talking points" and position papers used by TV pundits and radio talk show hosts, are directly funded by, work for organizations supported by, or receive some form of support from this core group of funders. (See Appendix 2)

This pattern of concentrated, interlinking financial backing and ideological interconnectness is found in conservative organizations backed by the core group of funders previously described. A similar pattern is not found between the funders and organizations outside the right-wing movement.

The Ideology Underlying Tort Reform Arguments

Tort reform has been sold to the public on the bases of (1) "unreasonably" large settlements that "greedy" attorneys receive: (2) silly, unworthy ("frivolous") lawsuits; (3) adverse impact of lawsuits on the cost of products and insurance premiums; (4) adverse impact of malpractice suits on the cost, quality, and availability of medical care; (5) adverse, "unfair" impact on certain industries (e.g., tobacco, asbestos, fast food); and, finally, (6) the purportedly unscrupulous nature of trial attorneys.

But a number of tort reform arguments rest upon a broader, underlying ideological foundation, one built around the ideas of personal responsibility, free markets, deregulation of business, and privatization of government functions. For example, the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility are evoked in tort reform arguments regarding the dangers of cigarette smoking and fast food. The free enterprise theme is frequently evoked in arguments for limiting punitive damages, because of the potential harm to a company or a whole industry. By promoting an anti-government, pro-corporate philosophy that encompasses many issues, the Right has laid the ideological groundwork for public acceptance of these tort reform arguments. The problem is that the right’s ideologues have warped the values they claim to espouse, and the danger is that they have taken them to extremes.

In an article in Capitalism magazine, Joseph Kellard links tort reform to "personal responsibility," using hyperbolic and ideologically loaded language such as "statist" to describe those who believe in government, "looting of individuals" to describe taxes, and "physical force" to describe laws.21 He decries

Similarly, an Insurance Journal story, "What About Personal Responsibility,"22 declares, "People bring lawsuits against other people and businesses for an almost endless variety of reasons. Some are legitimate, many are not. And most of the time, the claims that seem to be absurd or even downright frivolous may never have happened if the claimants had only used common sense or had taken the responsibility for their own actions."

These and similar arguments have been used frequently to make a case for tort reform, but they also are the basis for right-wing arguments on other issues. A restrictive notion of "personal responsibility" also underlies the right-wing philosophy of limiting government’s ability to help people. In "Do You Really Believe in a Limited Government?"23 Randall R. Rader, a Federal Judge and member of the Federalist Society, writes: "If we profess a philosophy of limited government, we profess in the same breath a faith in unlimited personal responsibility."

From there, it’s not a great leap to eliminating Social Security (or, for that matter, any of the other entitlement or service programs designed to help the needy). Lawrence W. Reed, former president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, (which receives funding from Scaife/Bradley/Koch),24 argues that "in a free society, responsibility for one’s retirement is too important to relinquish to the vagaries of politicized programs. . . . Social Security, make no mistake about it, will ultimately be privatized partially or wholly. . . . It's time that Americans take back a responsibility they should never have trusted to government in the first place, one way or another, the sooner the better."

In "Personal Responsibility: A Brief Survey,"25 David Duff ties "personal responsibility" ideology to yet more standard conservative issues, advocating the elimination of public schools ("When parents began to delegate educational responsibilities to the government, a decline soon followed."); government assistance for health care and welfare ("As with other services, health care and social welfare programs are most effectively provided by the private sector"); government regulation of business ("Government intervention or redistribution, in whatever form, hampers the accurate measure of a businessman's effectiveness in these areas"); unemployment benefits ("allowing people to live off the state while taking an excessive amount of time to find employment"); and taxation itself ("Taxation makes it difficult for many citizens to meet their responsibilities. As time passes, more and more families adopt an attitude of resignation, and fall back on government aid.")

Bringing the underlying ideology of personal responsibility back to tort reform arguments, and never missing an opportunity to ridicule attorneys, the Power-Of-Attorneys website26 (see Appendix 5) writes, "Personal responsibility left the building the moment personal injury lawyers took over the show and America is none the better for it."

What all these examples of the ideology of "personal responsibility" demonstrate is that attempts to refute tort reform arguments are likely to be effective only if they are supported by a campaign that addresses the underlying ideology that the Right has promoted for the past 30 years.

The Political Agenda – Defunding Trial Lawyers

The alliance of the tort reform movement with the far right involves an agenda that goes beyond such tort-specific issues as jury awards. These linked movements want more than just restricting litigants’ rights and weakening regulatory constraints on business. By working to limit jury awards, and thus limiting the income of plaintiffs’ attorneys, conservatives seek to "defund the trial lawyers," thereby undermining the attorneys’ ability to lobby effectively and to contribute money to the conservatives’ political opposition.

In a candid article discussing the Right’s agenda, Grover Norquist writes, "Modest tort reform, much of which has been actively considered by committees in both houses, would defund the trial lawyers, now second only to the unions—and this is debatable—as the funding source of the Left in America."27 He has also written, "Modest tort reform would deprive pillar number three--greedy trial lawyers--of billions from American consumers. In some states trial lawyers give more to Democrats than union leaders do."28

This agenda is further illustrated in an August 10, 2003 Seattle Times story, "GOP using 'tort reform' as powerful political club":29

The above-mentioned Norquist stories make public what many have suspected – that the Right is not involved in advocating tort reform solely due to their concern over the insurance rates paid by doctors or damage awards paid by businesses. In a coordinated effort to weaken their political opposition, they are similarly targeting the Labor movement through "Paycheck Protection" legislation,30 teachers unions through advocacy of vouchers,31 aid to the urban poor, and attacking voting rights.

The right-wing foundations described in Section 1 fund a coordinated network of advocacy organizations, providing general operating support rather than funding narrowly-focused programs. At the center of this network are multi-issue, e.g., tort reform, school privatization, pro-life, etc., think tanks that are marketing and communications organizations, oriented aggressively toward media relations and public communications, as well as traditional scholarly idea generating institutions. Because they address a variety of issues from the same philosophical perspective, the think tanks are able to advance an underlying ideological agenda.

The Right's Communications Infrastructure

These right-wing organizations function as an infrastructure that translates the ideas and policies of ideological think tanks into influential language, and then repeatedly disseminates those messages to the general public through a variety of communications channels. For example, the Washington Legal Foundation, which is a leading proponent of "shaping public policy through aggressive litigation [when in favor of the Right’s goals] and advocacy," writes that their

The Right’s organizations use sophisticated marketing methods to "translate" – packaging ideas to appeal to people's deeper feelings and values – and disseminate messages designed to alter underlying public opinions to be supportive of their shared ideology. Even single words or phrases, selected for their effectiveness, are shared by multiple voices to reinforce the right wing message. (See Appendix 1)

This in turn leads to public support for their organizations and ideology, puts public pressure on legislators to support their issues, and elects public officials who support their agenda and appoint judges and agency officials who carry out their policies.

When it comes to tort reform, the strategy has been remarkably consistent. Conservative "think tanks" publish research that backs up the "tort reform" movement's claims and develop "talking points" for distribution to speakers, pundits, writers and the media. Other organizations provide trained speakers for radio and television programs. Still others publish magazine articles, op-ed pieces, and books based on the research from the think tanks. Some organizations work to discredit opponents. Others work to disparage the legal profession in the public mind. Yet others spread misleading stories about what they call lawsuit abuse. (See Appendix 3) All of this is designed to weaken trial lawyers and liability lawsuits, while simultaneously garnering support for tort reform.

In sum, tort reform messages are amplified by the Right’s communication machine. Be-cause conservative movement organizations share the same basic ideology, they are able to validate and leverage each other's work, creating a multiplier effect. This enables them to operate as a message amplification infrastructure, which has been referred to as "The Mighty Wurlitzer."35 To the public, it appears that there are many diverse voices from a number of independent organizations and media outlets, giving the appearance of a wide-spread consensus of opinion. In truth the messages come from a core group using its net-work of advocacy organizations as an echo chamber, making one voice sound like many.

A Broad Campaign, Utilizing Multiple Channels

The Right’s message amplification infrastructure has a broad reach, repeating coordinated strategic messages through multiple communication channels: conservative talk radio, Fox News, Internet sites like the Drudge Report, op-ed pieces in newspapers across the country, prefab letters-to-the-editor, books, pundits and columnists, talking points distributed to politicians and public speakers, advertisements, and newspapers like the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal.

The result, if you listen closely, is that the same words and phrases magically appear in multiple media at approximately the same time. Staying on message is a skill well-honed by the proponents of tort reform.

The tort-reform movement even utilizes such innovative messaging channels as sponsoring high-school essay contests on lawsuits. Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA), for example, encourages students to enter their essay contest by offering, "cash prizes … in the amounts of $1000, $500 and $250 to finalists selected by a distinguished panel of elected officials, attorneys, and other civic leaders."

"The essay," CALA writes, "may include any of the following discussion points:

In effect, such organizations are using public institutions to promote and legitimize an attorney-bashing agenda, while simultaneously propagandizing a new generation.

Coordinated Dissemination of Strategic Messages

The Right’s messaging infrastructure draws effectively on communication techniques from the fields of marketing, public relations, and corporate image-management. They package their messages to appeal to people's deeper feelings and values, and they have refined their communication techniques and vocabularies to motivate their potential supporters effectively. Both the industry-sponsored "tort reform" organizations and right-wing groups coordinate their messaging to increase their effectiveness. (See Appendix 1)

The right-wing Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy (CLP)’s captures perfectly the marketing and message-dissemination capabilities of right-wing think tanks.

The communication efforts of numerous state Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) organizations, coordinated by the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), are described in the Center for Justice and Democracy’s report, "The CALA Files:"

The Tactic of Creating Conventional Wisdom

One key to moving public opinion has been to create "conventional wisdom" through the constant repetition of simple messages through multiple channels over a long period of time. Two main examples are the claims that "Social Security is going broke" and that "public schools are failing." Both statements are at best questionable, yet both have been firmly embedded in the "public mind" by purposeful repetition in a variety of media outlets and communications venues.

Examples of conventional wisdom manufactured by the tort reform movement include:

1. • "Junk lawsuits" are "out of control," "strangling our legal system" and "crippling businesses."
2. • "Lawsuit abuse" "extorts money" from legitimate business.
3. • Trial lawyers are "greedy."
4. • The large numbers of "frivolous lawsuits" drive up insurance costs.

