'Learjet Lawyers' bankrolling Edwards

[windansea]

01/02/04
By Tina Marie O'Neill

If there's one thing Wall Street doesn't want, it's a personal injuries lawyer in the White House. Nor does the AmericanTort Reform Association (Atra). That is why it launched a website dedicated to exposing the financial supporters, or `Learjet Lawyers', behind North Carolina senator John Edwards's presidential campaign.

Known as "The Natural" by Senate colleagues, Edwards is a multimillionaire personal injuries lawyer, whose bid to secure the
Democratic nomination is based on his humble roots.

Edwards is believed to have taken more than $45,000 from leaders of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, one of the most powerful special interest lobby groups in Washington. The association represents personal injury lawyers, and lobbies against civil justice reform.

But while all other presidential contenders have disclosed their lists, the senator has refused to disclose who is bankrolling his campaign.

http://www.thepost.ie/web/DocumentView/did-902953455-pageUrl--2FMisc-2FEzine.asp

Note: This paper based in Dublin...I have no idea if they are a conservative or liberal source, but is the article correct in saying Edward's is the only candidate who has refused to disclose who his contributors are?

According to opensecrets Edward's donor demographics are 65% from $2000 donors, only 3% from donors of less than $200....

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/donordems.asp?format=&sortby=2

[Hep]

1. I've been saying this for months.

But it's OK. 7.5 million dollars from the legal industry.

Some of those $2000 checks had to be sent back because they were written by secretaries expecting reimbursement from their bosses.

[blm]

5. And Dean's records are sealed to protect his utility industry donors.

Yet you express no outrage.

[windansea]

25. this thread not about Dean n/t

[PVnRT]

35. It's called "hijacking"

The Dean-haters are very good at doing it.

DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN DEAN

[windansea]

49. noticing this more these days n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Do you want a world where Corporations are above all reproach?

The lawyers who support Edwards, although some are assuredly ambulance chasers, are the "good guys". They're not the industry flaks skilled in delay and stonewalling, they're the ones who are the last hope of the abused against entrenched wealth and power.

Please read my post below.

[Hep]

11. Yeah, they're all the good guys

even the ones who promised to reimburse their secretaries.

When people whose lives are the law BREAK the law, how can YOU call them good guys?


Edwards: Good Guy. I believe that. It doesn't mean they all are.

[windansea]

19. painting JK as the anti corporate champion is a stretch

brain injury/wrongfull death lawsuits are probably the most lucrative type of personal injury cases

[ShaneGR]

27. I've given 350, I'm not a lawyer

And I don't care if he gets money from lawyers. So what, I'm a Democrat.

[windansea]

54. heh heh n/t

[windansea]

55. any links on that? n/t

[spooky3]

2. This has already been discussed on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=180410&mesg_id=180410&page=

[windansea]

3. different article

and what was concluded from that discussion?

[DU9598]

6. Already disclosed

He has disclosed his contributors. He receives public financing and all donations (maybe over a certain amount) require that you list your occupation. His campaign - just to get matching funds - has already turned over this information. Edwards was asked this question and already addressed this non-issue in his FTN interview.

I am an attorney and I am a supporter of Sen. Edwards. I drive a 1999 chevy and lived with my parents until I was 27 to save money for my education. I represent people who are injured or those who have lost their job due to discrimination. I have over $75,000 in student loans left to pay off after 7 years of working my way through college and law school. If some day I am a more successful trial attorney it will be through my own hard work. I am a bit miffed to see other Democrats not recognizing the hard work and dedication required of legal professionals who work to ensure that injured or discriminated against persons are compensated for their injuries. It appears that fellow Dem's are buying into the Repuck propaganda against lawyers just like so many in our society bought into Repuck propoganda against welfare mothers drinking champaign.

Maybe if more Dems would recognize the Repuck anti-lawyer propoganda for what it really is, you would be even more thankful for the work that Sen. Edwards has done in the past 6 years maintaining our civil liberties and our right to a trial by jury before a fair federal court. That is the real issue ...

