Latest news with #AllianceforConsumers
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Perspective: Being American should trump partisanship
In March of 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot and critically wounded. Before being wheeled into surgery, Reagan, known for his good-natured quips, famously said to his doctors, 'Please tell me you're Republicans.'' Dr. Joseph Martin Giordano, the director of George Washington University Hospital's trauma unit, replied, ''Mr. President, right now, everybody is a Republican.'' But Giordano was a registered Democrat, and he and his team saved Reagan's life. Giordano was one of the best in his field, and throughout his presidency, Reagan never doubted the goodwill of most Americans of any party. But this spirit is under assault today. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in a recent tempest-in-a-teapot regarding three Republican attorneys general — Dave Yost of Ohio, Alan Wilson of South Carolina and Lynn Fitch of Mississippi — who are taking public flak for hiring law firms that predominately donate to Democrats for litigation related to the opioid crisis and other complex cases. To be sure, there is a difference between life-saving medical treatment and patronizing law firms which are involved in the political process. But they share underlying issues in common. The fiercest criticism comes from a group called the Alliance for Consumers, an organization which seems focused on electing Republican attorneys general. O. H. Skinner, the group's executive director, deems the practice of hiring Democratic connected law firms 'unsophisticated,' and his sentiments are echoed by Mississippi auditor Shad White, a Republican who sees the differences as 'generational,' the 'old guard,' who wants to keep the status quo, vs. the young turks who want to 'ruffle some feathers.' But the conversation raises the question: ruffle feathers, for what purpose? White and the Alliance for Consumers suggest that partisanship alone is the most important consideration that requires feathers be ruffled. That's a downright dangerous point of view. Yost, the Ohio AG, didn't mince words when it came to defending his record: 'A blanket refusal to use a qualified firm based solely on perceived political leanings wouldn't just be bad government, it would be bad legal strategy. We seek out firms and lawyers with the competency to win cases, not ones who check ideological boxes.' His position is the right one. Indeed, there's a certain irony about a group called the Alliance for Consumers arguing, in essence, that the amount of money won in a lawsuit involving the opioid crisis —over $700 million in South Carolina alone — is less important than partisan loyalties. The entire point of such litigation is for the benefit of consumers who have been hurt by practices that federal courts deemed harmful. The past decade has seen extreme partisan swings, from Democrat to Republican and back again. Widespread disenchantment with both parties cannot rationally be said to be a result of too little partisanship. While it is always difficult to judge the complex positions of more than 150 million American voters, the more likely scenario is that a failure of our political leaders to accomplish much of anything lasting is at the core of voter dissatisfaction. Prioritizing donations to your favored political party cannot but lead to worse public policy over time. Something much more fundamental is lost if we allow partisanship of this sort to take center stage. The rules of a free society are, by necessity, relatively fewer and less restrictive. And as such, a certain amount of good faith is required when we seek to operate in the best interests of the public. While it is unrealistic to assume partisanship will play no role, forcing party loyalty to center stage, at all times, destroys the trust required for a large, pluralistic society to function well. The consequences are more than a simple loss of collegiality, as important as that is. Such behavior also leads to the belief that we'll be treated unfairly when the 'other side' takes power. The late Sen. Henry M. 'Scoop' Jackson (D-WA), famous for treating his Republican colleagues fairly, once said, 'Although I am a Democrat, and will work hard for the Democratic victory in November, I respect my Republican friends and their views — and wish them well 364 days a year. On election day, it's a little harder.' That's a much better vision as to how partisanship should work. Am I making too much out of a simple dispute over what law firms a few state attorneys general contract with? That's certainly possible. In the wide range of things to be outraged about, this dispute is relatively minor. But too many of the problems in our current political climate have occurred because too few people raise alarm when small things are doing violence to larger, more fundamental and important truths. Back to Ronald Reagan: He famously, and repeatedly, asked then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, a Democrat, if it was 6 p.m. yet. He meant that, while they might be foes during the work day, they could be friends after work. In truth, O'Neill didn't think a lot of Reagan, as he made clear in his memoirs, but the men still kept things collegial. Even if this principle is not always, or even usually, upheld, it should be something to aim for. If Republicans and Democrats don't view each other as Americans first, our nation, and both parties, will pay the price in the long term.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
EXCLUSIVE: ‘Shady trial lawyer pipeline' funneling millions to Democrats according to report