These are just some of the simplistic and misleading messages that the tort-reform movement has spent vast amounts of time and money drumming into the public mind. As more and more people come to believe in the existence of these "problems," the "solutions" offered by right-wing politicians become increasingly appealing.

Shaping conventional wisdom depends on following a long-term plan. The National Association of Manufacturers’ Fair Litigation Action Group’s (FLAG) website shows their understanding of the value of a long-term approach:

In a long-term approach, strategic messages are developed and repeated as steps toward the final goal. For example, first stories about ridiculous-sounding lawsuits are spread. Once "everyone knows" lawsuits are "frivolous" and "out of control," the public is barraged with messages about how these lawsuits are causing doctors to leave the profession. Only then does the movement introduce legislative "solutions."

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) stands as a compelling example of the political power that can result when the traditional business-oriented, single-issue organizations operate in conjunction with the multi-issue organizations of the Right. ALEC, founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, (also the founder of the Heritage Foundation), is a major player in state tort reform battles. ALEC develops legislation templates for tort reform laws being passed in several states.40 In a June, 2003, commentary41 Weyrich wrote:

In a recent commentary, Rep. Frank Mazur of Vermont, in describing ALEC’s 2003 annual meeting, unwittingly reveals the strategic ideological interconnectedness of the Right:

In a report titled "Corporate America’s Trojan Horse in the States, The Untold Story Behind the American Legislative Exchange Council,"43 the Natural Resources Defense Council and Defenders of Wildlife state that "ALEC is little more than a tax-exempt screen for major US corporations and trade associations that use it to influence legislative activities at the state level." The report describes how, for a two-year $50 membership fee, state legislators are given "junkets to prime tourist destinations, . . . free or heavily subsidized trips that resemble vacations for their spouses and children, and an assortment of other fringe benefits." According to the report, ALEC also operates a Political Action Committee (ALEC-PAC) that gives contributions to state legislators. While ALEC describes itself as non-partisan, all the state legislators who serve as officers are Republicans, as are all but one of its 29 directors.

The right-wing movement has also taken to treating federal judges to all-expenses-paid seminars at luxury resorts and "educating" them about economics and free markets. (See Appendix 4, regarding the Law and Economics Center of George Mason University.) In a July, 2000, report titled "Nothing For Free: How Private Judicial Seminars Are Undermining Environmental Protections and Breaking the Public’s Trust," the Community Rights Council examines the inter-est groups and right-wing foundations funding these junkets. According to the report, "the three organizations hosting the most trips . . . share a remarkably similar, and in some respects extreme, conservative/libertarian ideology."44

The extremist Right and the tort reform movement are also working to elect politicians who will pass their legislation and judges who will ultimately rule in favor of the interests of the movement and its partners. The CALA Files report discussed efforts to elect state judges who will rule in favor of tort-reform advocates:

A Dayton Daily News story further illustrates these efforts to elect state judges; it reports, "The fight is no more evident than in the campaign contributions for two seats on the Ohio Supreme Court. Whoever wins the seats Nov. 5 could be asked to judge whether capping jury awards in medical malpractice cases is constitutional." 46

In Texas, the tort reform movement (with Enron’s Ken Lay helping start "Texans for Lawsuit Reform," one of the first tort reform organizations)47 was instrumental in electing George W. Bush as governor of Texas, launching his political career.

Electing state judges – and now appointing federal Judges – is a key component of the strategy of both the Right and the tort reform movement. This potentially renders in-court legal arguments irrelevant.

Meanwhile, the Right and the tort reform movement are going on the offensive against anyone who might question their goals, including fellow conservatives. The core group that controls the right wing movement is attacking moderate Republicans, accusing them of ideological impurity, deriding them as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only), and even seeking to drive them from office and out of the party.50

For their part, pro-tort reform corporate organizations are pressuring states by threatening to advise investors against investing in municipal bonds of states that do not limit punitive damage awards.

The Right Sets the Public Agenda

In recent years, the Right and the tort reform movement have enjoyed unprecedented success in influencing both federal and state legislation and policies by: 1) using organizations perceived by the public as independent, 2) repeating the anti-tort message as consistently as possible through multiple channels, 3) employing sophisticated communications methods, 4) following a coherent long-term plan, and 5) coordinating both ideologically and tactically with the Right’s network of advocacy organizations.

As a result, the Right’s message amplification infrastructure successfully drowns out significant opposing voices. As People for the American Way Foundation’s study "Buying a Movement" has put it:

Right-wing ideological premises and arguments dominate the national debate, with big money using the right-wing communications infrastructure to drown out other voices. "As one investigative journalist stated years ago in a pioneering investigation of the conservative philanthropy of Richard Scaife," wrote Sally Covington in her 1997 study, "The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foun-dations," " ‘layer upon layer of seminars, studies, conferences, and interviews [can] do much to push along, if not create, the issues, which then become the national agenda of debate.... By multiplying the authorities to whom the media are prepared to give a friendly hearing, [conservative donations] have helped to create an illusion of diversity where none exists. The result could be an increasing number of one-sided debates in which the challengers are far outnumbered, if indeed they are heard from at all.’ "53

A May Insurance Journal article boasts:

The combined tort campaign and right-wing message amplification approach has, unfor-tunately, garnered significant public and legislative support. Although trial lawyer and pro-tort organizations have made significant lobbying efforts over the years, they are losing in the court of public opinion. The Insurance Journal article reports that, "83 percent of those polled agreed there are too many lawsuits in America, and 45 percent support tort reform as opposed to 6 percent who oppose it. More impressively, 67 percent of the respondents said they'd be more likely to vote for a politician who favored tort re-form and 64 percent said they'd be less likely to vote for a candidate who opposed it."55

In June, the American Osteopathic Association’s report, "Professional Liability Reform, 2002-2003 Enacted Legislation"56 listed the following recent successes regarding tort reform:

1. - Alaska capped punitive damages at $500,000
2. - Colorado enacted a $300,000 non-economic damages cap
3. - Idaho enacted a $250,000 non-economic damages cap
4. - Mississippi enacted limited punitive damages
5. - Nevada enacted a $300,000 non-economic damages cap
6. - Ohio barred criminal offenders from receiving tort awards, and enacted a $300,000 non-economic damages cap and sliding-scale attorney fees
7. - Oklahoma enacted a $300,000 damages cap
8. - Texas enacted a $250,000 non-economic damages cap with a punitive damages cap at 1.4 million, and
9. - West Virginia enacted a $250,000 damages cap

Then, in July, 2003, the Insurance Journal reported that, "This year has been the busiest for enactment of state civil justice reform legislation since 1995, according to the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). At mid-year, 20 states already have enacted laws; 19 laws were enacted by the conclusion of 1995. . . . Some states have not concluded legislative sessions and others have called special sessions in order to advance reforms." According to the article, Texas passed far-reaching legislation that included joint and several liability reform, limits on non-economic damages, medical liability reform and punitive damages reform. Arkansas, Idaho and West Virginia have also passed comprehensive "reforms." Additionally, "This year, eight states have enacted medical liability reforms and another 17 have considered or are still considering legislation." 57

Even where anti-tort legislation is not enacted, the pool of potential jurors has been inundated with tort reform messages to the point where these ideas are taken as conventional wisdom. Jurors – even when it runs against their own personal interests as consumers – are exercising personal tort reform by finding against defendants.

In his report "Juror Perceptions About Lawsuits and Tort Reform" Dr. Richard Waites of the firm The Advocates, reports "a significant relationship between attitudes toward tort reform and verdicts," and writes that "jurors who adhere to tort reform beliefs and will apply them to achieve a more conservative verdict are also more likely to believe that individuals have a great deal of responsibility for their own conduct and outcomes. Those jurors are also less likely to hold a corporation or anyone else responsible for someone’s injuries absent clear evidence and strong arguments."58

The Minnesota Trial Lawyer report "Tort Reform: Perception Versus Reality" reaches similar conclusions:59

Achieving Their Goals

Major print and broadcast media, public opinion polls and the positions taken by politicians of both major parties make it clear that there has been a steady shift toward the tort-reform movement’s and the Right’s attitudes and policies. Very little that reaches the major media frames issues to the advantage of trial lawyers and injured parties. The acceptance of the term "tort reform" even by its opponents shows how effectively the right wing has managed to frame the issue.

The right-wing movement, in combination with corporate interests, has been successful not only in opposing trial lawyers, but also in getting people into government office who support their ideology. As a result, they have gained control over the legislative and administrative branches of the Federal government. With resulting appointments to the Courts, the Right and the tort-reform movement are poised to achieve their ultimate goal: passage of federal tort reform legislation that effectively "defunds" trial lawyers.

This report has shown that the tort reform movement is part of a two-pronged effort to influence public opinion and gain political power. Industry tort-reform groups utilize "independent voices" – PR agencies and phony "grass-roots" front groups that appear to be independent of the direct beneficiaries of "tort reform." Meanwhile, the Right has in place a tremendous ideological messaging infrastructure, working for the past 30 years to influence the public’s underlying social and ideological attitudes on issues, including tort reform. They have been disciplined, strategic, and patient. They have focused substantial resources on changing the underlying political and social environment, rather than focusing only on single issues.

Fighting Back

To mount an effective opposition, it is important that trial lawyers and others understand how the right-wing opposition operates. Information about the right-wing movement should be broadly disseminated to trial lawyers and others who are impacted by the actions from the Right.

Trial lawyers are not the only ones being attacked by the Right. Labor, public education, the environment and a wide range of other issues of concern are also under attack. Efforts to develop and/or strengthen relationships between organizations representing these constituencies, for the purpose of countering right-wing and corporate offenses, are important.

The Right has coordinated their efforts geographically as well as through many "independent voice" sources. The attack on the tort system is coordinated between national organizations like ATRA and state organizations like the CALAs. The effectiveness of this approach demonstrates the importance of close communication between national organizations like ATLA, and the numerous state organizations that favor a strong tort system, including organizations of other than trial lawyers.

Communication and coordination between existing organizations is not enough. One problem is that those responding to the Right’s attacks tend to focus on narrow, short-term issues, often reaching existing supporters rather than the general public. Trial lawyers, for example, have tried to explain to the public the truth about damage awards and misleading claims of lawsuit abuse, in response to the current attacks from the tort reform movement and the Right. But, because so many of the pro-tort reform arguments rest on the Right’s ideology, the effort to combat tort reform must also work to diminish public acceptance of the underlying ideology itself. Just as blackberry vines in the garden reappear until the root system is removed, tort reform arguments will continue to thrive with the public until the underlying ideology loses strength.

