Tag Archives: consumer protection

California

AT&T, Dependably in Forefront of Consumer Abuse

AT&T

Comedy is funnier when it hits you in the gut. That’s what made a famous skit by Lily Tomlin about the phone company’s abuse of customers so memorable, one tag line being “We are omnipotent.”

AT&T is still at it. As columnist James Temple writes in the San Francisco Chronicle Friday:

In August 2006, the California Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to allow AT&T and other companies that provided local telephone service to raise prices at will.

Then-Commissioner Rachelle Chong, a Republican, credited as the driving force behind the deregulation plan, argued that growing competition from Internet phone service and cell phones would keep prices low.

“By the end of the 2010, these rate caps will no longer be necessary,” Chong said when the new rules were being phased in. “The market will be so competitive it will discipline prices.””Price discipline?” That should have ’em rolling in the aisles. Temple goes on to report that AT&T’s flat-rate plan for local calls is up 118 percent and services such as call waiting up nearly 180% since 2006. U.S. median household income is down 8.1% since 2007.

Tomlin’s original crack about omnipotence wasn’t much exaggerated. AT&T’s stranglehold on the California Legislature and the state Public Utilities Commission is near-legendary.

Chong, the AT&T cheerleader on the commission, took  a luxurious junket to Tokyo, funded and run by the telecom industry. Other commissioners and legislators went as well, as reported by Consumer Watchdog, without an ethical qualm.

Judy Dugan

Also on that 2007 Tokyo trip was the state Assembly’s Utilities and Commerce committee chair Lloyd Levine, who co-authored 2006 legislation sponsored by AT&T and Verizon in 2006 that allowed the telecom companies to to get into the cable and video business with one unregulated statewide franchise, while eliminating local control and consumer protection of all cable services.


Consumer Watchdog fought the legislation, predicting that prices would rise, not fall, customer service would degrade, companies would cherry-pick the richest markets for their much-touted new services and local public-access TV, previously funded by the cable companies, would disappear.

The other co-sponsor of the cable deregulation was then-Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez, who received the language of the proposed bill directly from a corporate/right-wing think tank called the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, described thusly by SourceWatch:

ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC’s operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy’s ALECexposed.org

After the cable deregulation passed, AT&T partner Verizon took out full-page ads to thank Nunez personally. Nunez kept on benefiting from telecom donations and sponsorships, even as our predictions about price, service and public access came true.

AT&T is also the sponsor of the legislative Democrats’ chief yearly fund-raising event, the Pebble Beach Speakers Cup, and was a major donor to former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Every penny of that lavish spending has gone to legislation and deregulation that boost AT&T’s bottom line at the expense of consumers. And neither the 2013 Legislature nor the governor’s office seems moved to undo the wreckage of AT&T’s deregulatory spree.

No wonder we’re not laughing.

_______________________________________________________________

Posted by Judy Dugan, former research director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.

Uncategorized

Hey Consumer Watchdog, It’s Only Ok If You Are a Republican? Get it?

1 Comment

Consumer Watchdog in Middle of Fight for Insurance Rate Regulation

by Brian Leubitz

Consumer Watchdog (CW) has more than its share of enemies.  While most normal Californians have very little idea who they are, the denizens of the Capitol are not really normal, are they? They have a pretty good idea of who they are.

They have enemies from the 2007 health care fight, where California ended up with no health care reform package, partly because the left didn’t want to be complicit with Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan.  You see, fellow progressives, we are supposed to stand by while the “adults” do all the negotiating and then cheer when we get some scraps.  By adults I mean, the corporate right, the Tea Party, and the center-right Democrats.  So, you know, “serious” people.

It turns out that when CW helped out with blowing up that 2007 process, there were some hard feelings. And these things linger in Sacramento.  Of course, for Consumer Watchdog, it is hardly the first time they’ve pissed anybody off.

