Michael Barone
http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
'How a company lets its cash talk," read the
headline in the New York Times last month. The
article tells of the success of Samuel Heyman,
chairman of GAF Corp., in lobbying for a bill to
change rules for asbestos lawsuits.
The article sets
out how much money Heyman, his wife, and GAF's
political action committee have contributed to
politicians and both parties, and the reader is
invited to conclude that this billionaire and his
company are purchasing legislation that will benefit
them. Money buys legislation, which equals
corruption: It is the theme articulated by John
McCain in the Senate last month and on the
campaign trail; it was the premise of questions
asked at the Hanover, N.H., candidates' forum and
taken for granted by Al Gore and Bill Bradley in
their responses; it is the mantra of countless
editorial writers and of Elizabeth Drew in her book
The Corruption of American Politics.
But is it true? Careful readers of the Times's "cash
talks" story can find plenty of support for another
conclusion: "Strong arguments talk."
For 25 years,
asbestos lawsuits have transferred billions of dollars
from companies that once manufactured asbestos
(it was banned in the 1970s) to workers exposed to
asbestos and their lawyers. Asbestos causes
sickness in some but by no means all workers
many years after exposure. But most claimants
who have recovered money are not sick and may
never be, while those who are sick must often wait
years for claims to be settled.
The biggest winners
in the current system are a handful of trial lawyers
who take contingent fees of up to 40 percent and
have made literally billions of dollars.
Heyman's proposal, altered somewhat by a
proposed House compromise, would stop nonsick
plaintiffs from getting any money, while setting up
an administrative system to determine which
plaintiffs are sick and to offer them quick
settlements based on previous recoveries.
The
statute of limitations would be tolled, which means
that nonsick plaintiffs could recover whenever signs
of sickness appear. Sick plaintiffs would get more
money more quickly, while companies would be
less likely to go bankrupt; 15 asbestos firms are
bankrupt now, and the largest pays only 10 cents
on the dollar on asbestos claims. The two groups
who lose, according to Christopher Edley, a former
Clinton White House aide and Harvard Law
professor who has worked on the legislation, would
be nonsick plaintiffs who might get some (usually
small) settlements under the current system and
the trial lawyers who have been taking huge
contingent fees.
These are strong arguments, strong enough to win
bipartisan support for the bill, from Democratic
Sens. Charles Schumer and Robert Torricelli as
well as House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde and
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. You would
expect Hyde and Lott to support such a law, but for
Schumer and, especially, Torricelli, it goes against
political interest: Torricelli chairs the Senate
Democrats' campaign committee, and Democrats
depend heavily on trial lawyer money. One can only
conclude that Schumer and Torricelli were
convinced by strong arguments, which was
certainly the case for Democrat Edley, who was
writing about cases long before Heyman's bill was
proposed.
When McCain charged that the current
campaign finance system was corrupt, Republican
Mitch McConnell challenged him to name one
senator who had voted corruptly. Certainly no one
who knows the issues and the senators involved
would have cited this case.
And not just this case. When a
government affects the economy, when it sets rules
that channel vast sums of capital, people in the
market economy are going to try to affect
government. They will contribute to candidates and
exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the
government for a redress of grievances," i.e., lobby.
Both things will continue to be true even if one of
McCain's various campaign finance bills is passed.
There is no prospect for full public financing of
campaigns (Gore says he's for it, but he has never
really pushed for it); one reason is that it leaves no
way to prevent frivolous candidates from receiving
public funds.
(Look at the zoo of candidates
competing for the Reform Party's $13 million pot of
federal money.)
Reformers speak of campaign
advertisements as if they were a form of pollution
and try to suppress issue ads as if no one but a
candidate (or newspaper editorialist) had a First
Amendment right to comment on politicians' fitness
for office. And to communicate political ideas in a
country of 270 million people you have to spend
money.
The idea that the general public interest goes
unrepresented is nonsense. There is no single
public interest; reasonable people can and do
disagree about every issue, from asbestos lawsuits
to zoo deacquisitions.
This country is rich with
voluntary associations ready to represent almost
anyone on anything; any interest without
representation can quickly get some. Even when
the deck seems stacked, as it has for trial lawyers
on asbestos regulation, there will be a Samuel
Heyman with, as Edley puts it, "the moxie to act on
his convictions." Money talks, as it always will in a
free society.
But in America, and on Capitol Hill,
strong arguments can talk louder, and
JWR contributor Michael Barone is a columnist at U.S. News & World Report
and the author of the biennialAlmanac of American Politics. Send your comments to him by clicking here.
10/28/99: Mexico votes – for real
10/03/99: Going against type
09/28/99: The unions go public
08/31/99: China's strait flush
08/25/99: The first two contests
08/03/99: Paddling upstream
07/08/99: Taking Hillary seriously
06/22/99: Trying the lawyers
06/07/99: Facts on the ground