The Right’s success demonstrates the need – and provides the model – to build independent communications infrastructure organizations that reach the general public with messages that counter ideological messaging from the Right. One doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel, one need only look at the Right’s success and emulate it. Trial lawyers and other groups attacked by the Right should begin funding multi-issue organizations with a long-term marketing/communications plan to counter the Right’s ideology as well as specific tort reform arguments. Without independent voices serving as advocates for trial lawyers and the tort system, both the public and the politicians can be expected to support continued tort "reform."

Funding such organizations will have additional favorable effects. People and politicians who understand the need for strong consumer and patient protections are also likely to be pro-environment, pro-choice, and supportive of other issues. Similarly, pro-environment, pro-choice, etc. voters are very likely to be strongly supportive of the rights of consumers and patient and the interests of trial lawyers. And, owing to the principle of interconnectedness, over time, a funded marketing/communications infrastructure will support a growing network of credible individuals writing books, articles and commentar-ies, appearing on television and radio news and issues programs, speaking to public interest groups, and using their skills in many beneficial ways.

The question is how one best goes about building public support for an issue or perspective. The answer is simple, you support independent parties who will serve as independent voices, and who will make your case.

One of the tactics used by the Right is repetition of messages that are designed to resonate with the public and evoke a desired reaction. This appendix presents an example of coordinated use of one such strategic message, which has been repeated in various media, and by various organizations and prominent individuals. In this example the strategic message is that lawyers, lawsuits, etc. are "out of control." The unspoken, subliminal implication of this phrase is that "we have to get it under control."

1. • Magazine columns: "The tort system in the United States is out of control." "The Tort Tax," National Review.60

This is a look at a portion of one individual's tort-reform work, to demonstrate how interconnectedness leverages the work of individuals and organizations tied to the right-wing movement.

Michael I. Krauss, Professor of Law, George Mason University is author of "Tort Reform, CATO Institute 's Handbook for 107th Congress, 2001."69 Other tort reform publications at Cato include "Restoring the Boundary: Tort Law and the Right to Contract."70 George Mason University is covered in detail elsewhere in this report, and receives funding from the Scaife, Bradley, Koch, Earhart, Olin and Coors foundations.71 Cato, also discussed elsewhere in this report, receives funding from Scaife, Bradley, Koch, Earhart, Olin and Coors.72

According to Professor Krauss' biography,73 he is a Salvatori Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described elsewhere in this document, which receives funding from Scaife, Bradley, Coors and others;74 a member of the Advisory Board of Freedom House, which receives funding from Scaife, Bradley and Smith Richardson;75 a member of the adjunct faculty of the Institute for Justice, which receives funding from Scaife, Bradley, Koch, Olin and Coors;76 on the Board of Governors of the National Association of Scholars, which receives funding from Scaife, Bradley, Olin and Coors.77 His "Past Employment and Service" lists the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receives funding from Scaife, Bradley, Koch and Coors.78

Krauss has made various presentations79 to the Federalist Society, which receives funding from Scaife, Bradley, Koch, Olin and Coors.80

Krauss’ tort-reform work is cited at the anti-lawyer website Overlawyered.com.81

Krauss’ tort reform paper, "Federalism and Product Liability: One More Trip to the Choice-of-Law Well," was published in 2002 Brigham Young University Law Review 759.82 Brigham Young University receives funding from the Earhart and Olin foundations.83

Krauss’ tort reform paper, "Tort Law, Moral Accountability and Efficiency," ("Most people agree that today’s Tort law discourages personal responsibility,") was published in Markets & Morality, a publication of the Acton Institute for The Study of Religion and Liberty,84 which receives funding from Bradley, Koch and Coors.85

Krauss’ paper, "Smoke and Fire: Government Recoupment Suits and the Rule of Law," was published by the Independent Institute,86 which receives funding from Koch and Olin.87

The Washington Legal Foundation, described elsewhere in this report, receives funding from Scaife, Olin and Coors,88 and published Krauss' "Suits Against "Big Fat" Tread On Basic Tort Liability Principles" in their publication, Legal Backgrounder.89 Professor Krauss also speaks at the Washington Legal Foundation.90

Krauss’ paper, "Today's Tort Suits Are Stranger Than Fiction"91 appeared in the publication Virginia Viewpoint, published by Virginia Institute for Public Policy, which receives funding from Coors, Koch,92 and managed by the former President of Cato Institute.

Krauss’ work is cited in a pro-tort-reform column by Walter Williams, the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University.93

Krauss’ work is cited in a tort reform article by Consumer Freedom (www.consumerfreedom.com), a food- and liquor-industry front-organization.94

Krauss is quoted in numerous newspaper stories95 on tort reform issues.

Michael Krauss’ interconnectedness with other right-wing issues:

These examples show the utility of having an infrastructure in place to support the Right’s use of the interconnectedness effect to advance multiple issues. With a ready-to-go message amplification infrastructure in place, the right is able to utilize their many funded scholars, such as Krauss, to advance a broad range of causes, not just tort reform.

Krauss authored a Washington Times column, "Loading the dice for the ruling?" opposing affirmative action and diversity.96

Krauss gave an endorsement of Foundation Francisco Marroquin,97 where he had lectured, which receives funding from Bradley.98

Krauss authored a July 23, 2003 column on conservative Fox News Online, "Just Say No To Drug Re-Importation,"99 supporting the pharmaceutical-industry position.

Krauss signed a petition, Don't Let The President Lie With Impunity, (President Clinton, not President Bush). This petition appears in a Claremont Institute publication.100 Claremont receives funding from Scaife, Bradley, and Olin.101

1. • Mallard Fillmore Comic Strip102

1. • Lawyers and Other Reptiles. ‘A California lawyer has filed a $100,000 libel lawsuit against GTE Directories Sales Corp., alleging that the publisher listed her name and phone number in at least one yellow pages directory under "Reptiles".’ At Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse website.103

The connections in the example: Fox News, Cato Institute, JunkScience.com

1. • "Scare-Mongering Over 'Hillybilly Heroin' Deprives the Rest of Us." Published at Fox News by Steven Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of the upcoming book Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

Website: http://www.heritage.org/

Statements from the Heritage Foundation website:

Example of Heritage Foundation tort-reform product:

Heritage Foundation: Examples of recent major right-wing foundation funding:111

Heartland Institute

Website: http://www.heartland.org/

Example tort-reform product:

Publication "Lawsuit Abuse Fortnightly," available at website.112

Example of corporate funding source, according to Friends of the Earth:113

Funding from ExxonMobil $90,000 in 2001

Example of interconnectedness:

From Heartland’s Lawsuit Abuse Fortnightly:

Heartland Institute: Examples of recent foundation funding:114

ATR is not directly tied to the tort-reform movement, but is included here because it funds Grover Norquist, who leads the weekly right-wing coordination meetings, and who has written that the real goal of tort reform is to "defund" trial lawyers as a step toward defunding "the left."

Web address: http:// www.atr.org

Some examples of recent foundation funding:115

Website: http://www.wlf.org/

Statements from the WLF website:

1. • shaping public policy through aggressive litigation and advocacy
2. • publishing timely legal studies
3. • educating policy-makers and the public through extensive communications outreach"117

Example tort reform product:

Civil Justice Reform, Online Journal.118

WLF Publishes the Legal Opinion Letter, a pro- tort reform publication.

Washington Legal Foundation: Examples of recent foundation funding:119

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

Website: http://www.alec.org/viewpage.cfm?pgname=5.03

ALEC: Examples of recent foundation funding:121

Website: http://www.fed-soc.org/

Example tort reform product:

Publishes Class Action Watch.122

Federalist Society: Examples of recent foundation funding:123

National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)

Website: http://www.ncpa.org

Statement from NCPA’s website:

From National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy’s study, " The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations ":

Example tort-reform product:

"Doctors Face Soaring Malpractice Premiums"125

Examples of corporate funding sources, from Science in the Public Interest: 126

1. • Thomas W. Smith, Managing Partner of Prescott Investors, Inc.
2. • John C. Goodman, President, NCPA
3. • Pete du Pont, Richards, Layton and Finger
4. • James Cleo Thompson, Jr., Chairman of the Board, Thompson Petroleum Corp.
5. • Jere W. Thompson, President, The Williamsburg Corporation
6. • Dan W. Cook III, Senior Director of Goldman Sachs & Co.
7. • Robert H. Dedman, Chairman of the Board, ClubCorp International
8. • Virginia Manheimer, Trustee, The Hickory Foundation

1. • Henry J. "Bud" Smith, Chairman Emeritus, Clark/Bardes, Inc.

1. • DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
2. • El Paso Energy Foundation
3. • ExxonMobil Foundation
4. • Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
5. • Lilly Endowment Inc.
6. • Procter & Gamble Fund"

NCPA: Examples of recent foundation funding:127

Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy

Website: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/clp.htm

Statement from their website:

Example tort-reform product:

Manhattan Institute: Examples of recent foundation funding:130

Website: http://www.cato.org

From Media Transparency’s report on the Cato Institute:

Examples of corporate funding sources:

Example tort reform products:

Cato Institute: Examples of recent foundation funding:135

Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE)

Website: http://www.cse.org/informed/key_template.php?issue_it=2 .

Statement from their website:

From Media Transparency's report: 136

Example tort reform product:

Examples of corporate funding sources:138

CSE: Examples of recent foundation funding:139

Website: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/law/lawecon/

The Law & Economic Center … "treats federal judges to all-expenses-paid, two-week seminars held at tony resorts. At these conferences, judges are drilled in advanced legal and economic theories that advocate a hands-off approach to the ‘free market.’"140

- Charles Mueller, Editor, Antitrust Law & Economics Review142

Some examples of recent foundation funding:143

George Mason University Foundation, Inc.

Some examples of recent foundation funding:144

Some examples of recent foundation funding:145

Appendix 5 – Examples of the Involvement of Organizations That Advocate Tort Reform (no funding data included)

Americans for Job Security (no website)

AJS is a "stealth" issue-ad organization that exists to develop and run "issue ads" against Democratic candidates. See the information on this organization at Campaign Finance Institute.146

The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) and The American Tort Reform Foundation

Website: http://www.atra.org/

ATRA coordinates approximately 40 state tort reform coalitions.

Tort reform product example: Publishes the weekly Legislative Watch and The Reformer, a monthly newsletter.