Fast forward to this year, when AB 52, health insurance rate regulation is up in the Senate. It ultimately fails, and Sen. Ed Hernandez, the chair of the Healthcare committee that ultimately passes it to the full Senate, catches some flack.  Hernandez didn’t ultimately support the bill in the full Senate, or at least he has said as much.  Consumer Watchdog then proceeded to put out a TV spot attacking Sen. Hernandez.

The spot was pretty hardhitting, and Asm. Feuer and IC Dave Jones have distanced themselves from it.  However, what is interesting now is that the focus doesn’t seem to be on the issue itself anymore, but rather that vague sense of transparency.  You see, like the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, CW keeps some of their contributors private.

Thornier than the fees is the disclosure of individual donors who fund Consumer Watchdog, It is  widely believed – and some within Consumer Watchdog have confirmed it over the years – that much of its money comes from the trial bar. The group receives individual donations from the public, money from foundations, money from settlements that go into affiliated foundations for education and outreach that provide money to the main group and money from labor and other groups.

But individually, just who gives what is not available, Court said, “the donors can get harassed by politicians because people like us run ads about their (the politicians’) conflict of interest,” he said. He said nondisclosure as a civil rights tool, much as nondisclosure was important to the NAACP to protect its donors.

But critics of Consumer Watchdog are not convinced, saying the group is hypocritical for not disclosing donors while demanding full disclosure from those it attacks.(Capitol Weekly)

Or, in other words, you can’t advocate for good government unless you are a perfect teacher’s pet. But if you are advocating for giveaways to corporations? Well, no need to tell us who you are working for. We sure they are all just “job creators” trying to …ummm…exploit labor to increase their own capital or something like that.  But hey, it’s capitalism…so that’s awesome!

Do we need some control over the funding of political? Yes, desperately. But the Left can’t be forced to give up the tools and play on a different playing field as the Right.

Uncategorized

All Our Consumer Protection Is Belonging To AT&T

2 Comments

Excuse me while I take this break from your regularly scheduled budget updates, but I felt this was of enough importance to take a small diversion.  Remember when California was the bastion of consumer protection?  We head state legislators like (now Congresswoman) Jackie Speier writing some really strong consumer protection legislation.  And while our Supreme Court was stocked with Republicans, they were the sort that understood how the real world worked.  Well, you woke up today in a whole new California, where consumer protection is only something for the simple fools who can’t pen an arbitration provision.

In a stunningly corporate-fueled decision, the United States Supreme Court in AT&T vs. Concepcion somehow found that the Federal Arbitration Act (the FAA of 1925(!)) was in conflict with state law ruling that consumers can not be imposed with arbitration provisions as they were unconscionable.  That is a legal term, but it essentially means that the provision would be so unfair, and the situation so heavily tilted towards one party that the courts won’t enforce the provisions.

And that has essentially been the law in California for years, and this case involving a $30.83 charge from AT&T, is a great example.  The Courts have refused to enforce many such arbitration provisions, because quite simply the litigants would not go to court over $30.83.  They would not go to arbitration over $30.83.  It just isn’t worth any individual’s time.  And quite frankly, every attorney knows that no attorney is going to take a case, even one for $7500, which prevailing parties are awarded at arbitration.  And no individual is really going to fight for the $30.83.  

And Justice Scalia, who wrote this decision (shocking!), knows this, but he just doesn’t like the idea of petty consumers getting in the way of a hard-working corporation’s money-making.

That law makes arbitration agreements enforceable on the same terms as other contracts and prohibits states from singling out arbitration for unfavorable treatment, said Scalia, writing for the court’s conservative majority. He said the California ruling, which allows customers to pursue class actions in arbitration, “interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration.”

Arbitrating cases for a large number of customers at once “makes the process slower, more costly and more likely to generate procedural morass,” said Scalia.

He said class-wide arbitration also “greatly increases the risk to defendants” and may coerce settlements.(SF Chronicle)

Except that the FAA of 1925(!) doesn’t do anything of the sort that Scalia is representing.  It encourages arbitration and notes that they are valid and enforceable.  However, it does give one major exception: “{An arbitration provision} shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.”

