Kia Franklin

Bush Admin. Opposes Privatization of Something!

Sound crazy? Wait, wait, wait… I’m talking about the administration’s recent ban of contingency fee arrangements for lawsuits brought by the federal government against big corporations. These arrangements between private lawyers and the government have been necessary due to strained resources and increased demand on government attorneys. Big business hates them, so the administration has spun the ban on these arrangements as necessary for “protecting America’s taxpayers.” Mmmhmmm… “Necessary for protecting” like a heart attack is.

This NYT article (subscription to Time Select necessary) discusses contingency fees in a less than neutral tone, giving more volume to viewpoints like this:

“The last people you want to have to decide what good public policy in your state is are contingency-fee lawyers from out of state. They’re like groups of locusts looking for the next wheat field.”

And then responding with:

That perspective seems to be gaining traction. In May, President Bush issued an executive order forbidding contingency-fee arrangements at the federal level.

But by now we should be used to media misrepresentation of the issues. Thankfully, independent media responded. This excellent blog by Professor Michael Dorf provides a cogent analysis of why the separation of powers rationale for banning contingency arrangements is just wrong, concluding that “hypocritically or not, the adminsistration is entitled to eschew contingent fee arrangements… [b]ut that policy judgement is a far cry from the far-fetched constitutional arguments against [them].”

The blog also critiques the NYT article’s coverage of the issue, calling the author out for writing what “reads more like a talking points memo by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce than like [his] usually reliable news analysis.” Ouch! It’s a worthwhile read and I’ll let it speak for itself. But here’s a highlight:

The Bush administration has barred contingent fee arrangements by executive order under the preposterous pretext that it is “protecting American taxpayers.”… [One] might think that conservatives and certainly the Bush administration—-which has privatized such seemingly essentially governmental functions as fighting much of the Iraq War (as explored here)—-would be enthusiastic about the idea of contingent fee arrangements for civil justice enforcement. After all, they bring the discipline of the profit motive to the government. But apparently privatization ceases to be a good idea when it results in too many businesses being made to comply with the law. Read more

Posted at 12:00 PM, Jul 12, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)