According to the Center for Justice and Democracy report "The CALA Files – a Report on Tort Reform":

ATRA publishes short, misleading accounts of so-called "Looney lawsuits."148

ATRA is also the American Tort Reform Foundation, which receives some of its funding from Scaife's Carthage Foundation.149

The American Tort Reform Foundation website is: http://www.atrafoundation.org/

Business Roundtable – Civil Justice Reform

Website: http://www.brtable.org/issue.cfm/10

According to their website:

Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA)

A number of related state organizations, coordinated by ATRA.

California Website: http://www.cala.com/ .

Example tort-reform products:

Lawsuit horror stories

According to the Center for Justice and Democracy report "The CALA Files – a Report on Tort Reform": 150

1. • The CALA blueprint was honed in South Texas in the early 1990s where the first group to carry the "lawsuit abuse" message ran doom and gloom television and radio ads warning that the legal system was out of control, affecting the economy and the pocketbooks of average people. Creating a model that was duplicated nationwide, the Texas CALA groups developed a statewide support network that included the Texas Chamber of Commerce, the right-wing Texas Public Policy Foundation, and numerous corporations wishing to shield themselves from consumer lawsuits."

Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (CILR)

US Chamber of Commerce.

Website: http://www.litigationfairness.org/who.html

Example tort-reform products:

Stories of Outrageous Class Action Lawsuits151

Facts & Figures152

According to their website:

1. • Reforming the class action system to make it simpler, fairer and faster
2. • Common-sense reforms to ensure fairness in product liability suits
3. • Assuring damage awards are fair and equitable
4. • Elimination of frivolous lawsuits
5. • Enforcement of legal ethics rules"

Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Healthcare (CARH)

Website: http://www.carh.net/

According to their website:

Common Good - Reforming America's Lawsuit Culture

Website: http://cgood.org/

According to their website:

Health Coalition on Liability and Access (HCLA)

http://www.hcla.org/

According to their website:

Website: http://www.junkscience.com/

Statement from their website:

Critical description of this organization:

- The Skeptics Dictionary153

Steven J. Milloy is the founder and publisher of junkscience.com , an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and a columnist for FoxNews.com.154

(More Steven Milloy interconnectedness information is available in a short research piece at Clear Project, at http://www.clearproject.org/reports_milloy.html .)

National Association of Manufacturers – Fair Litigation Action Group (FLAG)

Website: http://www.nam.org/secondary.asp?TrackID=&CategoryID=1031&

According to their website:

Overlawyered.com – Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

A weblog published by Walter Olson.

Interconnectedness example from Mr. Olson’s biography at the Cato Institute:

Walter Olson’s Web site has links from:

Website: http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/

also lawyersstink.com

This is a website of lawyer-hatred. "Lawyers stink" shirts and caps are for sale. The site also offers a "Lawyer joke of the day" as well as other anti-lawyer vehicles.

Website: http://sickoflawsuits.org

Items from their website:

"Lawyers Exploiting the Mentally Ill"

Lawsuit Abuse Library

Their links include TownHall.com, which is run by the Heritage Foundation.

Communities Against Unethical Attorneys – Washington State

Website: http://www.caua.org/

Website: http://www.gppf.org/

Website: http://www.icjl.org/

Statement from their website:

http://www.mlaw.org

Statement from their website:

New Yorkers for Civil Justice Reform

Website: http://www.nycjr.org/

Statement from their website:

Website: http://www.tnlegalreform.com/

Statement from their website:

A CALA organization

Website: http://www.tala.com/

There are many more state organizations.

Notes & References

2 Middleton, Jr., Richard H. "The Truth Is Out There." ATLA. Viewed July 28, 2003 <http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources/Tier3/press_room/president/nljtruthisoutthere.aspx>

3 Deal, Carl and Joanne Doroshow. "The CALA Files – The Secret Campaign by Big Tobacco and Other Major Industries to Take Away Your Rights." Center for Justice and Democracy and Public Citizen. Executive summary online at <http://www.centerjd.org/lib/cala.htm> To order a copy of this report, contact the Center for Justice and Democracy at 212-267-2801.

4 Deal, Carl and Joanne Doroshow. "The CALA Files – The Secret Campaign by Big Tobacco and Other Major Industries to Take Away Your Rights." Center for Justice and Democracy and Public Citizen. Executive summary online at <http://www.centerjd.org/lib/cala.htm> To order a copy of this report, contact the Center for Justice and Democracy at 212-267-2801.

5 LawyersStink.com is part of the Power-of-Attorneys website. See Appendix 5.

6 From People For the American Way Foundation’s report, "Buying a Movement." The report is viewable online at <http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052> and can be downloaded in PDF format at <http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_33.pdf>

7 Bradley as member of John Birch Society, numerous references including PFAWF’s study, "Buying a Movement." Viewed August 14, 2003 <http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2068>

8 Coors and John Birch Society: "Right-Wing Message For Sale." Public Employee. AFSCME. November/December 1996. Viewed August 14, 2003 <http://www.afscme.org/publications/public_employee/1996/pend9607.htm>

9 Koch Foundations, John Birch Society, libertarian support, see Media Transparency <http://www.mediatransparency.org/funders/koch_family_foundations.htm>

10 William Simon, member of Council for National Policy. "Vast, Right-Wing Cabal? Meet the Most Powerful Conservative Group You've Never Heard Of." ABC News. May 2, 2002.

Viewed August 14, 2003 <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/council_020501.html>. Chair of Unification Church’s Nicaragua Freedom Fund. Among numerous references is Group Watch, Political Research Associates. <http://www.publiceye.org/research/Group_Watch/Entries-98.htm>

11 For information on Richard Mellon Scaife, See: Lyons, Gene and Joe Conason. "Circle of Deceit." Arkansas Times. May 5, 2000. http://www.arktimes.com/000505coverstory.html . See also the May, 1999 Washington Post series on Scaife, "Funding Father of the Right." <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaife050299.htm>

12 The John Birch Society’s Get US Out! campaign is online at <http://www.getusout.org/>

13 Callahan, David. "$1 Billion for Ideas: Conservative Think Tanks in the 1990s." National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. March 1999. <http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/ncrp.callahan.1.htm>

14 Media Transparency on Americans for Tax Reform foundation funding. Viewed August 20, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=485>

15 Information about Grover Norquist and the weekly coordination meetings is available at Commonweal Institute's "Collection of links to articles, reports and resources for learning about the right-wing movement, its history, how it is funded and how it operates," online at <http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html#weekly>. See also the June 1, 2001 USA Today story, "Norquist’s power high, profile low," available at <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-01-grover.htm>

16 Dreyfuss, Robert. "Grover Norquist: 'Field Marshal' of the Bush Plan." The Nation. April 26, 2001. <http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010514&c=1&s=dreyfuss>

17 Zuckman, Jill. "Pipeline Leads to White House" USA Today, June 9, 2003. Viewed August 30, 2003 <http://www.atr.org/atrnews/060903ctrib.html>

18 Alterman, Erik. "The Right Sort." Guardian Unlimited. December 15, 2001. Viewed August 20, 2003 <http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4319110,00.html>

19 Brock, David. Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative. Crown. Reviewed online at <http://www.nybooks.com/articles/article-preview?article_id=15522>

20 Junnola, Jill. "Perspective: Who funds whom?" Energy Compass. October 4, 2002. Viewed August 14, 2003 <http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/243>

21 Kellard, Joseph. "The Anti-Tobacco Crusade: "Addiction" vs. Personal Responsibility." Capitalism Magazine. March 8, 1998. Viewed September 15, 2003 <http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=34>

22 Jones, Stephanie K. "What About Personal Responsibility?" Insurance Journal. November 5, 2001 Viewed September 15, 2003 <http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/southcentral/2001/11/05/editorsnote/18459.htm>

23 Rader, Randall R. "Do You Really Believe in a Limited Government?" The Freeman, a publication of The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., January 1980, Vol. 30, No. 1. Viewed September 15, 2003 <http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/governmentreformitsrealrole/youreallybelieve.shtml> "At the time of the original publication, Mr. Rader was Legislative Counsel in the Office of Congressman Philip Crane." Mr. Rader, a Federalist Society member, is now a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

24 Mackinac Center funding information gathered from Media Transparency. Viewed September 16, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=197>

25 Duff, David C. "Personal Responsibility: A Brief Survey." The Freeman. The Foundation for Economic Education. July 1989. Viewed September 15, 2003 <http://www.self-gov.org/freeman/8907huff.html>

26 Power-of-Attorneys website. <http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/personal-injury.htm>

27 Norquist, Grover. "Winner Take All - The 2000 elections will decide the Democrats' future" American Spectator. April, 1999. Viewed July 28, 2003 <http://www.atr.org/opeds/tas/tas0499.html>

28 Norquist, Grover. "The Coming Bush Dynasty." American Spectator. February, 2001. Viewed July 28, 2003 <http://www.atr.org/opeds/tas/tas0201.html>

29 Edsall, Thomas B. "GOP using 'tort reform' as powerful political club." (Originally appearing in The Washington Post.) Seattle Times. August 10, 2003. Viewed August 26, 2003 <http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461089_lawsuits10.html>

30 Sources describing the right attacking unions through "Paycheck Protection" –

Dreyfuss, Robert. Paycheck Protection Racket. Mother Jones. May, June 1998. Viewed online September 24, 2003 <http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/MJ98/dreyfuss.html>

"The Real Story Behind ‘Paycheck Protection’ — The Hidden Link Between Anti-Worker and Anti-Public Education Initiatives: An Anatomy of the Far Right." National Education Association. This excellent report is no longer available online! A discussion of the NEA report is available online at <http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-18/06critic.h18>

31 Voucher Veneer: The Deeper Agenda to Privatize Public Education. People For the American Way Foundation. July, 2003. Viewed September 24, 2003 <http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11371>

32 About Heritage Foundation, Heritage website. Viewed July 28, 2003 <http://www.heritage.org/About/aboutHeritage.cfm>

33 Washington Legal Foundation. Description from WLF at-a-glance. Viewed July 28, 2003 <http://www.wlf.org/default.asp>

34 Covington, Sally. " The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations ." National Committee for Responsive Philanthrophy. July 1997. Viewed July 28, 2003 < http://www.mediatransparency.org/movement.htm>

35 Borosage, Robert, "The Mighty Wurlitzer." The American Prospect. May 6, 2002. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/8/borosage-r.html>

