ICJL touts new study by Big Tobacco, Oil and Drug Companies
Earlier this week on Illinoize, the Illinois Civil Justice League's Ed Murnane was touting a new study by the Pacific Research Institute, which he says backs up his claim that we need to restrict citizen access to the courts.
Not surprisingly, the Pacific Research Institute's work is funded by Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and Big Drug Companies.
According to SourceWatch, the Pacific Research Institute's major financiers include:
Altria (Parent company of Phillip Morris)
Chevron Texaco
ExxonMobile Corporation
Pfizer
PhRMA (umbrella group for the pharmaceutical industry)
The PRI's donors includes another group that I'd never heard of until now: White House Writer's Group.
Again, from SourceWatch:
Gee, anyone wanna bet that the WHWG's client list includes Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Drug Companies, or all three?The White House Writers Group (WHWG) was founded in 1993 by "five former White House speechwriters", many colleagues from the George H.W. Bush Administration. [1][2]
Media Transparency calls WHWG "an umbrella firm of former ghostwriters for Republican presidents and bureaucrats now at the service of anyone willing to pay." [3]
As for the study itself
You've got to give style points, but no credibility points, to a study that includes a foreword from Haley Barbour. For those of you who've forgotten the pre-Katrina past of Mississippi's current GOP Governor, he's grateful. You see, Haley Barbour isn't just the former chair of the RNC and a defender of the old ways of the South, he also posed for a widely disseminated photo with modern era segregationists. That lapse in political judgment (and Barbour's subsequent defense of it) left such a stain on Barbour's political career, most folks plum forgot that before he became RNC chair, Barbour was a DC lobbyist who's firm made millions lobbying for big tobacco.
Barbour is so deep in the pocket of the tobacco industry that he vetoed a bill as governor that would have lowered grocery taxes by raising the tax on cigarettes (Mississippi has one of the highest grocery sales tax rates in the country).
To paraphrase the Chicago Tribune, Barbour is so deep in the pockets of the Tobacco Industry, he's lint.
But, God Bless Katrina, Barbour is now quietly campaigning for the VP slot on the Republican ticket in '08.
The moral of the story is this: If you want to pass off your tobacco industry propaganda as "a thorough and comprehensive study by economists," don't include a foreword by the segregation-loving, tobacco lobbying, ultra-conservative governor of Mississippi.
12 comments:
Hey, what's that sound?
Oh, it's the ICJL saying 'damn, we just got caught with our pants down'.
YDD,
As some one who has read many "studies" out of Ed. schools and "Education Research Institutions," I feel your pain re: PRI studies.
The fact is that with a media that refuses to report and analyze any comparative data on important issues (Social Security, Health Care, etc etc etc) the Institutes like PRI are one of the few outlets that get some of the data out there.
A study paid for may be biased, but probably no more biased than your average news report or study by a "Progressive Policy Institute."
How about we vet the studies. Let's debate the data, while keeping in mind the sources of funding.
Spare me the nonsense that other studies aren't biased. Everything is biased, and we should all just know that up front.
YDD,
Pulling a quote here from Pius XII
"The indignation of the Left is as reasonable as that of the famous sword-dueller, proverbial in Italy, who shouted at his opponent, 'But if you don't stand still, how can I run you through'"
When you have harmful policies, you should probably expect opposition from those effected by the effects of the policy, regardless of you demand that your opponent let you skewer him.
JBP
jb powers -- I'm not indignant, I'm laughing.
The Tobacco Industry is so desperate for attention and p.r., they've taken an old study that was debunked along time ago, dressed it up in a fresh costume, and slapped Haley Barbour's clown-like face on it.
I don't blame the Tobacco Lobby for fighting for their cause, however the courageous thing to do would be to issue their study from Philip Morris's corporate offices, instead of hiding behind a front group posing as a think tank.
But if you're going to hide behind a front group posing as a think tank, do a better job, and start by firing the morons who came up with this plan.
I have no problem if Big Tobacco or Big Oil want to issue a study. But hiding behind front groups like the so-called Pacific Research Institute is just plain dishonest.
Once again Yellow Dog slashes and burns reputations, but doesn't even address the merits of the study.
It's no wonder he lacks any credibility. Did he/she (remember, YDD is just some anonymous name) actually read the study before going on the attack? Yellow Dog could be Judy Cates for all we know. Yellow Dog could be an ITLA staffer for all we know.
I'll continue to laugh at YDD's antics until he/she takes the time to read and offer real input on what he/she criticizes.
"Attack the messenger" politics would seem to have no place at Illinoize, but it seems YDD's style.
Anon 8:18:
Good points! I wonder if "the yellow dog" rides his bike to work everyday or ever takes any aspirin or cold medicine. With such an aversion to "big oil" and "big drug" companies, I'm sure he boycotts buying gas or medicine.
Otherwise he's a yellow dog hypocrite!
Haley Barbour = Governor of a state
Yellow Dog Democrat = Insignificant blogger
Yellow Dog, once again I'll remind you that I don't post anonymously. Frankly, if I'm going to say something or write something, I'm willing to stand behind it -- and admit it if I'm wrong.
I would like to challenge you, however. In the first paragraph of your comment in this thread, you said this referring to me:
"which he says backs up his claim that we need to restrict citizen access to the courts."
Show me -- and your readers -- that claim. Show me when and where I said "we need to restrict access to the courts."
-- Ed Murnane
Yellow Dog Democrat,
And Everyone Else,
Richard Posner and Gary Becker - Illinoisans both - have an excellent discussion of the PRI study on their blog.
Posner:
"the authors' estimate of the net social loss created by our tort system--is, as I have tried to show, fictitious."
Becker:
"Posner 's criticisms of Jackpot Justice are right on the mark, as the authors of the study considerably exaggerate the cost of the tort system. Still, I agree with them that the tort system is not efficient and can be improved."
--Collin Hitt
Anonymous 8:18 -- Yes, I did read the PRI "study". I'm surprised that Tillinghast hasn't sued them for copyright infringement. It has a remarkable resemblance to their study, which was debunked long ago, except that the date on the report has been changed and the numbers inflated to coincide with the Consumer Pricing Index. Not very original.
I take that back...Tillinghast is actually cited as a source for the PRI study in their EndNotes, so I guess there is no copyright infringement. My apologies.
Here's a link to one of the many independent reports debunking Tillinghast.
Cornell Study Debunks Corporate Myth of Lawsuit Explosion
A new study has concluded that both the average price of settling class-action lawsuits and the average fee paid to lawyers who bring them have held steady for a decade, even though companies have said the suits are driving up the cost of doing business, hurting the economy and lining lawyers' pockets.
The issue is a fiercely divisive one that has fueled a heated debate over whether to place limits on class-action lawsuits. Legislation to curb class actions is a priority of President Bush and many Republicans in Congress.
The two law school professors who conducted the study, which was not financed by corporations or by trial lawyers, expressed surprise themselves over the results. "We started out writing an article about fees," said Theodore Eisenberg, a law professor at Cornell and one author of the study, "but the shocking thing was that recoveries weren't up."
Post a Comment