And guess what? The unconscionability provision has been a part of law since well before 1925, and should therefore be respected under the FAA of 1925(!).  That this ruling is only happening 86 years later should be an indicator of something sketchy.  

The other major issue here is that while conservatives are all over states rights when it comes to issues they care about, health care, racial discrimination, that sort of thing, when it comes to corporate profits they’ve never heard of the concept.

Dissenting Justice Stephen Breyer accused the majority of disregarding traditional state authority over the fairness of contracts while leaving consumers in the lurch.

Bans on class actions “can lead small-dollar claimants to abandon their claims rather than to litigate,” said Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.(SF Chronicle)

After yesterday’s decision, you will be seeing many more arbitration provisions in every agreement that you sign with a big corporation.  And really, you won’t have a choice about it, because you want the cell phone, or you need the internet service or what not.  So you’ll sign it.  And unless you are willing to personally go to arbitration over $30.83, you will lose pretty much all of your rights under California consumer protection law.

This is a monumentally poor decision, one that will continue the radical shift of power away from the people and to the corporate “persons.”  California’s right to be an innovator of consumer protection has been greatly eroded by a band of 5, and there’s not a whole lot we can do about it.

Really, the only way to change this is to pass a law in Congress.  And how likely do you think it is that the Tea Party controlled House gives one second’s worth of consideration to this states’ rights cause?  You think the Koch Brothers are slowly rubbing their hands together as they greet another step along the road to a government by, for, and of the corporation?

UPDATE: Sen Al Franken has introduced legislation to overturn this decision.  Of course, it will be a long road before it gets signed into law, but along with Rep. Hank Johnson, at least he’s walking it.

California

Breaking: PG&E ORDERED TO MAKE SMARTMETER RECORDS PUBLIC

This has been six months in the making and not for the work of Senator Dean Florez the public would be in the dark on the problems associated with SMARTMETERS and Overcharges/Guestimate Charges. Most certainly the type of support a voter should expect from a representative. Kudo’s to Senator Florez (California’s Consumer Advocate in the State Legislature).

Florez thanks CPUC for taking positive step toward increased transparency!

SACRAMENTO – Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on the Smart Grid and a key critic of PG&E’s flawed “Smart” Meter roll-out, today thanked the head of the utility’s regulatory body for taking a requested step toward increasing transparency in the process.

In an order issued Tuesday by Commissioner Michael Peevey, the California Public Utilities Commission stated that PG&E must make all of its reports on Smart Meter implementation – past and present – open to the public.  The order states that the move is necessary in order to have the full information needed to assess Smart Meter accuracy.

 

Florez, who called for the public release of these documents at last week’s hearing on Smart Meter billing estimations, called Tuesday’s order “a positive step toward restoring some semblance of public confidence in this long, drawn-out process.”

Since last fall, Florez has held hearings on reports of utility bills soaring after Smart Meter installation.  After months of blaming everything from the summer heat to old meters running “too slow,” PG&E recently admitted not only to estimating customers bills, but to adding months-worth of associated adjustments to one bill.

Under the new ruling, PG&E must provide a copy of its reports — or a link to a website where they are available — within two days to anyone making a request.

A copy of Peevey’s order is available at the following url: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/EFILE/…

California

Expect “Electrifying” Smart Grid Hearing Monday – PG&E Has KNOWN of Smart Meter Defects

For the last six months or so California Senator Dean Florez has held multiple hearings on PG&E Smart Meter accuracy and questionable “sky high” utility bills for many customers AFTER the new meters were installed. PG&E’s response each time they were asked to explain why bills suddenly doubled or tripled was always the pretty much the same — Some “version” of “There is nothing wrong with our Smart Meters and the customer is using too much electricity.”

