Bushes top contributor? Hardly

[Exile_In_SJ]

http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect.../P00003335.htm

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 1999-2000 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on October 1, 2001. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. Help! The numbers don't add up...")


PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Top Contributors
MBNA Corp $240,675
Vinson & Elkins $202,850
Credit Suisse First Boston $191,400
Ernst & Young $179,949
Andersen Worldwide $145,650
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co $144,900
Merrill Lynch $132,425
PricewaterhouseCoopers $127,798
Baker & Botts $116,121
Citigroup Inc $114,300
Goldman Sachs Group $113,999
Enron Corp $113,800
Bank of America $112,500
KPMG LLP $107,744
Jenkens & Gilchrist $105,450
Enterprise Rent-A-Car $97,498
State of Texas $87,254
American General Corp $84,134
Deloitte & Touche $81,600
AXA Financial $79,725

Enron wasn't even in the top 10.

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by Exile_In_SJ

http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect.../P00003335.htm

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 1999-2000 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on October 1, 2001. Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. Help! The numbers don't add up...")


PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
Top Contributors
MBNA Corp $240,675
Vinson & Elkins $202,850
Credit Suisse First Boston $191,400
Ernst & Young $179,949
Andersen Worldwide $145,650
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co $144,900
Merrill Lynch $132,425
PricewaterhouseCoopers $127,798
Baker & Botts $116,121
Citigroup Inc $114,300
Goldman Sachs Group $113,999
Enron Corp $113,800
Bank of America $112,500
KPMG LLP $107,744
Jenkens & Gilchrist $105,450
Enterprise Rent-A-Car $97,498
State of Texas $87,254
American General Corp $84,134
Deloitte & Touche $81,600
AXA Financial $79,725

Enron wasn't even in the top 10.

Interestingly, Vinson & Elkins, $202,850; Baker & Botts (from Boston), $116,121; and Jenkens & Gilchrist $105,450; all in the top 15, are all gigantic, you guessed it, litigation firms. Guess both sides are beholden to the trial lawyers....

[Exile_In_SJ]

More Banking and Financial groups.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by Antilles

Guess both sides are beholden to the trial lawyers....

so 3 out of the top 20 vs the single largest contributing group to the Democrat party that aren't unions? Which side again sponsors tort reform legislation and which side blocks it?

[Rohirrim]

You make it sound like tort reform is an absolute good. It's not. Some of it, like limiting awards in negligence cases across the board is patently unfair. It's like the laws removing sentencing discretion from judges. In some instances, it's led to grossly unfair sentences. Some negligence cases are just ambulance chasers manipulating dumbies to stick it to some corporation. Some negligence cases are valid, ruin peoples lives, destroy families or communities, and require justice. Just saying tort reform is good and trial lawyers are bad is like waving your magic wand across a complex problem and pretending you've solved it. In other words, the ideologues method.

Abe Lincoln was a trial lawyer - and a good one. You can still read some of his case arguments in the Illinois Reporter.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Could you generalize a little more? Some cases are valid and require justice. Good argument for large punitive damage awards. Yes the majority of tort reform is good since it caps those types of damages. Justice is also relative term in this debate, since in the long run everyone is hurt by large punitive damage awards. Tort reform legislation ends up liminting punitive damage awards to only $250-500k, so it's not like the option is being taken away entirely.

oh and my relative was Lincon's law partner, so I know what they did.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 1999-2000 election cycle...

Nice try.

Now factor in all the money Kenny Boy and Enron have given Gigglekill since day one.

[Rascal]

If you read the article you would have realized it was up to October 2001. And you talk about Mock not being able to comprehend the English language Up to that date Enron was #10. Remind me, when did Enron go belly up again?

Either you will address this, or you will concede by either insulting somebody or trying to deflect it to something else. Lets see which one it is.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Antilles

Interestingly, Vinson & Elkins, $202,850; Baker & Botts (from Boston), $116,121; and Jenkens & Gilchrist $105,450; all in the top 15, are all gigantic, you guessed it, litigation firms. Guess both sides are beholden to the trial lawyers....