[windansea]

24. apparently not

ABIG PIECE of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's campaign message is about how he would work to "clean up" Washington if elected president. He accuses President Bush of putting "the interests of lobbyists and campaign contributors above the interests of regular people." But Mr. Edwards -- alone among the serious candidates for president -- declines to provide a list of his major campaign financiers: the men and women who have not only the capability to write $2,000 checks themselves but the networks that allow them to harvest bigger bundles for their favored candidates. President Bush posts on his Web site the names of his $100,000 Pioneers and $200,000 Rangers. Mr. Edwards's Democratic rivals -- Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark -- have, at our request, provided similar lists of major underwriters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40385-2004Jan22.html

[Leilani]

28. I think it would be nice

if we could hold our candidates to the same standards.

That's the bottom line...open all the records!!!!

[juajen]

26. Agree wholeheartedly

I was a legal secretary. Have over 25 years experience, and I am not ashamed to say, worked for "big-dog" lawyers. I was never asked by any of my attorneys to contribute to the various politicians they were supporting. I certainly knew who they were supporting, and there would be political discussions, but absolutely no requests for checks for their candidates.

There was one exception. During all those years of legal experience, I worked for one HUGE corporation for their top-dog attorney. The corporation was Dresser Industries, before Halliburton and Dresser, sorta combined. We were all encouraged to donate money through the organized PAC to Republicans, of course. I only worked for them for a couple of years. Great benefits if you could stand the politics.

You are so right. Trial attorneys are ordinary people's best defense against corporate interests in this country. Yes, sometimes the fee collected is outrageous. IMHO, this should be limited to one-quarter of any amount collected; and, as most attorneys know, winning is the first step, collecting is the final step.

Go Edwards. I like this man; and, of course, attorneys cannot be blamed for putting their money where their money is.

[Sophree]

46. So you literally worked in hell???

For the devil himself?? Wow. Glad to see you made out OK. ;-)

[windansea]

50. lol n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. Amen. Great post!

[Sophree]

45. Great post.

:thumbsup:

Thank you for speaking up!

[blm]

4. Why are you using Republican smears against Edwards? Since when are Dems

against lawyers who represent the regular people AGAINST the corporate lawyers?

Are you FOR corporate lawyers being represented in governmennt and trial lawyers being shut out?

What's your point, here, windnsea?

[windansea]

7. I'm more interested in knowing why

Edwards will not disclose his donor list as the other candidates have...is that a republican smear???

[blm]

14. He will. The point is we Dems stick by trial lawyers and their common man

clients while the Republicans protect the corporations and their corporate lawyers.

Whose side are you on?

[windansea]

15. He will???

when???

[blm]

21. When he's supposed to, what's your beef?

.

[windansea]

22. both this article and an earlier WAPO article

state Edwards hasn't revealed full donor list as the other candidates have...why not?

[windansea]

17. Edwards sued mostly doctors and hospitals

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.

On the other side, insurance companies, business groups that support what they call tort reform and conservative commentators have accused Mr. Edwards of relying on questionable science in his trial work. Indeed, there is a growing medical debate over whether the changes have done more harm than good. Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery.

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=1076130000&en=f41158ecde918d17&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[spooky3]

18. "how dare he speak on behalf of brain-damaged children!"

as someone else (sorry i can't remember who!) posted on an earlier thread.

This RW smear has also been discussed thoroughly on DU. Why don't you promote your own candidate rather than repeating it without questioning it? This behavior certainly makes your own candidate look weak. If you read the full NY Times article, I am sure that you saw that nearly everything that could possibly be viewed as negative was said by his OPPONENTS, i.e., corporate defense attorneys and industry reps., and that there were many MORE who praised his work. Even many of the "negative" things--that he had panels of lawyers review cases and weeded out the weak and poorly documented cases before taking them on--were actually not negative at all, particularly given that he was paid purely on a contingency basis, meaning that clients did not pay him a cent unless they collected on a judgment in their favor. The RW is always whining about weak cases cluttering up our legal system.

If this topic interests you so much, why don't you

(a) Read "Four Trials"
and
(b) Read today's Washington Post article, which interestingly, you haven't responded to, apparently because it is an ACCURATE and POSITIVE portrayal of Edwards' distinguished career.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=32573

Then ask yourself why he has lost only about 3 cases (per that same article) out of more than 70 litigated plus numerous settled cases.