EXCLUSIVE — One of the country's leading consumer protection firms released a report today exposing a "shady lawyer pipeline" of politicians handing out lucrative public contracts to trial lawyers, who in turn contribute millions of dollars to liberal political campaigns, including $1.4 million to the Harris-Walz campaign in 2024. The report – released by Alliance for Consumers (AFC) – highlights the deep Democratic ties of eight major consumer protection law firms - Morgan & Morgan, Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Baron & Budd, Grant & Eisenhofer, Berger Montague, Cohen Milstein and Simmons Hanly - which it dubs the "shady eight." According to AFC, these firms hold profitable public contracts across the country and contributed around $25 million in political donations from 2017 through 2024. In 2024 alone, the firms collectively donated $4 million to political campaigns, 99% of which were for Democrat candidates or Democrat-allied committees. Exclusive: Gop Firebrand Dares Dems To Condemn Attacks On Elon Musk's Tesla During the 2024 presidential election, the firms contributed $1.4 million to former Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign. Read On The Fox News App The shady eight also prioritized midterm Senate races, the report found, with Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and former Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Bob Casey, D – Penn., and Jon Tester, D – Mont. receiving the largest contributions next to Harris. Five of the firms — Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Grant & Eisenhofer, Simmons Hanly, and Baron & Budd – showed a 100% commitment to Democrats and their allies, generating more than $2.5 million in federal donations in 2024. "The consumer should never be on the losing side of a left-wing political money game like what is on display in the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline," AFC says in its report. "This partisan political giving is supported by money from public contracts signed by politicians and public officials; money that belongs to the taxpayers and consumers." Tesla Hypocrisy: Dems Continue Investing In Elon Musk Company Despite Painting Him As Villain AFC said "the 'Shady Eight' are stark examples—although far from the only ones—of how the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline works, with politicians feeding sweetheart contracts to trial lawyers who give 99% of their political donations to liberals and will happily turn around and pump millions of dollars into left-leaning candidates, committees, and allied organizations." O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, told Fox News Digital the report "shows how left-wing trial lawyers have turned consumer protection efforts into a political game." He urged states to move to end their contracts with these "shady" law firms. Dem Candidate Caught On Camera Applauding Notorious Antisemite's Violent Rhetoric: 'You Break His Neck' "The contracts that states have with these firms make some sense if the goal is funding left-wing political campaigns, but, for many reasons, they are exactly the wrong way to protect consumers," he said. "Ending the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline is one of the strongest steps public officials can take to protect consumers and the rule of law." This comes as Republicans in Congress move to rein in "out of control" rulings by activist judges that have inhibited some of the most highly-prioritized aspects of the Trump administration's agenda, such as immigration enforcement and the deportation of criminal migrant gang article source: EXCLUSIVE: 'Shady trial lawyer pipeline' funneling millions to Democrats according to report
Fox News
02-04-2025
- Business
- Fox News
EXCLUSIVE: ‘Shady trial lawyer pipeline' funneling millions to Democrats according to report
EXCLUSIVE — One of the country's leading consumer protection firms released a report today exposing a "shady lawyer pipeline" of politicians handing out lucrative public contracts to trial lawyers, who in turn contribute millions of dollars to liberal political campaigns, including $1.4 million to the Harris-Walz campaign in 2024. The report – released by Alliance for Consumers (AFC) – highlights the deep Democratic ties of eight major consumer protection law firms - Morgan & Morgan, Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Baron & Budd, Grant & Eisenhofer, Berger Montague, Cohen Milstein and Simmons Hanly - which it dubs the "shady eight." According to AFC, these firms hold profitable public contracts across the country and contributed around $25 million in political donations from 2017 through 2024. In 2024 alone, the firms collectively donated $4 million to political campaigns, 99% of which were for Democrat candidates or Democrat-allied committees. During the 2024 presidential election, the firms contributed $1.4 million to former Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign. The shady eight also prioritized midterm Senate races, the report found, with Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., and former Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Bob Casey, D – Penn., and Jon Tester, D – Mont. receiving the largest contributions next to Harris. Five of the firms — Lieff Cabraser, Motley Rice, Grant & Eisenhofer, Simmons Hanly, and Baron & Budd – showed a 100% commitment to Democrats and their allies, generating more than $2.5 million in federal donations in 2024. "The consumer should never be on the losing side of a left-wing political money game like what is on display in the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline," AFC says in its report. "This partisan political giving is supported by money from public contracts signed by politicians and public officials; money that belongs to the taxpayers and consumers." AFC said "the 'Shady Eight' are stark examples—although far from the only ones—of how the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline works, with politicians feeding sweetheart contracts to trial lawyers who give 99% of their political donations to liberals and will happily turn around and pump millions of dollars into left-leaning candidates, committees, and allied organizations." O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, told Fox News Digital the report "shows how left-wing trial lawyers have turned consumer protection efforts into a political game." He urged states to move to end their contracts with these "shady" law firms. "The contracts that states have with these firms make some sense if the goal is funding left-wing political campaigns, but, for many reasons, they are exactly the wrong way to protect consumers," he said. "Ending the Shady Trial Lawyer Pipeline is one of the strongest steps public officials can take to protect consumers and the rule of law." This comes as Republicans in Congress move to rein in "out of control" rulings by activist judges that have inhibited some of the most highly-prioritized aspects of the Trump administration's agenda, such as immigration enforcement and the deportation of criminal migrant gang members.
