St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer - campaign

Grand Standing Illinois Senate Candidate: Does He Really Care About Health Care?

Mike Bryant — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:33:00 GMT

Interesting to read the stories of Illinois U S Senate candidate, Mark Kirk's (R-Ill.) candidate's speeches this week about health care. Seems like up until now he's never cared much about the issue. But, it's a popular topic, so he comes to a press conference flanked by a couple of doctors and leadership from the U S Chamber. Now that's a group that has the American consumer in it's sights.

They purposely put forward:Let's limit all of the lawsuits and make a couple of modest insurance changes. Each of the changes seemed focused almost exclusively on saving money for the insurance companies. Never mind that the Injuryboard members have been documenting for some time now that malpractice rates are down and that medical malpractice is a very small part of the overall budgets and that this frivolous tort reform doesn't work.

But, candidate Kirk really isn't out there to help the system. This is purely a tip of the passed hat. He's raising money with the insurance companies and big business. At least call it what it is. While others are working hard to create a system to help all consumers, he is just looking for the campaign money. Hopefully, Illinois voters will see it for what it is.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

U S Supreme Court decision In Massey Is A Win For Fairness In The Courts

Mike Bryant — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:42:00 GMT

A couple of months ago I blogged on the importance of the upcoming Massey decision and if justice could be purchased. The decision was a clear indicator that it could not be. As was explained in the Wall Street Journal, "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week calling for judges to stay out of cases involving big political donors confronts the growing role of money in the U.S. judicial system." The Journal adds, "Political donations to judicial candidates at the highest state courts have soared in recent years, creating concerns that money is eroding public confidence in the system." Opponents of that system say "states should enact such reforms as requiring taxpayers to underwrite judicial races" or "scrap contested elections in favor of appointing judges to the bench, which is the practice of some states."

Hopefully, the ruling with also give rise to higher standers in policing these contributions. As Bert Brandenburg, director of the National Organization For Justice at Stake, pointed out, "The Supreme Court opinion left the door open for all states to develop more stringent refusal standards." He added, "Now [it is] up to each state to fill in the finer points."

The Washington Post went further to conclude that because of the issues raised in the case "States should consider abandoning judicial elections for a merit selection system that better insulates judges from the corrosive influences of money and politics." I agree that retention elections should at least be looked at. Money should not buy justice. Thankfully the highest court agreed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Does Bachmann Support Herself?

Mike Bryant — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:23:00 GMT

The US Census is underway at this time. One of the results of the numbers is the distribution of congressional seats for each state. There is again discussion that Minnesota could lose a one of it's eight U S House seats as the population continues to shift. Many people suggest that it will be the Sixth district that would be the seat which is eliminated.

You would think that the Congressperson from the district would be championing the census efforts. One of the most underrepresented populist is college students. So maybe head over to the colleges in your district and remind the students to fill the forms out.

Not Michele Bachmann, she is continuing her fight with ACORN. She declared that her family is only going to answer one question: the number of people in her household. I would think that this is the message that she is spreading to others. It makes you wonder what it is that she doesn't want to disclose. Wouldn't you think that most if not all of the information is already out for a sitting congressperson? Odd thinking indeed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Bachmann Who Believes This Stuff?

Mike Bryant — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:09:00 GMT

The Minnesota Republicans held their central committee meeting last Saturday and elected their new party leaders. It's an event to half pay attention to for me. Seemed like many of the speakers at least tacitly admitted that the party has a problem. With the two term governor Tim Pawlenty stepping aside, they are facing some of the same leadership issues that the national party is and the Democrats have over time.

The speaker who shocked me was Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. I guess it shouldn't, she's been spouting off crazy things for some time. I've even taken the time to blog about a couple of them.

But, it seems to me that she is going to a whole new level of fantasy words.

Her take on the economy is that the world is now in chaos and capitalism is being killed by the Obama Administration. I guess it's possible. But her view seems to be based on such a one sided view. Wasn't she in Congress for a couple of terms now? Didn't she see what a rotten economy the Bush administration created? The recent ironic Pravda article about the death of capitalism seems more in touch with reality. This is after a week where she called the President a gangster and continued her ongoing battle with the truth.