Here is where it gets interesting! Senator Florez has learned some Smart Meters are apparently DEFECTIVE and is not transmitting the data needed to PG&E for proper billing. PG&E simply started estimating the customer bills each month while they try to determine the cause of the defected meter.  Based on the official line to Senator Florez and customers from PG&E, that there were no problems with the deployed Smart Meters, at the very time they were apparently aware that some meters were not working properly and put a process in place to deal with the defective meters sets the stage for the hearing on Monday: Smart Grid panel takes on PG&E bill “estimations”

Utility giant admits failure of Smart Meters to transmit data led to practice in question



Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) will lead a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on the Smart Grid on Monday in Sacramento, investigating the recent revelation that some utility customers are getting “estimated” bills due to a “Smart” Meter defect.  The panel will look into the cost to customers from this practice.

With a much-anticipated public hearing on the horizon, the first signs of Smart Meter testing were reported last week, as PG&E reattached old meters alongside digital Smart Meters on about 150 homes in Kern County to compare the energy usage reported.

The start of testing, repeatedly delayed since it was first promised in October, comes on the heels of an admission by utility giant PG&E that some of its new meters are defective and fail to transmit data, leading to estimated bills for its customers.

Florez has been holding public hearings on Smart Meter installation since reports of skyrocketing bills flooded the Valley last year.  Some residents there reported bills that had so much as tripled, even when their homes were vacant.

PG&E Corporation’s President and CEO, Peter Darbee, has declined another opportunity to represent his company publicly on the issue of Smart Meter technology.  The company will instead be sending a senior vice president who is the chief customer officer.

“As much as I believe PG&E customers will not have confidence in their utility until they hear solid answers from the top, we won’t be deterred from asking the hard questions and getting to the bottom of this debacle,” Florez said.  “As long as these meters continue to be bolted to homes without test results that say they are accurate, I will continue to fight to give consumers a voice in this process.”

Also participating in Monday’s hearing will be representatives of the California Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District and the Division of the Ratepayer Advocates.

Monday’s hearing will be held at 9 a.m. in Room 3191 of the California State Capitol.

California

CA State Senator Dean Florez Lauds Pepsi For Low-Cal Beverage Promise

Intro Editorial: Given that Pepsi has already determined they WILL take steps to remove sugar from their product line, one can make a strong case that Senator Florez, simply by introducing the soda tax legislation in California, has already had a positive impact for the nations consumers. This one act by a responsive corporation translates into less youth with diabetes and that translates into adult lives saved or extended in the long run. Others would do well to follow Pepsi’s lead.

The Details

SACRAMENTO – Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter) today applauded Pepsi Company’s announcement that it is working to develop new, non-caloric, natural sweeteners in response to expected new taxes on soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages.

Florez, the author of California Senate Bill 1210, is calling on the soda giant’s competitors to follow suit if they want to keep up with consumer trends and issued the following statement:

“I appreciate the fact that Pepsi is trying to move in the right direction by developing new low-calorie drinks. Certainly the threat of new taxes on sugary drinks is having an effect and is changing corporate behavior. It seems they realize that the handwriting is on the wall.”

“Sugary soft drinks play a large role in the increase in childhood obesity and diabetes that we face in our state and nation. It’s important that we keep the pressure on, that we not retreat from moving the soft drink industry away from added sugars, and that we continue with legislative efforts like SB 1210 to provide funding for obesity prevention programs for the benefit of next generation.”

Tuesday’s Associated Press article on Pepsi’s announcement can be found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36006288/ns/business-consumer_news/

SB 1210 would tax added sugar in soda and other soft drinks at one penny per teaspoon of sugar, with the funds earmarked for childhood obesity prevention programs such as physical education and nutrition programs in schools. The bill would raise $1.5 billion per year in California, helping to offset some of the $41 billion in health care costs attributed each year to obesity and diabetes in the state.

California

CA Senator Florez Establishes Committee; Promises Answers To Multiple PG&E SMART METER Issues

Given The PG&E Pubic Relation Track Record Lately I Am Sure Happy To See That Senator Florez Continues To  Looking Out For California Consumers. In all honesty, I hope the PG&E Smart Meter mess is fixed before they come knocking on my door with my Smart Meter! Much of the history of the PG&E Smart Meter mess I posted in the last three months on Calitics. Key Word Smart Meter should get you to the posts.