As in a prior thread, I would ask, isn't it a terrible shame that the highly paid attorneys for Edwards' opponents were unaware that there is an appeal system here in the US? If only they knew about it--then all those terribly unfair awards based on weak evidence would have been overturned.

Then for a solution to the REAL problems concerning malpractice
read

"Let's Keep Doctors in Business".

http://www.edwardsforprez.com/000172.html

[windansea]

23. this is what I am asking for

A BIG PIECE of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's campaign message is about how he would work to "clean up" Washington if elected president. He accuses President Bush of putting "the interests of lobbyists and campaign contributors above the interests of regular people." But Mr. Edwards -- alone among the serious candidates for president -- declines to provide a list of his major campaign financiers: the men and women who have not only the capability to write $2,000 checks themselves but the networks that allow them to harvest bigger bundles for their favored candidates. President Bush posts on his Web site the names of his $100,000 Pioneers and $200,000 Rangers. Mr. Edwards's Democratic rivals -- Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark -- have, at our request, provided similar lists of major underwriters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40385-2004Jan22.html

the current puff piece in Wapo doesn't answer the question posed in this article or in my OP...

[juajen]

32. Well, I read the whole article, rather long one, at that.

I must say that there is absolutely nothing damning in this article. Edwards is a lawyer and does what lawyers do. They are supposed to examine a case for its viability. Ever heard of frivilous lawsuits?

Also the plan you said he was against that would benefit brain-damaged children is a crock. Limited malpractice awards are only good for corporate interests, be they doctors, hospitals, or pharmaceutical companies. In states where medical malpractice awards are limited, and Louisiana is one, the cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums has not decreased. This is just corporate America's bag of tricks to keep injured people from being compensated for their wrongdoing. In Louisiana, lawyers are very hesitant to take medical malpractice cases because of the difficulty posed by the limitations on awards. Everybody loses, but corporate interests.

I am not sure why you are against trial lawyers, but I can assure you, that without them, we wouldn't even have OSHA. Workers' protections are often dictated by how much the corporation will lose if sued and this includes doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. WE NEED TRIAL LAWYERS just as much as they need us. It's a symbiotic relationship. BTW, trial lawyers almost always fund the cost of litigation, not the plaintiffs. This is one of the reasons for the large fees. They put up all of this money up front, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands, and lose it all if they don't win an award.

Frankly, I think your arguments against Edwards are problematical, at best. He was a lawyer and did his job well, obviously to the dismay of those he went against.

Don't fall into the republican trap of trashing trial lawyers.

[windansea]

33. not trying to bash trial lawyers

The words you are quoting as mine in the post you replied to are from the WaPo article

The main reason I posted this thread is this:

A BIG PIECE of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's campaign message is about how he would work to "clean up" Washington if elected president. He accuses President Bush of putting "the interests of lobbyists and campaign contributors above the interests of regular people." But Mr. Edwards -- alone among the serious candidates for president -- declines to provide a list of his major campaign financiers: the men and women who have not only the capability to write $2,000 checks themselves but the networks that allow them to harvest bigger bundles for their favored candidates. President Bush posts on his Web site the names of his $100,000 Pioneers and $200,000 Rangers. Mr. Edwards's Democratic rivals -- Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark -- have, at our request, provided similar lists of major underwriters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40385-2004Jan22.html

[ma4t]

47. OB practice in N.C. is definitely governed by lawyers

"...doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies..."

I can attest that this is true from our own experience with the birth of our 2nd child. The OB nurse for my wife's OB/GYN had a short session with a group of "expectant parents" where she ran down all the things that could happen. This was basically an attempt to take the mystery out of the terminology and such so that moms and dads wouldn't panic unnecessarily. One thing I remember clearly was a list of things that would provoke a C-section. The nurse was quite clear that some of the reasons for a C-section had nothing to do with sound medical practice and, in fact, a C-section would be riskier than normal delivery. However; because of precedents set by several lawsuits, doctors could defend a bad outcome from a C-section more effectively than they could from vaginal delivery, even though bad outcomes were more likely with a C-section.