Next was her ongoing attack that ACORN is going to be running all of our elections? I doubt they have the numbers. It might solve some of our problems like the Senate race here in Minnesota and the butterfly ballots of Florida. But, she means this to be a bad thing. It all goes to her claim that ACORN gets money that it uses to register voters. The reality is that the money is Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and goes to ACORN Housing, an affiliate of ACORN that offers home ownership counseling to low-income families.“CDBG rules list eligible uses of the money, including such things as building sidewalks, sewers and affordable housing, mostly. Specifically ineligible: ‘political activities,’” said Politifact ,a Pulitzer prize-winning operation of the St. Petersburg Times . “In other words, ACORN can’t use the money for voter registration.”

Finally, a new favorite as she claimed that American soldiers now had to read Miranda rights to Al Qaeda. I first have to wonder if she believes anyone should get their Miranda rights? But, back to the point, where does she get support for this claim? An O'Reilly report tnat misquotes another Congressman? It is an absolute untruth. The whole Guantanamo debate is whether we can just lock people up without charges, if they should get a hearing at some point and if we should at least treat them like prisoners of war.

It seems like she says enough that she actually believes this stuff. Hopefully, at some point she will stop getting chances to say them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Interesting Questions Come Up After Michele Bachmann Donation

Mike Bryant — Mon, 04 May 2009 12:15:00 GMT

This video is worth watching for all of those who are interested in following the ongoing tale of Michele Bachmann exploits. At the heart of the issue this time is campaign contributions she received from Frank Vennes Jr . Following these contributions, she requested that President Bush include Mr. Vennes in his late pardons. Unfortunately, Mr. Vennes was caught up in a Peder ponzi scheme around the same time. So no pardon and Representative Bauchmann attempted to pass the money or at least part of it on to Minnesota Teen Challenge. They said thanks but no thanks. " We didn’t want to be involved if it was dirty money,” said Rich Scherber, executive director of Minnesota Teen Challenge.

http://www.youtube.com/v/KAfS0NggClo&hl=en&fs=1"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true">http://www.youtube.com/v/KAfS0NggClo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">

This smells bad. On top of everything, she failed to report the money being returned to her campaign until her first quarter 2009 campaign filing, a possible violation of Federal Election Commission rules. Maybe with her no earmarks pledge she should also refuse political favor money. Oh, and maybe don't try to pass it off to others either.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Minnesota Looking At How To Elect It's Judges

Mike Bryant — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:05:00 GMT

Presently, the Minnesota Legislature is looking at ways in which to deal with Minnesota elections. The reason for the discussion is the passage of Republican Party of Minnesota v. White when the U S Supreme Court struck down the Minnesota canon of judicial ethics which barred candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. The options were looked at by the Quie Commission and a number of options were considered:

1) Do nothing. It makes these elections like any other and may bring the multi million dollar races in to the state that are taking place in other parts of the country.

2) Appoint judges for life or for set terms that eliminate the elections all together. This takes the vote away from the people. It is like the federal judges.

3) Retention elections where the issue is whether the judge should remain or not. In these elections, there is still the vote, but there is no opposite. So if the judge loses they are replaced through an appointment system. Parties that want their own agenda on the bench or can't get appointed don't like this option.

Personally, I am quite concerned about political endorsements in judicial elections and what the affect of more money is going to do to the system. It is particularly bothersome that the U S Supreme Court , which doesn't face elections and which chaffs at the thought of being asked issue questions in their nomination process, is making the decisions it has. But, taking away the vote completely is very unAmerican. My hope is that the retention elections continue to get traction and we see something that prevents the buying of the state supreme court seats.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Campaign Contributions To Judges: What Do They Mean?

Mike Bryant — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:50:00 GMT

Here in Minnesota, we have seen a couple of contested judicial races, but nothing on the level of the multi million dollar slugfests that have taken place in other states. Clearly, special interest groups have attempted to pack state supreme courts ( in some cases successfully) to promote an agenda. The American Tort Reform Association and the American Justice Partnership, a wing of the National Association of Manufacturers, pumped more than $700,000 into the 2008 Illinois judicial elections .

I've given to candidates in district elections and statewide. As a member of the Certified Trial Lawyers, I have participated in discussions of endorsements of judges who we hope will let us try our cases. Doing both civil and criminal trials, it's the juries who decide the fact issues, so judges who keep things moving and rule evenly are really what my clients need.

Presently, there is a case heading to the United States Supreme court that could again change the landscape for judicial elections. The last time being Republican Party of Minnesota v. White when the Supreme Court struck down the Minnesota canon of judicial ethics that barred candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co the Court will be faced with the question of whether a West Virgina Supreme Court of Appeals Justice has to recuse himself from an appeal in which the president of the company is seeking reversal of a $50 million jury verdict, was the largest contributor -- $3 million in direct and indirect contributions -- to the judge's campaign. To the general public, this smells. A Harris Interactive poll found that "an overwhelming majority of people...doubted that elected judges can be impartial in cases that involve major campaign donors."