SACRAMENTO – Amid consumer concerns over the accuracy of so-called “Smart Meters” and ongoing delays in promised independent testing of the devices, the Senate Rules Committee has established a Select Committee on the Smart Grid to provide legislative oversight for implementation of the technology throughout California.

Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), who led a series of hearings on Smart Meters last fall as Valley residents’ PG&E bills soared inexplicably, will chair the new committee. Some of those who saw their bills triple had even installed energy efficient appliances or received increased bills for homes which were vacant.

Florez has continued to push for public recognition of problems with the meters, which ultimately are supposed to help residents monitor and adjust their energy usage to save money. He called for independent testing and a moratorium on further Smart Meter installations until such testing is complete.

The California Public Utilities Commission agreed to require PG&E to conduct independent testing of the digital meters, but declined to implement a moratorium. Meanwhile, PG&E is attempting to speed up installations while it delays testing.

PG&E indicated in a recent letter to Florez that it would prefer to meet in person rather than respond in writing to his concerns. To that end, Florez will soon hold a Sacramento hearing of the Select Committee on the Smart Grid to discuss the latest on Smart Meters.

“This committee will finally put the tools at our disposal to compel PG&E and the CPUC to provide consumers with the answers they need and deserve,” said Florez. “It concerns me greatly that there is such a rush to install these meters while so many questions loom.”

In a letter requesting the select committee, Florez indicated the body would “investigate and review the development of the Smart Grid throughout the state; the use of American recovery and Reinvestment Act funds for Smart Grid purposes; the integrity and reliability of new Smart Grid and Metering technologies; privacy and security standards for Smart Grid data; and the consumer protections in place with regards to utility billing, disconnection and real-time pricing.”

The newly formed select committee will include Senators Florez, Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield), Mark Leno (D-San Francisco/San Rafael) and Curren Price (D-Los Angeles).

California, Health Care

CA-10: An Interview With Sen. Mark DeSaulnier

Mark DeSaulnier has had a rapid ascent through the state legislature and now, potentially, into Congress.  Within three years, this former restaurant owner won elections to the State Assembly (in 2006) and the State Senate (in 2008), with a Congressional primary scheduled for September 1.  Prior to that, he was a 3-time member of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and the California Air Resources Board.  A former liberal Republican in the mold of Edward Brooke, DeSaulnier switched parties several years ago and compiled a liberal voting record in the State Legislature.  His first ad of the campaign covered the topic of health care, and I asked him about this and several other issues in an interview conducted last week.  Having taken place before the crucial budget vote, I spent a good deal of time asking DeSaulnier about that, and you can see his responses here.  Depending on your perspective, he either did or did not fulfill the promise to vote against “most” of the budget, by the way, voting no on 11 of 26 bills, including all of the more controversial ones.

I’ll pick up with a paraphrased transcript of the rest of the interview below:

DD: So, other than the budget, how’s it going with your campaign?

Mark DeSaulnier: Well, this is a tough campaign, with a big field and a lot of good candidates.  The polls we’ve done show us winning.  We’ve got 70% of the money that we need to compete, and a lot of great endorsements.  I would say we have the most local endorsements inside the district.  And we’re going to be able to put together a great ground campaign, with people I’ve worked with for 20 years in the district.  I think we’re going to be concentrated in Contra Costa County, where we can post a big number.  I think we’re putting ourselves out there as the local candidate, who has represented the district for a long time.  And we have people out there walking and phoning, putting forward that message.

DD: As long as we’re on California, obviously you’ve seen the dysfunction at the local level.  What do you think you can do at the federal level to remedy this situation?