I was very disheartened to learn that the state of defensive medicine had reached such a low point although I was happy to hear the medical professional's candor about it. I wonder how many times doctor's follow a treatment plan which is not in the patient's best interest purely out fear of a lawsuit without informing the patient. I'd bet it is not rare at all.

[windansea]

48. interesting

lots of Docs probably have to things like this nowadays...medical malpractice insurance can run $100k or more per year and climbing

[PurityOfEssence]

8. These people are champions of the downtrodden

You'll note that corporate lawyers hate this man.

As proof that this man is against the underclass of society, it's trotted out that those who are the last hope of the poor support this man. This is absoluteley ridiculous: champions of the poor love this man, so obviously he's an enemy of the poor.

People who trumpet this claptrap are either cynically twisting reality to take potshots at a rival, or are complete dupes of those in power. All lawyers are not bad, just as all politicians aren't.

There are rich and successful people who actually care about the poor and weak, and to besmirch them as they attempt to do good is mind-boggling.

The law is an ever-evolving thing, and many abuses can happen, but John Edwards is a PLAINTIFF'S LAWYER. He specialized in righting wrongs. He's not a tool of the ruling class, he's one of the people they fear most.

And by the way, "Learjet Lawyers" smacks of the same right wing smearing as "Limousine Liberals". If you can't see the fascist/monarchist slant of many who oppose this man, than please take a second and look at it in this light.

(Please don't construe this post to be presuming that any who have a gripe about Edwards or support another are somehow against the underclass; that was not my intent.)

[windansea]

10. no problem with Lawyers here

just interested in why Edwards is considered the only candidate who has not disclosed full donor list...obviously some Edwards supporters feel he has...the writer of this article and the one last week in Washington Post seem to feel he has not.

[Leilani]

30. I Love Lawyers!!

My son is a lawyer & my brother is a lawyer.

Just open the records!!!!

[windansea]

31. thanks for getting

the point of my post

[SaddenedDem]

12. Straight from the John Grisham novel - The King of Torts

page 164:

"Were these people so blinded by the money that they honestly believed themselves to be defenders of the poor and the sick? Most of them owned jets!"

[windansea]

13. heh heh n/t

[DU9598]

16. Nice fiction

I am a lawyer, I had a jet at my service when I was in-house for a Fortune 500 company as I tried to pay off student loans. I could not live with myself to represent the corporate client, so I took a big paycut and now I do plaintiff's work. I do not know of a plaintiff's attorney with a jet. I am sure there are a few. However, I know plenty of opposing counsel who fly on corporate jets all the time.

Grisham writes good fiction, got it, fiction?

[SaddenedDem]

20. Hey, don't jump in my shit!

I know EXACTLY what Grisham writes and I certainly wouldn't even call it "good."

I was simply pointing out yet another example of republicans living in their world of fiction and trying to apply it to the real world.

They just WISH they could make that book a real story about John Edwards (and I'm not an Edwards supporter, but truth is truth).

[windansea]

29. kick n/t

[arewethereyet]

34. you say this like its a bad thing

I'm glad he has rich friends. And anyone who has been hurt ought to appreciate it as well.

[windansea]

36. more info

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7850840.htm


Posted on Sun, Feb. 01, 2004 story:
Kerry, Edwards Boasts Hardly Tell Story
JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards are fond of telling voters they are spurning special-interest money during their White House bids, but voters beware. Their boasts hardly tell the whole story.

Sen. Kerry, who says he hasn't taken a dime of political action committee money for his presidential campaign, in fact ran a tax-exempt political committee that collected nearly a half million dollars directly from companies and labor unions just before those types of donations were outlawed in late 2002, tax records show.

Many of the biggest donors to that effort came from companies with direct interests before Kerry's Senate committee, and the Massachusetts Democrat spent much of the money laying groundwork in early presidential primary states, the records show.

Sen. Edwards, who tells voters he rejects donations to his presidential campaign from Washington lobbyists, took one donation in 2002 directly from a lobbying firm. He also collected more than $80,000 from people who aren't formally registered as lobbyists but nonetheless work for some of Washington's powerhouse firms.