The Caperton court's decision could have a number of implications. Will it bar all contributors from appearing before the campaigning judge? That might make some sense, but what about when it's the U S Chamber giving away a pile of money? They don't really appear as litigants directly. Maybe, there is an amount that could be the bar? But, that number would be arbitrary at best. Or the Court , like White , might just open up the door to even greater problems with these elections.

Judges face way too many different issues, to be elected on single platforms or with plans to rewrite justice. I personally like the idea of retention elections or simple appointments. It will save money and it gives us the best shot at judges free of special interests. But, we will have to see what the unelected and offended if they are asked personal questions, members of the United States Supreme Court say about it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

George Will Needs To Take Responsibility For Poor Research

Mike Bryant — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:43:55 GMT

Today, the local paper included a poorly supported editorial from George Will aimed at trial lawyers, but throughly threatening all consumers. In what was really just a rewrite of the recent US Chamber attacks, he argued that we are victims of too many lawsuits. Unfortunately for him, the facts don't support him.

Other members of the Injuryboard have been pointing out the weaknesses already. The numbers of lawsuits aren't increasing, the information he relies upon is biased and this is just a front for the chamber's arguments. I previously looked at the play ground claims.

It's interesting that he uses the numbers of new lawyers each year, as if it means something. It would be like using English major graduates to say we are going to see more news articles. I believe that in the past, he would quote Shakespeare in the same type of attack until , it was pointed out that the quote actually meant the opposite of his misuse.

Trial lawyers continue to protect the rights of those who have been injured. At a time when big business continues to be shown to be even worse protectors of the public good then we all hoped, it's imperative that we continue on the fight. Are there some questionable cases out there? Sure. But, it seems a lot like looking at this editorial, which is filled with folklore and half truths and saying all editorials should be stopped. Will should stop shilling for the US Chamber and get back to something he knows about.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Chamber Of Commerce Continues Anti Consumer Attacks

Mike Bryant — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:34:00 GMT

After spending millions of dollars on lobbying efforts, pouring money in to conservative candidates/campaigns across the country, and contributing to the greatest economic downturn in our lifetime, the Chamber of Commerce is now back with the same old message. Give big business more freedom.

Yes, the choir of deregulation and free trade, which has recently gone to Washington like panhandlers , is unleashing a radio campaign across the country calling for increased tort reform. To take rights away from the average consumer and give business's freedom from responsibility.

The gall of these messages is only matched by their unrepentant involvement in what they've done to our country. The total lack of responsibility. Sure they want to get rid of lawsuits. They don't want anyone looking over their shoulders. They don't want those injured to have remedies to protect them. More corporate freedom will mean only less protections for all Americans.

Minnesota has a good system for consumers. At the same time, it's been found to have a good climate for businesses. Don't let those who have shown little interest in doing anything other than to profit at the expense of anything else, get away with more attacks on Consumer rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Senate Norm Coleman A Leopard Or A Chameleon

Mike Bryant — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:47:00 GMT

In Minnesota, we are seeing a whole new set of commercials from Senator Norm Coleman. The premise is that there has been enough negative campaigning. It's time to be positive and to talk about the issues. This comes shortly after polling that showed his lead was shrinking and his negatives were growing, primarily because he had been running inaccurate negative commercials about his opponent Al Frankin.

Many people will watch these new commercials and see a very nice guy with a great presentation. But there's some history that should go with these commercials.

- This was the guy who spent days conferring with the Ashcroft campaign from Missouri following the Death of Senator Paul Wellstone. Ashcroft was the Senator who lost to Mel Carnahan who also died while leading in his campaign. The Coleman campaign then orchestrated a reaction which resembles this latest commercial.

- This is the guy who was one of the members of the truth squad who went to the Democratic convention when John Kerry was nominated to spread the message of what a great job President Bush was doing. How great the war was going, how solid the economy was and most importantly how much we needed to reelect the President.

- This is the guy who is at present runningng for a leadership position with the Republican National Senate Committee. The group who is running negative ads across the country. Saying things that the candidates wouldn't or couldn't say themselves.

Agreeing to stop throwing mud is going to be applauded by everyone. But, to claim you have seen the light, seems to be as much a manipulation as a crafty adaptation to the environment. Although if the Democrats win big nationally, and he is elected, he may claim that the party has now come back to him and switch again.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant