September 2000

• A bad reason to go to the polls?

• 2 . . . 13 . . . 8 . . . hike!

• Did trial lawyers buy Clinton's product liability reform veto?

• House votes to sustain estate tax veto

• Watch out for a post-November full court press

• Election Outlook 2000: AED local groups rally for congressional candidates

A bad reason to go to the polls?

When our founding fathers were drafting the Constitution and debating what form of government would be best for the Republic, one sticking point was the issue of direct democracy vs. representative government. They opted for the latter, fearing that a direct system of adopting public policy would result in majority tyranny, ill-considered and uninformed decisions and bad legislation being enacted into law.

Despite the inspired choices made more than 200 years ago, states are asking voters to decide important and complex legislative issues with increasing frequency. When we go to the polls in November, voters in nearly 40 states will be faced with over 180 ballot measures.

Many of the issues on the ballots are not of major significance to the operations of government or to the business community. A number deal with things like legalizing marijuana for medical use and banning cockfighting. However, several issues are significant to society as a whole. These include votes on school choice, vouchers at charter schools, health care reform, bilingual education, same sex marriage and physician-assisted suicide.

Arizona, Colorado measures seek to stop growth

At least two states-Arizona and Colorado-are also taking up ballot initiatives that would substantially limit growth and dictate how and where the citizens of those states live, work, and travel.

The 22,000-word Arizona measure (which was written by the Sierra Club!) would:

2 . . . 13 . . . 8 . . . hike!

It's been a long, hot summer filled with devastating wildfires in the western U.S. and fiery political rhetoric in Las Angeles and Philadelphia. But take heart: Autumn is finally here. The weather is cooling and any day now the leaves will start changing to myriad brilliant shades of red, yellow and brown.

As the leaves turn, so, too, do American minds turn to thoughts of football. That is, unless you live in Washington. Here in the nation's capital, minds are focused on an even bigger game: the annual appropriations process. With less than a month left before the targeted adjournment date, only two of 13 appropriations bills have been signed into law and of those upon which Congress has taken substantial action, eight are under a veto threat.

The appropriations bills are crucial. They're considered "must-pass" legislation because they provide the money that the government needs to keep its doors open. In 1995, President Clinton rebuilt some of his standing in the polls by luring the Republicans into an appropriations showdown that ended with the GOP taking the heat for closing the government. With the elections less than two months away, few in the House and Senate leadership want to risk having that political football land in their lap again.

The GOP's goal is to finish the appropriations bills, adjourn and get home to campaign. Republican leaders know that their candidates do best in the polls when they're back in their districts talking to their constituents. The Democrats know it, too. That's why everyone expects to see the White House stall the appropriations process as much as possible in weeks to come. The end result will probably be an omnibus bill containing many of the individual appropriations bills that looks more like something the president wants than something the GOP would ordinarily support.

Hours of service, .08 BAC stall transportation appropriations

One piece of uncompleted business of particular importance to AED is the transportation appropriations bill, which funds the federal highway program. Both the House and Senate have adopted separate versions of the bill that would provide the full amount promised for roads and bridges in TEA-21-more than $29.6 billion in 2001! The problem is that other unrelated measures are holding up the legislation.

The Senate version of the transportation bill included language prohibiting the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from rushing ahead with its new hours of service rules for commercial drivers. The proposed regs are misguided, and AED has been working to build support for the moratorium language. But House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee chairman Frank Wolf (R-Va.) has fought our efforts. One possible solution may be language that allows the FMCSA to go forward with the rulemaking process but which delays implementation of the new rules for at least a year. This would get rid of the incentive for the agency to try to issue the regulation before the end of the Clinton administration.

Another problem with the bill is language being pushed by the White House and Mothers Against Drunk Driving that would require states to adopt a .08 blood alcohol content drunk driving standard. States that don't would lose as much as 10 percent of their federal highway money. While AED is not opposed to the .08 standard, we are opposed to using highway funds as a stick to beat states into submission with the will of Congress. The irony is that by withholding highway funds from the states, road projects designed to improve safety and save lives will be delayed.

In the end, money for the road program is almost certain to be appropriated at the promised levels (TEA-21 requires it). The big questions on everyone's mind are what else will be in the bill and when will it be done?

Did trial lawyers buy Clinton's product liability reform veto?

Not only is trading campaign contributions for votes or other official acts an affront to our democracy and morally wrong, it's also illegal. In those rare situations where elected officials do extort campaign contributions, the culprits should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for undermining the public's confidence in our government.

A new campaign finance scandal involving the Clinton administration reared its ugly head this month and this time it relates to the president's opposition to product liability reform, one of AED's top legislative priorities. According to The New York Times, the story apparently goes something like this:

In 1995 Vice President Al Gore had dinner in Houston with a group of Texas trial lawyers. One of the major topics discussed at the dinner was the comprehensive tort reform bill being put together by the Republican-controlled Congress. A few days after the dinner, senior Democrats asked the vice president to call a number of the attorneys who attended to the dinner to ask them to give $100,000 apiece to the party.