Edwards also has accepted more than $150,000 worth of flights aboard the corporate jets of special interests, a helpful perk for a candidate crisscrossing the country that also allows the corporate provider to bend the ear of a White House aspirant.

"They are both in up to their necks with special interest money," said Charles Lewis, head of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington watchdog group that recently published "The Buying of the President 2004," which tracks the sources of political money for the presidential hopefuls.

"This rhetoric has a rather hollow ring to it. It is hypocritical. They are splitting hairs when they say either, 'I don't take lobbyists' money' or 'I don't take from PACs' when both have received millions from special interests anyway," Lewis said.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7850840.htm

[arewethereyet]

37. he didn't make the rules but he can damn sure read them

if you think anyone serious is not doing the same or worse you're dreaming.

The game says you need money to play and he played the game, within the rules and its nothing that Bush can call him on as it's the same thing he does.

Whats really important ? Electing a dem or splitting hairs over money ?

I know what matters to me. I'll take brilliant and talented over self-righetous any day.

[windansea]

38. Edwards and Kerry snipe over donations

On the eve of a cross-country contest, Howard Dean (news - web sites) joined Edwards in calling the front-runner a friend of special interests. But there were fresh signs of weakness in Dean's campaign, and Kerry went for the jugular against Edwards, questioning the North Carolina senator's credentials and electability.

"This is not the time for on-the-job training," Kerry told South Carolina reporters Monday via satellite from Albuquerque, N.M. In a speech, the four-term Massachusetts senator looked confidently beyond the nomination fight to a potential race against President Bush (news - web sites).

Edwards, who has promised to run a positive campaign, criticized Kerry's acceptance of contributions from lobbyists and his free-trade policies.

"I don't take contributions from lobbyists, and he obviously does," Edwards told reporters after a speech at the College of Charleston. "If we want real change in Washington, we need someone who hasn't been there for 15-20 years."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=3&u=/ap...

[windansea]

39. Kerry SC press secretary on Edwards

Holly Armstrong, press secretary for Kerry in South Carolina, said it is ironic that Edwards, a wealthy trial lawyer, "is launching an attack on special interest when the majority of his money comes from one interest group."

[goodhue]

40. Plaintiffs' lawyers rarely have jets . . .

Its the armies of corporate defense lawyers who fly around in jets. Please don't buy into the tort reform propaganda. Plaintiffs lawyers and social justice activists are the only ones taking corporate greed to task. Certainly some plaintiffs lawyers make a lot of money but they are far and few between and are fighting the good fight IMHO.

[windansea]

41. forget the "learjet lawyers"

that was just the title of the article

The main reason I posted this thread is this:

A BIG PIECE of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's campaign message is about how he would work to "clean up" Washington if elected president. He accuses President Bush of putting "the interests of lobbyists and campaign contributors above the interests of regular people." But Mr. Edwards -- alone among the serious candidates for president -- declines to provide a list of his major campaign financiers: the men and women who have not only the capability to write $2,000 checks themselves but the networks that allow them to harvest bigger bundles for their favored candidates. President Bush posts on his Web site the names of his $100,000 Pioneers and $200,000 Rangers. Mr. Edwards's Democratic rivals -- Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), former Vermont governor Howard Dean and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark -- have, at our request, provided similar lists of major underwriters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40385-2004Jan22.html

[windansea]

53. kick n/t

[Jerseycoa]

43. I haven't heard "son of a mill worker" in a while

Sorry to be off-topic, but this reminded me.

[windansea]

44. part of his regular stump speech n/t

I just wish an Edwards supporter would explain why JK won't release the same data all the other candidates have about their donors

[ozone_man]

51. This is astounding!

I have posted the lawyers and lobbyist contributions before, but these stats seem to say it all so clearly. Kerry is not much better and I don't know if his $6M personal contribution shows up well.

Also, take a look at Sharpton. Someone is bankrolling him too, Stone IIRC.

[windansea]

52. talking about the open secrets data?

yep...AS not looking too grass roots either