V&E, B&B, and J&G are all full service law firms not "litigation firms." No, both sides are not beholden to the trial lawyers.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller

Could you generalize a little more? Some cases are valid and require justice. Good argument for large punitive damage awards. Yes the majority of tort reform is good since it caps those types of damages. Justice is also relative term in this debate, since in the long run everyone is hurt by large punitive damage awards. Tort reform legislation ends up liminting punitive damage awards to only $250-500k, so it's not like the option is being taken away entirely.

oh and my relative was Lincon's law partner, so I know what they did.

Who, Herndon? Anyway, without huge punitive awards (IN SOME INSTANCES) giant corps would have no reason to obey particular laws. Say a company can break pollution laws and save 5 million bucks in operational costs. So what does a 500k punitive award do to them? Nothing. Cost of doing business.

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by patteeu

V&E, B&B, and J&G are all full service law firms not "litigation firms." No, both sides are not beholden to the trial lawyers.

Didn't realize you were so interested in semantics. Fine. V&E, B&B, and J&G, particularly Vinson and Elkins, the number 2 contributor, are "full-service" law firms with enormous litigation practice groups. Take a look at Vinson's practice areas and try to tell me with a straight face that an enormous percentage, if not the majority, of the firm's income is not derived from of litigation. For starters, more than half of their attorneys firm-wide are involved in litigation in one form or another. The same is true of Baker Botts, and nearly half of the attorneys in Vinson are litigators.

By the way, in my original post I meant to say that Baker Botts was a Texas firm, not a Boston firm. Talk about a typo! All three, it turns out, are actually Texas based firms, which probably cuts against my “trial lawyers supports both sides” argument to a degree.

Personally, I don't think either side is truly beholden to the “trial lawyers” because trial lawyers, as a class, don't have particularly identifiable political viewpoints. For example, most of the trial lawyers that I know favor tort reform in some fashion, regardless of political party, but the implication in this thread is that that position is not widely held outside the beltway.

Anyway, Herc if you have the numbers for donations to the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign, I’d be interested in seeing those too. I’m sure they have been posted before, but I must have missed that thread.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Antilles

Didn't realize you were so interested in semantics. Fine. V&E, B&B, and J&G, particularly Vinson and Elkins, the number 2 contributor, are "full-service" law firms with enormous litigation practice groups. Take a look at Vinson's practice areas and try to tell me with a straight face that an enormous percentage, if not the majority, of the firm's income is not derived from of litigation. For starters, more than half of their attorneys firm-wide are involved in litigation in one form or another. The same is true of Baker Botts, and nearly half of the attorneys in Vinson are litigators.

By the way, in my original post I meant to say that Baker Botts was a Texas firm, not a Boston firm. Talk about a typo! All three, it turns out, are actually Texas based firms, which probably cuts against my “trial lawyers supports both sides” argument to a degree.

Personally, I don't think either side is truly beholden to the “trial lawyers” because trial lawyers, as a class, don't have particularly identifiable political viewpoints. For example, most of the trial lawyers that I know favor tort reform in some fashion, regardless of political party, but the implication in this thread is that that position is not widely held outside the beltway.

Anyway, Herc if you have the numbers for donations to the Democratic Party or the Kerry campaign, I’d be interested in seeing those too. I’m sure they have been posted before, but I must have missed that thread.

In this case it's not semantics, its a matter of accuracy. When tort reformers complain about "trial lawyers," they aren't complaining about every attorney who litigates. They are talking about the plaintiff's bar, especially personal injury lawyers. I'm sure each of these huge law firms has handled it's share of personal injury cases, but they also provide defense services (the opposite of what tort reformers complain about) as well as many non-litigation services such as regulatory compliance and lobbying. So in the future, when you hear the term "trial lawyers" in a political context, think ambulance chasers and plaintiffs attorneys not insurance defense lawyers, lobbyists, traffic court lawyers, divorce lawyers, intellectual property lawyers and tax advisors/litigators (to provide just a few examples).