36 CALA-sponsored high-school essay contest. San Diego County CALA. <http://www.sdcala.org/Essay.html>

37 Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute. Viewed July 28, 2003 <http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/clp.htm>

38 Center for Justice and Democracy. "The CALA Files – a report on tort reform." <http://www.centerjd.org/lib/cala.htm>

39 Fair Litigation Action Group (FLAG), National Association of Manufacturers. FLAG Mission Statement. Viewed July 28, 2003 <http://www.nam.org/secondary.asp?TrackID=&CategoryID=1031>

40 For examples of tort reform legislation based on ALEC’s model, see "Tort Reform Bills Signed in Arkansas, Idaho; Bills Pass in Colorado, Georgia," NAMIC Online, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, March 28, 2003. Viewed September 16 <http://www.namic.org/advocatenews/adv030328_2.asp>

41 Weyrich , Paul M. "ALEC: Representing Conservative Principles In Your State's Legislature." Free Congress Foundation Commentaries. June 6, 2003. Viewed September 16, 2003 <http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/030606PW.asp>

42 Mazur, Frank. "ALEC Annual Conference 2003" Rep. Frank Mazur's Pages. August 23, 2003. Viewed September 24, 2003 <http://home.adelphia.net/~frankmazur/ALEC_08_03.htm>

43 "Corporate America’s Trojan Horse in the States, The Untold Story Behind the Americal Legislative Exchange Council.: A report from Defenders of Wildlife and NRDC. Available online at <http://www.alecwatch.org/11223344.pdf>

44 Kendall, Doug. "Nothing For Free: How Private Judicial Seminars Are Undermining Environmental Protections and Breaking the Public’s Trust." A report by the Community Rights Council. July 2000. Viewed September 2003 <http://www.tripsforjudges.org/crc.pdf>

- Also see "Who's Junketing the Judges." Trips For Judges website. Viewed September 1, 2003. <http://www.tripsforjudges.org/big_3.html>

- Also see Leonard, Andrew. "Tipping the antitrust scales - How the right helped make the federal courts safe for Microsoft." Salon. March, 1999. Viewed September 1, 2003 http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/03/cov_17feature.html

- Also see Lardner Jr., George. "Report Links Environmental Rulings, Judges' Free Trips." Washington Post. July 25, 2000. Viewed September 1, 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=politics/fedpage&contentId=A38316-2000Jul24&notFound=true>

45 "The CALA Files." Center for Justice and Democracy. <http://www.centerjd.org/lib/cala.htm>

46 Bischoff, Laura A. "Donors weigh in on 'tort reform' – Doctors, lawyers battle over awards." Dayton Daily News. September 29, 2002. Viewed August 5, 2003 <http://www.ohiocitizen.org/moneypolitics/weigh_in.htm>

47 Ken Lay helping start first tort reform organization in Texas:

Doroshow, Joanne. "‘Tort Reform,’ Bush and the Enron Connection." Center for Justice and Democracy. January 26, 2002. Viewed September 27, 2003 <http://www.centerjd.org/press/release/020126.htm>

"Bush, Lay Shielded Errant TX Businesses From Lawsuits." Texans for Public Justice. February 12, 2002. Viewed September 27, 2003 <http://www.tpj.org/Lobby_Watch/enrontlr.html>

48 Borger, Julian and Martin Kettle. "How big money buys big votes in US race." Guardian Unlimited. October 10, 2000. Viewed August 5, 2003 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,379976,00.html>

49 Woellert, Lorraine. "Tort Reform: A Little Here, a Little There... Business lobbyists are pursuing smaller changes--that add up." Business Week. January 20, 2003.Viewed August 5, 2003 <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_03/b3816086.htm>

50 For information and numerous articles about the right attacking moderate Republicans as RINOs, see <http://www.commonwealinstitute.org/information.html#moderates>

51 O’Reilly, Kevin B. "Tort Reform Advocates Strike While Iron is Hot." Insurance Journal. May 5, 2003. Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/west/2003/05/05/features/28729.htm>

52 From PFAW’s report, "Buying a Movement." <http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2052>

53 Covington, Sally. " The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations ." National Committee for Responsive Philanthrophy. July 1997. Viewed July 28, 2003 < http://www.mediatransparency.org/movement.htm>

54 O’Reilly, Kevin B. "Tort Reform Advocates Strike While Iron is Hot." Insurance Journal. May 5, 2003. Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/west/2003/05/05/features/28729.htm>

55 O’Reilly, Kevin B. "Tort Reform Advocates Strike While Iron is Hot." Insurance Journal. May 5, 2003. Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/west/2003/05/05/features/28729.htm>

56 "Professional Liability Reform 2002-2003 Enacted Legislation." American Osteopathic Association. June 2003. Viewed September 15, 2003 <http://www.aoa-net.org/Government/stateaffairs/PLI/newbills.pdf>

57 "20 States Have Enacted Tort Reforms This Year." Insurance Journal. July 15, 2003. Viewed August 26, 2003 <http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/newswire/national/2003/07/15/30657.htm>

58 Waites, Dr. Richard. "Juror Perceptions About Lawsuits and Tort Reform"

The Advocates Trial and Advocacy Sciences (a firm). 2003. Viewed September 15, 2003 <http://www.theadvocates.com/Juror%20Perceptions%20About%20Lawsuits%20and%20.Tort%20Reform.pdf>

59Tassoni , Brooke , Daniel O`Fallon and Bruce Finzen . "Tort Reform: Perception Versus Reality." Minnesota Trial Lawyer, Winter 2003. Viewed September 15, 2003 <http://www.rkmc.com/article.asp?articleId=231>

60 Small, Patricia. "The Tort Tax." National Review. November 4, 2002. <http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_small/small110402.asp>

61 Business Councils of New York State story describing Buffalo News editorials. May, 2003. <http://www.bcnys.org/whatsnew/2003/0430bnws.htm>

62 "Bush plugs his tort reform plan." AMA News in brief report of \Aug. 8, 2002 speech by President Bush, in Madison, Mississippi. Viewed July 29, 2003 <http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/pick_02/gvbf0902.htm>

63 Roll Call magazine. July, 2003 (PDF file) Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.hcla.org/ads/RollCallAd-07-07-03.pdf>

64 "US lawyers stoke corporate anger." World Business Review, BBC, Feb. 21, 2003. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/business/features/businessreview/articles/01032003.shtml>

65 Doherty, Robert. "Overcoming the obstacles to medical liability reform." ACP-ASIM Observer. American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine. <http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/sep02/washington.htm>

66 Orange County CALA website. <http://www.occala.org/facts.html> and

Power-of-attorneys website. <http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stopabuse.htm>

67 Michigan Daily. University of Michigan. October 16, 1995. Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1995/10-16-95/news/tort.html>

68 Nicastro, Dean P. "Tort Reform Debate Continues." Letter to the editor. Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. May 13, 2003. <http://www2.mms.org/pages/profliability_mlw.asp>

69 "Tort Reform," Handbook for 107th Congress, 2001. Cato Institute. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/hb107-33.pdf>

70 Krauss, Michael I. "Restoring the Boundary:Tort Law and the Right to Contract." Cato Institute. June 3, 1999. <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-347es.html>

71 George Mason University funded by Scaife, Bradley, Koch, Earhart, Olin and Coors – Media Transparency. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=413> and <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=138>

72 Cato Institute funded by Koch, Scaife, Coors, Earhart, Olin and Bradley according to Media Transparency. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=51>

73 Professor Krauss' biography is online at < http://classweb.gmu.edu/mkrauss/ > and <http://www.calvertinstitute.org/sb/sbPage58.html>

74 Heritage Foundation funded by Scaife, Coors and Bradley – Media Transparency. Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=153>

75 Freedom House, New York City, is, according to Media Transparency, funded by Scaife, Bradley and Smith Richardson. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=128>

76 Institute for Justice, Washington, D.C. Funded by Scaife, Bradley, Coors, Koch, Olin – Media Transparency. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=170>

77 National Association of Scholars. Funded by Scaife, Olin, Bradley, Coors – Media Transparency. Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=242>

78 Competitive Enterprise Institute. Funded by Scaife, Bradley, Koch, Coors – Media Transparency. Viewed July 24, 2003

<http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=81>

79 One such presentation to the Federalist Society is available online at <http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/PG%20Links/krause.htm>

80 Federalist Society. Funded by Scaife, Coors, Bradley, Koch, Olin – Media Transparency. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=112>

81 Michael I Krauss tort reform work cited at Overlawyered.com. Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://overlawyered.com/archives/00oct3.html>

82 Krauss, Michael I. "Federalism and Product Liability: One More Trip to the Choice-of-Law Well." 2002 Brigham Young University Law Review 759 . Viewed July 25, 2003 <http://www.law2.byu.edu/lawreview/archives/2002/4/Kra1.pdf>

83 Brigham Young receives some funding from Earhart and Olin – Media Transparency. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1172>

84 Krauss, Michael I. "Tort Law, Moral Accountability, and Efficiency: Reflections on the Current Crisis." Markets & Morality. Acton Institute for The Study of Religion and Liberty. V2.N1, Spring 1999. Viewed July 30, 2003 < http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/1999_spr/krauss.html >

85 Acton Institute funded by Bradley, Koch and Coors, according to Media Transparency. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=3>

86 Krauss, Michael I. "Smoke and Fire: Government Recoupment Suits and the Rule of Law." Independent Institute, May 2000. Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://www.independent.org/tii/catalog_pr/policy_FireAndSmoke.html>

87 The Independent Institute funded by Koch, Olin – Media Transparency. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1119>

88 Washington Legal Foundation. Funded by Coors, Scaife and Olin – Media Transparency. Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=912>

89 Krauss, Michael I. "Suits Against "Big Fat" Tread On Basic Tort Liability Principles." Legal Backgrounder. Washington Legal Foundation. March 14, 2003. <http://www.wlf.org/upload/03-14-03krauss.pdf>

90 Krauss speaking at WLF. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.wlf.org/Resources/Partners/speakers.asp>

91 Krauss, Michael I. "Today's Tort Suits Are Stranger Than Fiction" Virginia Viewpoint. Virginia Institute for Public Policy. May, 2003. Viewed July 24 <http://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2003_05.html>

92 Media Transparency on Virginia Institute for Public Policy funding. Viewed July 28, 2003. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1935>, and Charles Koch of Koch Foundation is on their board.