MD: You know, I read a lot of Paul Krugman, and I agree with him that we’re going to need a second stimulus package.  And I think we need it sooner and not later.  I think we can take what’s been learned from the stimulus package that we’re doing now.  I think the problem is that the banks like Citi and Bank of America aren’t lending, and so we need to require the banks to lend, with relief for the credit worthy who are falling behind on their payments, and more money out to the credit unions who have done a better job handling this crisis.  Next, I think we have to do some sort of fiscal stabilization.  I see it in this state, people who need to access the safety net go up when the economy goes down.  And so we have to break that cycle, and I think we can by providing some relief.  Finally, we should say that we can do things more efficiently.  There shouldn’t be this silo mentality.  I’ll give you an example.  We put together these “one-stops,” places where you can go for unemployment and job training.  And people tell me that you have to get out of one line and pick up a phone in the office to get your unemployment benefits.  That just doesn’t seem like good government to me.  And I think we have an opportunity to make government work better.

DD: Let’s move on to health care.  Seems to be a big issue for you.  What are the principles you carry in this debate?

MD: To me, the gold standard is single payer.  We have the problem of getting health care to those who need it, and also how we get control of costs.  I think the public option is the first step, and if we do it right, it could be, and really I think it should be, single payer.  The question is what are the Democrats willing to give up to get moderates on board, and I think there have to be some lines we cannot cross there.  In the end, it has to be about flexibility and more choice.  That’s the way you’re going to sell this thing.  It’s telling that the moderates want firewalls in their plan, they don’t want the people to have more choice, they want to preserve something for the insurance companies.

DD: Will you commit to not vote for anything that doesn’t have a quality public plan available on day one, not a trigger, open to everyone, and with the kind of rates necessary to force the insurance companies to compete?

MD: Yes.  I think as liberals, as progressives, something we don’t do a lot but which we can learn from Republicans, sometimes we’ve just got to say no.

DD: Congress has started to debate the regulatory reform ideas put forward by the Obama Administration, and they’re getting a ton of pushback from the banking industry, particularly on the concept of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  It’s the same way on a lot of these issues, the banks just won’t relent.  How do we solve this problem?

MD: Honestly, the politics will never get totally fixed without a public finance system in this country.  And then people say, “why should we pay for elections?”  The truth is that the average American is paying disproportionately already, when the giveaways to businesses and corporations are factored in.  They buy elections fairly cheaply, and they get the rewards.  So that’s something we have to pursue.  As far as your question, yes, I think we need a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, in fact I think it should be cabinet-level.  A Secretary of Consumer Protection.  The point to all of this is that if middle income people don’t have wealth, democracy ends.  That’s just the bottom line.  And one way to ensure that is by protecting consumers, so you don’t see all their wealth go into someone else’s pockets.  Inequality is just killing us right now.  Kevin Phillips wrote about this years ago, in Bad Money, and he was very prophetic.  I also think that you can’t reform the financial system without holding people accountable.  And so I would involve the Department of Justice right at the beginning.  That’s the only way to really ensure it doesn’t happen again.

DD: You mention inequality, it’s something Democrats don’t talk about enough.  A recent Wall Street Journal story talked about the top 1% earning 35% of all the compensation in the country.

MD: It’s stunning.  And our tax structure, by the way, rewards the accumulation of wealth, not work.  This happens when you get a financial services economy, which is completely not sustainable.  We don’t have manufacturing, we just have this financial services giant, and it trades in bubbles.  So one way to reduce that inequality is to retool the financial services sector, make it smaller, make it more boring.

DD: OK, last question.  I wanted to ask you about SB375, the smart growth measure that you played a big part in passing last year.  This bill doesn’t get a lot of attention, but it really offers a blueprint to how to achieve smart growth policies with the statewide authority working in concert with local communities.  Do you plan to scale that up if you make it to Congress?

MD: Oh, absolutely, and this is where I think my background really suits me to replace Ellen Tauscher.  I chaired the Transportation Committee in the Assembly as a freshman, I think the first person to do that.  I spent ten years on the California Air Resources Board, and I co-authored SB375.  I’m pretty sure there’s a companion bill in Congress right now.  Doris Matsui (CA-05) is carrying it right now.  I have honed in throughout my career on the changing transportation and mobility side of the energy issue.  We accomplish this, in part by reducing miles, and also finding new energy sources for transportation.  We need more transit, and a move away from single-occupancy vehicles and long commutes.  It’s about bringing the work space closer to the living space, and creating livable communities.  So I think I’m naturally suited  for such a task.  I’d like to get on the Transportation Committee if I get to Congress.