[Antilles]

Originally Posted by patteeu

In this case it's not semantics, its a matter of accuracy. When tort reformers complain about "trial lawyers," they aren't complaining about every attorney who litigates. They are talking about the plaintiff's bar, especially personal injury lawyers. I'm sure each of these huge law firms has handled it's share of personal injury cases, but they also provide defense services (the opposite of what tort reformers complain about) as well as many non-litigation services such as regulatory compliance and lobbying. So in the future, when you hear the term "trial lawyers" in a political context, think ambulance chasers and plaintiffs attorneys not insurance defense lawyers, lobbyists, traffic court lawyers, divorce lawyers, intellectual properTy Lawyers and tax advisors/litigators (to provide just a few examples).

I was under the impression that the biggest complaint centered around class action lawsuits, which are generally handled by larger firms, but your point is well taken that not all trial lawyers are the target of tort reform. I suppose I simply took issue with the assertion that trial lawyers, as a class, pulled the strings of either political party.

off topic, but it's just like Ty Law to force his way into the conversation. You're past your prime Ty. No contract extension for you.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Who, Herndon? Anyway, without huge punitive awards (IN SOME INSTANCES) giant corps would have no reason to obey particular laws. Say a company can break pollution laws and save 5 million bucks in operational costs. So what does a 500k punitive award do to them? Nothing. Cost of doing business.

The pollution laws stipulate fines in cases of violation. In matters where the health of the population have been effected then a punitive fine is ordered. I have no problem with punitive damages, they're supposed to hurt. I just get a little quirky over a trial lawyer griping about companies benefiting at the expense of others as they run out the door with their 30%. While the company may be in the wrong, they also are responsible for the employment of a large number of people and if the company goes boobies up then a lot of people lose jobs. Meanwhile, the trial lawyer has a secretary who he grossly underpays and interns doing his work. But this will be an ongoing battle for many years to come.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Antilles

I was under the impression that the biggest complaint centered around class action lawsuits, which are generally handled by larger firms, but your point is well taken that not all trial lawyers are the target of tort reform. I suppose I simply took issue with the assertion that trial lawyers, as a class, pulled the strings of either political party.

off topic, but it's just like Ty Law to force his way into the conversation. You're past your prime Ty. No contract extension for you.

Yes, you are right about class actions being a part of the problem (from the pov of the tort reformers). I also think part of the problem is in the judiciary where novel new legal theories (that push the envelope of legal liability) are either knocked down or allowed to grow into fertile soil for plaintiffs lawyers.

@ your Ty Law comment.

[Rohirrim]

Part of the cause of "activist" judges is a CS congress that doesn't want to tackle hot potato political issues. So they force the courts into the position of deciding what's what.

[Rock Chalk]

I learned a lot from this thread.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Part of the cause of "activist" judges is a CS congress that doesn't want to tackle hot potato political issues. So they force the courts into the position of deciding what's what.

I agree with you on this.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you want Kerry, be prepared for less money in your pocket...

What a load of horsesh*t.

If you make more than $200K per year, you'll just have to pay your fair share of taxes again if Kerry gets elected--just like middle and working class people have been doing all along.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

If you make more than $200K per year, you'll just have to pay your fair share of taxes again--just like the middle and working classes do.

If by fair share you mean that half the population doesn't pay income taxes, then yes the middle and working class pay their fair share.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...half the population doesn't pay income taxes

According to what source? Link?

then yes the middle and working class pay their fair share.

It's those people who make $200K per year and more who are getting whopping tax breaks they don't really need while the working/middle classes get hammered under Gigglekill's policies.

[watermock]

Your an idiot.

Millions of people who didn't pay taxes got 300 dollars CREDIT.

Michael Moore thinks everyone should be taxed at 70 percent if they make a certain level of income.

I wonder if Michael Moore will send 70 percent of his profits in to the IRS as a contribution.

Your an idiot.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

...half the population doesn't pay income taxes

According to what source? Link?

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15281

roughly 122 million Americans--44 percent of the U.S. population--are entirely outside of the federal income tax system.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

then yes the middle and working class pay their fair share.

It's those people who make $200K per year and more who are getting whopping tax breaks they don't really need while the working/middle classes get hammered under Gigglekill's policies.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Art...cle.asp?ID=122

the top 5 percent of income earners pay more than 55 percent of the total federal income taxes

[watermock]

He's an idiot that doesn't have a clue how taxes work.

The guy is a certifiable idiot.