93 Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww200089.shtml>

94 "Fast Food Lawsuits Break All the Rules." Consumer Freedom. March 18, 2003. Viewed July 24, 2003. <http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=1833>

95 Some newspaper stories quoting Professor Krauss are listed online at <http://www.gmu.edu/departments/law/faculty/news.html>

96 Krauss, Michael I. "Loading the dice for the ruling?" Washington Times. June 17, 2003.

Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030616-093402-5292r.htm>

97 Krauss endorsement of Foundation Francisco Marroquin Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://www.ffmnet.org/kudos.htm>

98 Media Transparency on Foundation Francisco Marroquin funding. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?123>

99 Krauss, Michael I. "Just Say No To Drug Re-Importation." Fox News, July 23, 2003, Viewed July 24, 2003 <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92767,00.html>

100 "Don't Let the President Lie With Impunity," from December 10, 1998 edition of the Wall Street Journal. Viewed July 28, 2003 <http://adnetsolfp2.adnetsol.com/ssl_claremont/Impeachment_statement.cfm>

101 Claremont Institute funded by Scaife, Bradley, Olin – Media Transparency. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=72>

102 Tinsley, Bruce. Mallard Fillmore comic strip. August 18, 2003. <http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/mallard.asp?date=20030818> Reprinted with special Permission of King Features Syndicate.

103 "Lawsuits and other reptiles." Houston Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.calahouston.org/brief2.html>

104 PowerOfAttornets.com. Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/laughing.htm>

105 The Center for Consumer Freedom. Posted On June 23. Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.consumerfreedom.com/headline_detail.cfm?HEADLINE_ID=1980>

106 ATRA Loony Lawsuits website. Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.atra.org/display/13>

107 Milloy, Steven. "Scare-Mongering Over 'Hillybilly Heroin' Deprives the Rest of Us." FOX News. August 5, 2001. Viewed July 28, 2003 < http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,31226,00.html >

108 About Heritage Foundation, from Heritage website. <http://www.heritage.org/about/>

109 More About Heritage Foundation. <http://www.heritage.org/About/aboutHeritage.cfm>

110 Meese, Edward and Paul Rosenzweig. "The Urgent Need for Civil Justice Reform." Heritage Foundation. May 29, 2002. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed052902a.cfm>

111 Media Transparency description of Heritage Foundation. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=153>

112 Lawsuit Abuse Fortnightly, Heartland Institute. <http://www.heartland.org/Publications.cfm?pblId=7>

113 Heartland corporate funding source, from Friends of the Earth press release. Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.foe.org/new/releases/802jobergrw.html>

114 Media Transparency description of Heartland Institute. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=152>

115 Media Transparency on Americans for Tax Reform foundation funding. Viewed August 20, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=485>

116 WLF At-A-Glance, from Washington Legal Foundation website <http://www.wlf.org>

117 WLF Mission, from Washington Legal Foundation website <http://www.wlf.org/Resources/WLFMission/>

118 Civil Justice Reform. Washington Legal Foundation. <http://www.wlf.org/Publishing/pubsbytopic.asp?topic=3>

119 Media Transparency on Washington Legal Foundation's foundation funding. Viewed July 25, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=912>

120 Media Transparency description of ALEC. Viewed July 25, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/alec.htm>

121 Media Transparency on ALEC's foundation funding. Viewed July 23, 2003 http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=585

122 Class Action Watch. <http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/classactionwatch/cawtoc.htm>

123 Media Transparency on Federalist Society foundation funding. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=112>

124 Covington, Sally. " The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations ." National Committee for Responsive Philanthrophy. July 1997. Viewed July 28, 2003 < http://www.mediatransparency.org/movement.htm>

125 "Doctors Face Soaring Malpractice Premiums." NCPA Daily Policy Digest. Tuesday, December 04, 2001. Viewed August 20, 2003 < http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd120401b.html>

126 2001 NCPA Funding. "Non-profit Organizations with Ties to Industry." Center for Science in the Public Interest. <http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html>

127 Media Transparency on National Center for Policy Analysis foundation funding. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=246>

128 Olson, Walter. "The Rule of Lawyers – How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America’s Rule of Law." Truman Talley Books/St. Martin's. Online summary at <http://www.theruleoflawyers.com>

129 Olson, Walter. "A Spanking for the Trial Lawyers." Wall Street Journal, 5-23-03. Viewed August 21, 2003 <http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_wsj-a_spanking_for_trial.htm>

130 Media Transparency description of Manhatan Institute. Viewed July 23, 2003 <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=198>

131 Media Transparency description of Cato Institute. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=51>

132 Cato corporate funding, Clear Project research. Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research. <http://www.clearproject.org/reports_cato.html>

133 Cato's Tort Reform issues web pages: <http://www.cato.org/legalissues/torts.html>

134 Cato Handbook for Congress, on tort reform: <http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/hb107-33.pdf>

135 Media Transparency on Cato Institute foundation funding. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=51>

136 Media Transparency on CSE. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/cse.htm>

137 Citizens for a Sound Economy. Lawsuit Abuse : Issue Homepage. Viewed August 20, 2003 <http://www.cse.org/informed/key_template.php?issue_it=2>

138 "Non-profit Organizations with Ties to Industry," Center for Science in the Public Interest. <http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/corp_funding.html>

139 Media Transparency report on Citizens for a Sound Economy <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=395>

140 Leonard, Andrew. "Tipping the antitrust scales - How the right helped make the federal courts safe for Microsoft." Salon. March, 1999. Viewed September 1, 2003 <http://archive.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/03/cov_17feature.html>

141 "Moving a Public Policy Agenda." National Committee for Responsive Philanthrophy. July, 1997. <http://www.ncrp.org/reports/moving.htm>

142 Charles Mueller, Editor, ANTITRUST LAW & ECONOMICS REVIEW, online comment from 15 Jan 1997, viewed July 24, 2003 <http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/antitrust/msg00006.html>

143 Law and Economics Center funding, according to Media Transparency. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=952>

144 George Mason University Foundation funding, according to Media Transparency. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=138>

145 George Mason University funding, according to Media Transparency: <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=413>

146 Campaign Finance Institute. <http://www.cfinst.org/disclosure/report1/appSecurity.htm>

147 Center for Justice and Democracy. "The CALA Files – a report on tort reform." <http://www.centerjd.org/lib/cala.htm>

148 ATRA accounts of "Looney lawsuits." Viewed August 13, 2003 <http://www.atra.org/display/13>

149 ATRF funding from Scaife, according to Media Transparency. <http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=1377>

150 Center for Justice and Democracy. "The CALA Files – a report on tort reform." <http://www.centerjd.org/lib/cala.htm>

151 Stories of Outrageous Class Action Lawsuits at Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. <http://www.litigationfairness.org/stories_outrageous.html>

152 Facts & Figures. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. <http://www.litigationfairness.org/facts.html>

153 The Skeptics Dictionary. <http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html>

154 Steven Milloy biography at Cato Institute. <http://www.cato.org/people/milloy.html>

155 From Manhatan Institute biography of Walter K. Olson, publisher of Overlawyered.com. Viewed July 28, 2003 < http://manhattan-institute.org/html/olson.htm>

Fib: High medical malpractice awards are driving up the cost of medical malpractice insurance:

FACT: Consumer groups, a bi-partisan legislative committee, and even the insurance industry say insurers' bad business practices, not jury awards, drive up premiums:

* "[M]edical malpractice premiums charged by insurance companies do not correspond to increases or decreases in payouts, which have been steady for 30 years. Rather, premiums rise and fall in concert with the state of the economy." Medical Malpractice Insurance: Stable Losses/Unstable Rates, Americans for Insurance Reform (under the direction of J. Robert Hunter Director of Insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, former Federal Insurance Administrator and Texas Insurance Commissioner) October 10, 2002.

* "[The] insurance industry has played a role in the continuing limitations on accessible and affordable insurance coverage for the health care providers . . . " Final Report of the Insurance Availability and Medical Malpractice Industry Committee, a bi-partisan committee of the West Virginia Legislature, issued January 7, 2003.

"I don't like to hear insurance-company executives say it's the tort system - it's self inflicted." – Donald J. Zuk, Chief Executive of Scpie Holdings Inc., a leading malpractice insurer in California, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2002.

Fib: Caps on non-economic damages will bring down doctors' malpractice insurance premiums:

FACT: Experience in states with caps has shown – and insurers and tort "reformers" admit - that caps and tort "reform" won't lower doctors' premiums.

* In California, which limits non-economic damages to $250,000, the average actual premium is $27,570, eight percent higher than the average of all states that have no caps on non-economic damages. Medical Liability Monitor, 2001.

* Malpractice premiums in California increased by 190% during the first 12-years following enactment of the $250,000 MICRA cap. Proposition 103 Enforcement Project Study, 1995. It took California's Proposition 103 - insurance reform - to lower and stabilize malpractice premium rates.

* "[A]ny limitations placed on the judicial system will nave no immediate effect on the cost of liability insurance for health care providers." Final Report of the Insurance Availability and Medical Malpractice Industry Committee, a bi-partisan committee of the West Virginia Legislature, issued January 7, 2003.

* "Nevada's new medical-liability program won't see immediate improvement in premium rates after a recent legislative initiative. . . . [A]nother company insuring physicians for medical liability, American Physicians Assurance, also wasn't planning any reduction." Best's Insurance News, August 20, 2002.

* "We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates." Sherman Joyce, President of the American Tort Reform Association, "Study Finds No Link Between Tort Reforms and Insurance Rates," Liability Week, July 19, 1999.

* "Insurers never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings . . ." From a March 13, 2002 press release by the American Insurance Association (AIA).

* An internal document citing a study written by Florida insurers regarding that state's omnibus tort "reform" law of 1986 said that "The conclusion of the study is that the non-economic cap . . . [and other tort 'reforms'] will produce little or no savings to the

tort system as it pertains to medical malpractice." Medical Professional Liability, State of Florida, St. Paul fire and Marine Insurance Company, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company. In Missouri, which has caps, the number of claims has been declining, the cost per claim has been declining, yet medical malpractice premiums are going up.

Fib: Juries are giving medical malpractice victims outrageously high verdict awards:

FACT: Median payouts are relatively low - and have not risen significantly over the past decade.

