Copyright 1999 Times Publishing Company
St.
Petersburg Times
View Related Topics
April 29, 1999, Thursday, 0 South Pinellas
Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; COLUMNS; Pg. 15A
LENGTH: 784 words
HEADLINE:
'Tort reform' a lobbyist might love
BYLINE: MARTIN DYCKMAN
DATELINE: TALLAHASSEE
BODY:
No one ever took campaign contributions to serve on a jury, which is
why Florida verdicts deserve more respect than Florida legislation.
Those who want to tilt the scales of justice in favor of big business
aren't about to give up as time dwindles for the 1999 Legislature to oblige
them. They have worked feverishly behind the scenes ever since an impasse was
declared a week or so ago. The latest version of what is euphemistically called
"tort reform" is a textbook example of how laws should not be made. The key
provisions, revealed Wednesday, were crafted not by a conference committee in
public, as the Constitution seems to demand, but by Senate Majority Leader Jack
Latvala in private consultations with lobbyists and individual legislators.
Latvala is a competent, intelligent legislator who understands better than his
Republican colleagues in the House that politics is meant to be the art of
honest compromise. But while the bill he brought forth Wednesday is better for
(or least harmful to) the public in some respects than earlier versions, there
are parts to it that nobody but the most cynical big business lobbyists, and
their sycophants in the Legislature, could like.
Aircraft manufacturers
would no longer be responsible for planes that are more than 20 years old, as
many are. Tobacco companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers and the asbestos
industry would be off the hook for disabling, even lethal, illnesses that took
more than 20 years to develop. Car rental companies would be given a
ridiculously low limit of liability - in most cases, only $ 100,000 per person
and $ 300,000 for all victims - on the vehicles it profits them to rent. Limits
on punitive damages appear to be higher than the business lobbies wanted, but
the burden of proof would be higher than all but a few claimants could manage.
There are indeed a few parts of the bill to which no disinterested,
fair-minded person could object. But it is impossible to have respect for the
package because of the way in which it was put together. Centuries of case law
and precedent, the collective wisdom of uncountable thousands of uncorrupted
judges and juries, are to be undone at the whim of corporate lobbyists who
cannot produce a single trustworthy statistic why this is necessary or what good
it will do, and whose only guiding principle seems to be that might makes right.
Early in the session, Associated Industries' Jon Shebel - the most
uncompromising of the big business lobbyists - was quoted in the Wall Street
Journal as saying that the defeat of campaign reform was "more important than
any issue, including tort reform." The fruits of this sorry session will
reflect what he meant. Sadly, it is campaign reform that is the likeliest
to fail.
It is appropriate, if ironic, that Latvala is the principal
sponsor of both causes. However, he sees the case for campaign reform from
a different perspective than most other people. It outrages him how much money
the trial lawyers spent to defeat one senator last year and to nearly defeat
another.
"I have had two members of the Senate come to me
today because they are scared of what the trial lawyers may do to them
politically," he said Wednesday. He did not mention - but then he did not
need to - that the business relief bill wouldn't even be on the table but for
the millions of dollars that its backers have invested in contributions.
The Senate made a good-faith offer to compromise on its campaign reform
bill. The last offer gave up the proposed $ 5,000 limit on contributions to
parties, except for during the final three weeks. It insisted, however, on
closing the loophole that makes it impossible to trace the parties' soft
money to the candidates on whose behalf it is spent. Even this little bit was
still too much for House Speaker John Thrasher, who said the House would do
nothing with the bill but "take off the bad Senate amendments."
Senate
President Toni Jennings, who startled other Republican leaders when she took on
campaign reform as a personal priority, said Wednesday that she has been "very
pleasantly surprised" by the volume of supportive mail from the public on
campaign reform. What passes for conventional wisdom here is that the public
doesn't care how much dirty money its politicians take. Jennings sees that the
opposite is true, and she makes it plain that Latvala wasn't just blowing smoke
when he threatened a voter initiative for a much tougher campaign reform if the
House rejects the compromise. That's her plan, too, she said.
Let the
House power brokers call Jennings' hand. They just might find that as far
as the public is concerned, she's the one holding aces.
LOAD-DATE: April 29, 1999