Gore never made the calls, but Democratic National Committee chairman Don Fowler did call at least one Texas attorney. On a briefing memorandum prepared for Fowler's call, an aide suggested that Fowler say, "I know [you] will give $100K when the president vetoes tort reform, but we really need it now. Please send ASAP if possible." Though he doesn't deny making the call, Fowler denies having used the language on the memo. "I'm sure I never said anything like that to him or anybody else. It's unwise," Fowler said.

President Clinton vetoed the tort reform bill in May 1996. Several months later, the Texas attorney's firm gave $40,000 to the Democratic National Committee and has since given more than $700,000. In total, the five Texas tort lawyers involved in the case have given almost $4 million to Democrats. Contributions from lawyers and law firms account for about 10 percent of the $50 million the Gore-Lieberman campaign has thus far raised for the presidential election.

Prosecutors are expected to look into the matter to determine whether the contributions from the Texas lawyers amounted to either a bribe or an illegal gratuity.

House votes to sustain estate tax veto

Nobody was surprised when President Clinton vetoed the Death Tax Elimination Act late last month. Nor was anybody surprised when estate tax supporters in the House failed to muster the two-thirds majority to override the veto on Sept. 7. The final vote was 274 to 157. In the end, 13 of the Democrats who supported the bill when it passed the House in June switched their votes under pressure from party leaders.

It's tempting to be discouraged by the latest vote, but don't be. We've made real progress towards getting rid of the tax in recent years. Who would have thought a few years ago when we started our crusade that we'd ever get an estate tax repeal bill through a House and Senate controlled by the GOP by such a narrow margin. Our one stumbling block right now is the president. If Bush wins this November and the GOP keeps control of the House and Senate, we'll be in good shape to take care of the estate tax once and for all next year.

Watch out for a post-November full court press

Change is inevitable, even in Washington. Regardless of which party prevails this November, there are going to be a lot of new faces around town next year, both on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Another important place to look for change in the near future is on the United States Supreme Court.

One of the few powers given to the president in the Constitution is the authority to appoint Supreme Court justices. Some are suggesting that the next president may have the opportunity appoint as many as four during his first term. Most often mentioned as retirement candidates are Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor. Rehnquist and Stevens are, respectively, the senior members of the conservative and liberal wings of the court. Ginsburg is generally found in the liberal camp, while O'Connor is regard as one the court's swing votes.

Rehnquist's retirement would allow the next president to appoint a new chief justice and set the court's tone and agenda for years to come. Some court watchers are betting that Bush would very likely tap Associate Justice Antonin Scalia for the top spot. The conservative Scalia, who is known for his wry wit, is one of the high court's intellectual heavyweights.

Recent Supreme Court decisions on several crucial issues including federalism, freedom of association and abortion rights have been rendered on razor-thin 5-4 margins. Although some have questioned how much control a president ultimately has over the philosophy of his appointees (justices often turn out to be more liberal or conservative than the presidents who appointed them), voters perceive the court appointments as an important issue in the presidential race. And well they should. The next president will have an important opportunity to shape the face of the judicial branch.

Election Outlook 2000: AED local groups rally for congressional candidates

As the November elections draw nearer, AED members around the country are doing their part to help affect what happens at the polls. Over the last month, two more AED local groups held ImPACt 2000 fundraisers for congressional candidates and many more events are scheduled to take place between now and election day.

On Aug. 15, members of the Montana Equipment Distributors Association met at the War Bonnet Inn to throw their support behind Denny Reberg, the GOP candidate for the Montana at-large House seat being vacated by Rep. Rick Hill, also a Republican. The Memphis AED held an event for Rep. Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.) (their third to date) at the University Club in Memphis on Aug. 22. Both the Montana and Tennessee groups more than met AED's challenge to match our $2,500 AED PAC contribution to the candidates with personal contributions from local group members.

Several events are scheduled for next month. On Oct. 24 the Minnesota EDA will hold a fundraiser for Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), the senior Democrat on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. Georgia EDA members will come together to support Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.) on Oct. 23 at a luncheon at Atlanta's Capital City Club. Members of the AED of Utah will throw their support behind GOP candidate Derek Smith at an event on Oct. 2 at the Tuscany restaurant. And Kentucky EDA members will, for the second time this election cycle, rally to support Republican Rep. Anne Northup at a dinner on Oct. 17.

Finally, members of the Iowa-Nebraska EDA are considering holding ImPACt events for two yet-to-be named candidates (one in each state) sometime in the next few weeks, and AED of Arizona members are discussing the possibility of holding an event for 1st District GOP candidate Jeff Flake.

In addition to the events mentioned above, ImPACt 2000 fundraisers have already been held this cycle for Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), Northup and candidates Chris Vance (R-Wash.) and Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).