* Despite questionable anecdotal evidence of excessive jury verdicts, the hard facts show that malpractice awards are rarely excessive. The median malpractice payout for 2000 is $125,000, according to the National Practitioner's Databank. "Not only has there been no 'explosion' in medical malpractice payouts at any time during the last 30 years . . .payments (in constant dollars) have been extremely stable and virtually flat since the mid-1980s." Medical Malpractice Insurance: Stable Losses/Unstable Rates, Americans for Insurance Reform (www.insurance-reform.org), October 10, 2002.

Fib: There are many frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

FACT: Most people with legitimate medical malpractice claims never go to court.

* A study done by the Harvard Medical Practice Study Group determined that for every 8 potential medical malpractice claims, only 1 claim was actually filed. Patients, Doctors, and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation in New York, Harvard Medical Practice Study Group (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1990). "Legal professionals, legislators, and the public in general often receive a distorted picture of medical negligence litigation based on selective reporting of

cases by the mass media and by propaganda efforts of groups advocating changes to American tort laws." Medical Negligence, the Litigation Process and Jury Verdicts in Medical Malpractice Cases: Implications for Indiana, Neil Vidmar, Ph.D., Russell M. Robinson II Professor of law at Duke Law School, December 2, 2002. See also Java Jive: Geneology of a Juridical Icon, Michael McCann, William Haltom, and Anne Bloom, 56 University of Miami Law Review 114 (2001).

Fib: Insurers constantly must settle frivolous lawsuits in order to "make them go away":

FACT: Insurers themselves admit that they don't settle frivolous claims.

In interviews with liability insurers that I undertook, the most consistent theme from them was: 'We do not settle frivolous cases!' . . . [Insurers'] policy on frivolous cases is based on the belief that if they ever begin to settle cases just to make them go away, their credibility will be destroyed and this will encourage more litigation." Medical Negligence, the Litigation Process and Jury Verdicts in Medical Malpractice Cases: Implications for Indiana, Neil Vidmar, Ph.D., Russell M. Robinson II Professor of law

at Duke Law School, December 2, 2002.

Fib: We should follow the example of California, where caps are working:

FACT: Though California has some of the most draconian limits on the rights of patients in medical malpractice (via a 1975 law called MICRA), average medical malpractice premiums are higher than in states without caps, premiums and health care costs continue

to rise, and most Californians want to eliminate the cap. The state had to pass insurance reform to stop skyrocketing premiums after its tort "reform" succeeded only in filling insurer's pockets.

* In California, which limits non-economic damages to $250,000, the average actual premium is $27,570, eight percent higher than the average of all states that have no caps on non-economic damages. Medical Liability Monitor, 2001.

* Malpractice premiums in California increased by 190% during the first 12-years following enactment of the $250,000 MICRA cap. Proposition 103 Enforcement Project Study, 1995. It took California's Proposition 103 - insurance reform - to lower and stabilize malpractice premium rates. Since 1998, premiums in California have risen 37%

compared to the nationwide average of just 5.7%. American Medical Association, Socioeconomic Characteristics of Medical Practice, 2000-2002.

* California's health care costs have continued to skyrocket at a rate faster than inflation since the passage of MICRA. Inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index rose 186% between 1975 and 1993; yet California's health care costs grew by 343% during the same period. In addition, California's health care costs have grown at almost twice the rate of inflation since 1985.

Californians overwhelmingly oppose their state's caps. A 1997 statewide poll of Californians shows: 74% approve of removing MICRA's limit on non-economic damages in certain cases; 66% believe the MICRA cap should be eliminated for doctors who negligently harm children and 58% believe the MICRA cap should be eliminated for doctors who negligently cause death. Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin, & Associates California

statewide poll, 1997.

Fib: Non-economic damages caps just limit frivolous "pain and suffering" claims by plaintiffs:

FACT: Non-economic damages compensate for real injuries and losses.

* Non-lawyers frequently refer to non-economic damages as "pain and suffering" damages or damages for "emotional distress." This is incorrect. Non-economic damages compensate for real, permanent harms that are not easily measured in terms of money, including blindness, physical disfigurement, loss of fertility, loss of sexual function, loss of a limb, loss of mobility, and the loss of a child.

Fib: Non-economic damages caps don't harm people:

FACT: Non-economic damages caps deprive patients most seriously injured by medical malpractice of legitimate compensation and discriminate against children, women, seniors and minorities.

* When children, women, seniors, and minorities win malpractice lawsuits, more of their compensation is made up of the non-economic damages that are taken away by caps. (Because they get less in lost wages 'economic' damages than white males in the workforce). Therefore, in states that cap non-economic damages, children, women, seniors, and minorities usually receive significantly less compensation than white males with exactly the same injuries. Is this fair? Despite having no impact on health care or insurance costs, non-economic damages caps have a tremendously negative impact on the permanently injured, especially, for example, children who may live for 70 years with brain damage or other catastrophically debilitating injuries. California's 1975 cap on non-economic damages is worth $40,389 in 2002 dollars. A patient would need to recover $1,547,461 in 2002 for the equivalent medical purchasing power of $250,000 in 1975.

Fib: Politicians should impose a one-size-fits-all arbitrary cap on cases instead of letting juries decide cases on their individual merits, because juries can't be trusted to give reasonable verdicts:

FACT: Juries are competent and conservative, and jury verdicts tend to be consistent with judgments of neutral medical experts.

* "The assertion that jurors decide cases out of sympathy for injured plaintiffs rather than the legal merits of the case . . . have been made about malpractice juries in the United States since at least the nineteenth century. Yet, research shows no support for these claims." Medical Negligence, the Litigation Process and Jury Verdicts in Medical Malpractice Cases: Implications for Indiana, Neil Vidmar, Ph.D., Russell M. Robinson II Professor of Law at Duke Law School, December 2, 2002. A 1992 comparison of jury verdicts and the reviews of insurance company-hired doctors showed that jury verdicts tended to be "consistent with" the doctors' assessments of medical records. The Influence of Standard of Care and Severity of Injury on the Resolution of Medical Malpractice Claims, Taragin et al, 117 Annals of Internal Medicine 780 (1992).

Fib: A recent Bush Administration U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) report shows that America's legal system is the cause of high medical-malpractice insurance rates for doctors.

FACT: The one-sided "report" is nothing more than 28 pages of industry talking points.

* Key sources have direct money ties to the insurance industry. Law Professor Jeffrey O'Connell, cited throughout the "report," took $67,000 from the insurance industry to oppose the 1988 California insurance reform initiative (Proposition 103, which was approved by voters) to roll-back insurance rates.

* The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) and the law firm of its general counsel, Victor Schwartz, are cited frequently, including as a source of statistics. Schwartz's law firm - Shook, Hardy & Bacon - lobbies for USAA Insurance Co., Health Insurance Association of America, CIGNA Corp., and the American Association of Health Plans.

* The "report" relies on data from the Physician Insurers Association of America, a trade group of medical-malpractice insurance companies owned by healthcare providers.

* Key numbers are dubious or old. A company called Jury Verdict Research (JVR) is cited as a source of jury awards in medical malpractice cases. But on June 24, 2002, The Wall Street Journal reported that Jury Verdict Research's 2,951-case database "has large gaps." The company collects information unsystematically, can't say how many cases it misses, and doesn't include "zero" verdicts, the newspaper reported.

* In addition, numbers claiming malpractice caps result in lower premiums for doctors are 12 years old.

* "Personal correspondence" is cited repeatedly as a source of statistics. Some of the most exaggerated examples of premium increases are based on the personal correspondence of U.S. Rep. Charles "Chip" Pickering (R-MS).

* The "report" relies heavily on a survey of doctors conducted by Harris Interactive and paid for by the American Medical Association. Key facts are left out. When claiming that malpractice premium increases are higher in states that don't cap

malpractice awards, the "report" omits examples that don't fit its argument. Nine states without damage caps had no increase in premiums, but that doesn't appear in the "report."

Fib: High malpractice premiums for doctors cause the patients' health insurance premiums to rise.

FACT: The cost of medical malpractice liability premiums amount to less than one percent of total health care costs.

* The Consumer Federation of America reports that medical malpractice premiums comprise only 0.59 percent of national health care costs - so even eliminating medical liability altogether would do little to reduce health care costs. Malpractice Suits Not Driving Medical Costs Up, Says Group, The New Orleans Times-Picayune, May 5, 1999, at E3.

Caps don't reduce premiums.

Instead, caps discriminate against patients most seriously injured by malpractice and children, women, seniors, and minorities - while enriching the insurance companies that caused premiums to rise because of their own bad business decisions and investments.

Juries, not a one-size-fits-all arbitrary cap determined by politicians, should decide what medical malpractice victims receive in compensation.

The only thing we need to reform is the insurance industry - not the legal system.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
President to Push for Severe Limits on
Med Mal and Medical Products Liability
*******
URGENT ACTION REQUESTED: CALL YOUR U.S.
HOUSE AND U.S. SENATE MEMBERS TODAY
*******
Administration Efforts to Federalize
Class Actions and Bail Out Asbestos
Companies Will Follow; Repeal of
Eli Lilly Co. Immunity for Thimerosal
Will Lead to Early Consideration of
Broader Vaccine Legislation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Although families of thousands of autistic children received some good news about the repeal of onerous legislation enacted at the close of the last Congress, the assault on the civil justice system that we have been anticipating is well underway, and President Bush this week will announce his support for sweeping limits on the rights of patients injured by medical malpractice, defective drugs, medical products, and nursing home abuse.

        In a major speech at 1 p.m. Eastern Time this Thursday, January 16^th at the University of Scranton in Scranton, Pennsylvania, the President will advocate caps on non-economic damages, elimination of joint and several liability, limits on attorney fees and other draconian, anti-patient measures sought by the insurance industry and many in the medical community.

        IT IS URGENT THAT YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS AND CO-WORKERS --- CALL YOUR U.S. SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVE TODAY IN OPPOSITION TO THIS EFFORT TO PUNISH PATIENTS INJURED BY MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PRODUCTS IN ORDER TO SUBSIDIZE THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

        Your member of Congress may be identified, e-mails sent, and sample letters found at ATLA's Action Network: http://atla.org/ActivistCenter/Tier3/ActionNetwork.aspx   , BUT IT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS RECEIVE TELEPHONE CALLS. All members of Congress can be reached by calling: 202-224-3121.

        Tell them to stick up for patients, not the insurance companies, in the medical malpractice debate. And tell them to trust Americans who serve on juries to make fair decisions.

        Talking points can be found at http://www.atla.org/medmal/talkingpoints.aspx   .