DD: Thanks for your time today.

MD: No problem, thank you.

Blog Roundup, Environment

September 6, 2007 Blog Roundup

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally.

Environment (there was a
lot today for some reason)

Protecting our Health

California Policy Inbox

Everything Else

California

AB1505: A Direct Attack upon Consumers: Class-Action Obfuscation

1 Comment

Over the past twenty years, one of the key gains by the Wall Street Wing of both the Republican and Democratic Parties has been the slow chipping away of consumer rights especially with respect to tort deform.  Even in our so-called liberal bastion on the “left coast” we have some really crappy consumer protection laws.  And Assemblywoman Nicole Parra (D-Bakersfield) and our Progressive Democratic Governator want to further protect corporations from what they have done in AB1505 by greatly limiting class action lawsuits.

More on AB1505 over the flip:

You can’t blame the Wall Streetists for this attempt, I mean it is in their financial best interest to do so. But for too long the progressive movement has refused to fight on this issue, ceding consumer rights for fear of looking like they were too friendly with the evil trial lawyers.  You know those evil people who have been fighting for hundreds of years to promote justice and protect consumers.  Pretty much the opposite of Bush’s pick to head the Consumer Products Safety Comission, Michael Baroody, the head of the National Association of Manufacturers, who withdrew his name from consideration.

See, the thing is that the tort system is something that nobody envisions themselves using. That’s for the poor lackeys who get hurt, but not me.  And so, “consumers” don’t really care when short-sighted legislators like Asm. Parra bring corporatist attacks upon the tort system.  Fortunately, AB 1505 was blocked in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, but this is not dead, as there is a reasonable expectation that they will bring this back as a ballot proposition.

But this isn’t just about attorneys. This issues is about organized labor, and removing a powerful tool available to unions.  This is about the rights of workers at Wal-Mart to sue the behemoth on one front instead of single fights only.  This is at the heart of collective strength and the organization model.  Quite simply if many of these cases can’t go through class-action procedures, they just won’t happen.  The resources just aren’t there.

But now, the left is slowly awakening to the fact that these protections are not trivial.  And they stood up to defeat Parra’s corporatist intentions:

The bill, AB 1505 by Assemblywoman Nicole Parra, was summarily defeated this month in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The death of the bill, which would have made it more difficult to file class actions, came as little surprise in the Democrat-controlled Legislature.

But Capitol insiders believe it may serve as a leverage point for proponents who seek to raise money for a ballot initiative next year. Sources say discussions are under way, although none cared to publicly discuss their progress, if any. The list of backers and opponents of the Parra bill reads like a Who’s Who of California’s most powerful political players. Opponents include the California Nurses Association, AARP, the trial lawyers, the SEIU State Council, and consumer and labor groups. Supporters include the California Chamber of Commerce, the Farm Bureau, the grocers, hospitals, retailers, Hewlett Packard, Intel and insurers, among many others.

“We haven’t foreclosed any options,” said Vince Sollitto, Chamber of Commerce spokesman. “We always try to work with the Legislature, and we will continue to do so now. Nothing is ever really dead in the Legislature. While this particular bill didn’t clear policy deadlines, the issue isn’t going away.” (Capitol Weekly 5/24/07)

This isn’t going away, and we need to turn the tide.  We need stronger protections for consumers against global corporations that have been able to swat away lawsuits like gnats on a horse’s ass, not weaker protections.  While progressives were asleep at the switch on Prop 64 we can no longer afford to rest.  If hard-ball is how the multi-nationals want to play, time to start bringing some of our propositions to the ballot. As George Bush says, “we’re going to stay on the offense.”