        We anticipate that members of Congress supporting the insurance industry proposal that the President is expected to endorse will seek early consideration of legislation similar to H.R. 4600, which passed the House, but was not voted on in the Senate. Indeed, the House Energy and Commerce Committee has scheduled a field hearing in Pennsylvania on medical malpractice/medical products legislation for February 4^th.

        ATLA, of course, continues its aggressive lobbying effort to stop this and other anti-consumer legislation that would rob American families of their legal rights.

        Among the other legislation we will be called upon to fight in this Congress are bills to federalize virtually all class actions (which is also likely to be considered early in the session) and to bail out the asbestos industry by establishing restrictive medical criteria which victims would be required to meet before being able to exercise their legal rights.

        With regard to the provision that mysteriously appeared at the last minute in the Homeland Security Act, the vigorous efforts of a widespread coalition opposing the provision that immunized pharmaceutical companies from litigation related to the vaccine preservative Thimerosal culminated Friday with an announcement by Republican Senators that the Senate Republican leadership had agreed to repeal the provision. The additive has been implicated as a cause of autism.

        Three Republican Senators, Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI), and Susan Collins (R-ME), refused to vote in favor of the Homeland Security bill until they received assurances that the Republican leadership would reconsider the provision early in the current legislative session. Repeal of the Thimerosal rider will be included in a spending bill Congress is likely to pass this month.

        In his announcement of the agreement to repeal the provision, however, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) promised to revisit this issue within six months when he will attempt to pass similar legislation to kill all Thimerosal-related lawsuits, as well as legislate wholesale changes to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

        Remember, it is extremely important that you -- as well as family, friends, clients, etc. -- contact your Senators and Representative immediately to express opposition to this bill. Telephone calls are best, but letters should be faxed or e-mailed, as regular mail will not reach members in time.

        The threat to the legal rights of our clients must not be underestimated. Every trial lawyer and every client must join this fight to preserve the civil justice system. With your help, we will once again protect the foundation of our democracy -- trial by jury.

        Sincerely,

        Frederick S. “Rick” Spencer

PUBLIC CITIZEN ORGANIZATION POINTS OUT THE FALSE STATEMENTS AND BASIS FOR TORT REFORM

 

Jan. 16, 2003
 
Medical Malpractice Insurance Crisis in Pennsylvania a Result of Economic Cycle, Doctors Who Err; Bush Administration Study Flawed
 
Public Citizen Issues Two Reports - One Detailing True Causes of Malpractice Crisis in Pennsylvania, Second Debunking Oft-Cited HHS Report
 
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The medical malpractice insurance crisis in Pennsylvania is not caused by the legal system but is linked to cyclical economics. In fact, the real crisis in that state is the quality of medical care being given; 4.7 percent of doctors are responsible for 51.4 percent for all malpractice payments, according to a report from Public Citizen.
 
Public Citizen issued a second report debunking an oft-cited Bush administration study on medical malpractice. Numerous statements made in that study, issued last year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are contradicted by other federal agencies.
 
The reports undercut Bush's use of Pennsylvania as a backdrop for his campaign to limit the ability of patients to be fully compensated for their injuries. The reports also explain the disinformation campaign being waged throughout the country by the administration and the medical lobby.
 
"People need to understand that insurers are hiking malpractice rates for doctors because they have lost money on their investments," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook. "Doctors who stage walkouts are falsely demonizing America's legal system. Capping damages, which doctors are calling for, will only hurt those who have suffered the most. As the Council of Economic Advisors has said, the tort system promotes patient safety."
 
Public Citizen's report on the crisis in Pennsylvania shows that:
 
· Repeat offender physicians are responsible for the bulk of medical malpractice costs. According to the federal government's National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), which covers malpractice judgments and settlements since September 1990, 10.6 percent of the state's doctors have paid two or more malpractice awards to patients. These repeat offender doctors are responsible for 84 percent of all payments. Even more surprising, only 4.7 percent of Pennsylvania's doctors (1,838), each of whom has paid three or more malpractice claims, are responsible for 51.4 percent of all payments.
 
· Government data show that medical malpractice awards have increased at a much slower pace in Pennsylvania than claimed by the Pennsylvania Medical Society. According to the NPDB, the median medical malpractice payment by a Pennsylvania physician to a patient rose 33 percent from 1997 to 2001, from $150,000 to $200,000, or 8 percent a year. By contrast, medical organizations in Pennsylvania quote data from Jury Verdict Research (JVR), a private research firm, indicating that verdicts rose almost 43 percent from 1997 to 2000, from $700,000 to $1 million, or 14 percent a year. The reason for the difference: JVR collects only jury verdict information that is reported to it by attorneys, court clerks and stringers. The NPDB includes both verdicts and settlements.
 
· The number of large verdicts by Pennsylvania juries and the amount paid in medical malpractice cases decreased dramatically in recent years.  From 2000 to 2002, the number of jury awards of $1 million or more dropped by 50 percent (from 44 to 22) while the overall amount of these awards decreased by over 75 percent (from $415 million to $93 million).
 
Public Citizen's report on the HHS report shows it to be full of information that is incorrect, incomplete or misleading. Further, its conclusions are contradicted by four other government agencies:
 
· The HHS report says that the malpractice crisis is threatening access to care. In fact, there is a greater likelihood of doctors withdrawing from their practice because of increases in office rent or payroll costs than malpractice insurance costs. According to Medical Economics, doctors spend 17 percent of their gross income on payroll costs, 5.8 percent on office rent and 3.2 percent on malpractice costs.
 
· The HHS report claims that malpractice rates are jeopardizing patient safety. In fact, the Bush administration's own Council of Economic Advisors says the tort system increases patient safety. In a document issued last year, the council said that "the ability of the individual to pursue a liability lawsuit in the event of an improper treatment, for example, provides an additional incentive for the physician to follow good medical practice."
 
· The HHS report says that the malpractice crisis is causing health care costs to increase. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that limiting liability would have a negligible impact on health care costs. In evaluating the impact of legislation considered last year that  would have severely limited the ability of patients to recover damages, the CBO said that the effect of the bill on overall health insurance premiums would be far smaller than the impact on medical malpractice insurance premiums. Malpractice costs account for a very small fraction of total health care spending; even a very large reduction in malpractice costs would have a relatively small effect on total health plan premiums."
 
· The HHS report claims that the legal system is causing insurance premiums to rise. In fact, there is no growth in the number of new medical malpractice claims. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), the number of new medical malpractice claims declined by about 4 percent between 1995 and 2000. There were 90,212 claims filed in 1995; 84,741 in 1996; 85,613 in 1997; 86,211 in 1998; 89,311 in 1999; and 86,480 in 2000.
 
Further, data show that medical malpractice awards have increased at a much slower pace than claimed by Jury Verdict Research, and no evidence exists to support claims that jury verdicts are random "jackpots." In fact, the insurance industry's own numbers demonstrate that awards are proportionate to injuries. And plaintiffs drop 10 times more claims than they pursue.
 
 "The American Medical Association keeps touting this HHS report, but it just doesn't hold up when compared to the facts," said Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch. "The doctors' lobby is in league with the Bush administration to take away people's legal rights.  Patients should not have to pay for doctors' mistakes because politicians decided to arbitrarily cap damages."
 
Nationally, of the 35,000 doctors who have had two or more malpractice payouts since 1990, only 7.6 percent of them have been disciplined. And only 13 percent of doctors with five medical malpractice payouts have been disciplined. Between 44,000 and 98,000 people die in hospitals annually each year due to preventable medical errors, the Institute of Medicine found.
 
Solutions to the malpractice problem lie in reducing medical errors. Medical boards should discipline all bad doctors, sever links with state medical societies and be given more money and staff to investigate complaints. States should require hospitals and other health care providers to institute meaningful risk prevention programs. Doctors should be recertified based on a written exam and an audit of their patients' medical records. Also, hospitals should implement measures to curb errors, such as using computers to order and track prescriptions (these can cut errors by 55 percent), requiring proper hand-washing to reduce infections, addressing the nursing shortage and reducing the long hours of medical residents.
 
Also, the insurance industry should rate doctors on performance when setting malpractice premiums and seek to decertify doctors with numerous malpractice claims. Risk should be spread, reducing the number of classifications of doctor specialties. Risk pools for some are too small and thus overly influenced by: 1) a few losses; and 2) the concentration in a few specialties of doctors handling the highest risk patients.
 
For more information and to view the report, go to http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/medmal/index.cfm

    THEY ARE WANTING TO DO IT TO YOU HERE IN ARKANSAS

DEAR CLIENTS: 

RIGHT NOW, THE ARKANSAS LEGISLATURE IS VOTING ON HOUSE BILL 1038.   FOR ALL YOU WHO HAVEN'T READ IT YET, IT DOES THE FOLLOWING:

1)      destroys joint and several liability (if jury give judgment against wal-mart and their partner, joe blow, for $100,000 for negligence assigning 10% of negligence to Wal-mart, then wal-mart only has to pay $10,000 and it is up to the victim to get the other $90,000 from joe blow even though wal-mart chose to deal with joe blow);

2)      has a "phantom defendant" provision; [you have to sue everybody]

3)      replaces joint and several with an intentional tort called "acting in concert";

4)      Caps punitive DAMAGES at $250, 000 for INTENTIONAL acts (which MEANS THAT IF "O.J." KILLS IN THIS STATE, THE LARGEST PUNISHMENT WE COULD GIVE HIM FOR HIS CRIMINAL ACT IS $250,000.00);

5)      eliminates collateral source and denies the existence of subrogation (by implication);

6)      requires a pre-filing medICAL affidavit (which only shortens the stat of limITATIONS in Arkansas where it runs from the date of occurence - not date of discovery WHEN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS ALLREADY ONLY TWO YEARS FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND THREE YEARS FOR EVERYBODY ELSE);

7)  requires an employer/employee relationship between dOCTOR and hospITAL  before THE hospITAL can be found     negligent ( I.E. so an al-Quida doctor can stop off at Baptist HOSPITAL on his way to Canada and do a little surgery and as long as he isn't FULL TIME "employed" by the hospital,  it can let him cut and maim all he wants).

Now is the time to act.   please call your representative and senator and tell them that changing 200 years of     law because  the insurance industry maliciously jacks up the premiums because of their bad investments should not be allowed.  Contact your representative and senator at the following address:  http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us

frederick s. “Rick” Spencer