As we head into the final weeks before Election Day, let us spend a moment surveying the landscape.

We are coming off a tough legislative year for just about everyone who tried to do anything in the statehouse. We scored a good victory in getting our measure limiting deposition [...]]]> Carrots, sticks and the big ape

As we head into the final weeks before Election Day, let us spend a moment surveying the landscape.

We are coming off a tough legislative year for just about everyone who tried to do anything in the statehouse. We scored a good victory in getting our measure limiting deposition in most cases to seven hours, but we also suffered a tough setback on our bill to begin fixing Howell. As the dust settles, there are pro-justice candidates to be backed on Election Day. There are a few scores to be settled with those who don’t support the rights of consumers. And there is a big ape to grapple with.

Election 2012 is turning into “the year of the gorilla,” as one political columnist dubbed it. In this vernacular, the big apes are Super PACs. While these massive independent expenditure committees have been around in California for quite a while, they’re gaining momentum this election year like never before.

Equally disturbing is the level of deception they’re utilizing to hide where they get the money. Consider the serenely named California Senior Advocacy League. For starters, it has nothing to do with senior citizens or their issues. It is nothing more than a landing spot for a campaign money laundering scheme that is so byzantine it makes the eyes roll. Much of their money comes from JobsPAC, which in turn is a funnel for corporate giving from other benignly named PACs. Where does it all lead? To the usual corporate interests you often oppose in court and CAOC endlessly opposes in the Capitol. The top contributors this year include big oil ($685,000), big tobacco ($410,000) and big real estate ($525,000). Other anti-regulatory interests have contributed many hundreds of thousands of dollars more. By funneling their money into these different PACs, our foes have been able to support candidates we oppose, oppose candidates we support and do so in a clandestine way that requires individual voters to spend an extraordinary amount of time to unravel.

They are targeting lawmakers who understand the need to protect consumer rights – Senator Fran Pavley and Assembly Member Betsy Butler in Southern California, Assembly Member Michael Allen in the north. Their intent is anti-environment, anti-consumer and anti-worker. There is a reason why Chevron wants to defeat Betsy Butler, who carried legislation to call a halt to oil-industry fracking, and Pavley, who created national news with her greenhouse gas legislation.

They’re also spending big in support of candidates like Raul Bocanegra. A bit of background: Bocanegra is running for a Los Angeles seat in the Assembly. He is currently chief of staff to Assemblyman Felipe Fuentes, a lawmaker who is no friend of consumers or their legal counsel. Last year, Fuentes used his powers as chairman of the Assembly Appropriations Committee to bury a CAOC-sponsored bill that would have helped curb elder abuse. This year, Fuentes lobbied to again keep it in a committee straightjacket. He then led the effort to defeat our Howell bill on the floor. The corporate interests that back Fuentes have already invested more than $300,000 in the primary election to support Bocanegra for Assembly. We will not allow that to happen without a fight.

Another big ape in this year’s election fight is the coalition of physicians, medical malpractice insurance firms and others eager to protect California’s $250,000 MICRA cap on human suffering in medical malpractice cases. Led by the California Medical Assn., they are playing hard in a bid to defeat Montebello school board member Ed Chau. The MICRA coalition is backing a Republican physician, while CAOC and our allies are aggressively supporting Chau. This fight is a vintage example of how a race in a corner of Los Angeles County can have implications in the statehouse on issues like MICRA, consumer rights and court funding.

If we do not stand up to fight for the legislators and candidates who are not afraid to cross the corporate kingpins, who will? If we don’t battle those who are foes of consumers, who will? People complain about Sacramento and Washington as dysfunctional and inept. Yet they don’t want to get involved in politics because “it’s dirty.” Or someone else will do it. You name the rationale. But make no mistake, we are losing our democracy to moneyed interests that will stop at nothing to threaten and intimidate elected officials who cross them. When we get involved in politics, we are doing part to protect the very foundation of our government. It is a noble cause. 

Consumer Attorneys of California as an organization has been the predominant force in breaking the self identified “mod” caucus, the stray moderate “business Democrats” who routinely support corporate interests over the rights of consumers. We no longer see blocks of Democrats who vote with corporate interests to block all consumer, worker and environmental legislation. The block has now diffused. But in greater numbers, their doors are open to the interests that back the big ape, all of those corporate Super PACs. The wobbly economy and the “job killer” message have combined to cause even some progressive members to oppose good  legislation, and the lure of creating new jobs through a weaker regulatory environment causes them to support bad legislation. The Golden State’s reputation as a trend setter on environmental protection, worker safety and consumer protection is in some quarters making way to fear about jobs. 

We need to continue our David versus Goliath struggle at the ballot box to hold off the deep pockets of Wall Street, big oil, big tobacco and big insurance. We need to double down on our efforts to educate legislators about access to justice. With the state’s newly modified term limits law, freshmen lawmakers elected this November will be able to serve a solid 12 years in one house. Unlike their predecessors, they will serve largely untethered from the need to constantly jockey for the next elected job. We have an opportunity to create a cadre of lawmakers dedicated to the justice system, who will speak out and lead. Our message is non-partisan. Our courts are the last hope for equal justice.

Lately, the SMART Act has been receiving a lot of attention. In the past couple of weeks alone, it has seen more action than it has in nearly a year with the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health marking-up the bill and the full House Energy and Commerce Committee [...]]]> MSP and the SMART Act

Lately, the SMART Act has been receiving a lot of attention. In the past couple of weeks alone, it has seen more action than it has in nearly a year with the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health marking-up the bill and the full House Energy and Commerce Committee voting the bill out of committee.

The SMART Act [H.R. 1063] proposes a three-year statute of limitations on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services so that the agency cannot ask for additional money from clients or their attorneys after the statute expires.

When the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted on the SMART Act, it amended the language of the original bill—improving it over the version that was voted on in the subcommittee. The Congressional Budget Office anticipates the bill as drafted will either be cost neutral or a slight revenue raiser. As you know, the current political climate in Congress makes it nearly impossible to move bills that are not cost neutral.

In particular, AAJ Public Affairs has fought hard to prevent lawyers and clients from being harassed by CMS. We know that CMS has come back to many of you and your clients—in some cases after 10 years or more—to ask for additional money. The SMART Act is designed to bring finality and certainty to your clients.

In addition, the SMART Act will simplify the current online portal process for calculating MSP reimbursement. An improved online portal will help you receive a reliable final reimbursement number that you can take to settlement.

Voting on this bill in committee was one of the last pieces of business House members attended to before adjourning until after Election Day, and it could very well be among the first pieces of legislation to move after they return. We will continue to keep you updated.

Ed Chau is the CAOC endorsed candidate in the new Assembly district 49 in central San Gabriel Valley.  As an attorney with his own firm, Ed has a strong understanding of our concerns and is a great supporter of the civil justice system.

Ed has a diverse background of experience. Ed [...]]]> Candidate Spotlight: Ed Chau

Ed Chau is the CAOC endorsed candidate in the new Assembly district 49 in central San Gabriel Valley.  As an attorney with his own firm, Ed has a strong understanding of our concerns and is a great supporter of the civil justice system.

Ed has a diverse background of experience. Ed has served as a Judge Pro Tem for the Los Angeles Superior Court for the past 10 years. He is currently a member of the Montebello School Board. Prior to owning his own business, Ed was an engineer for IBM and a programmer for Unisys Corporation in the 1980′s, where he helped create cutting-edge technology.

Although Ed is a Democrat running in a Democratic leaning district, he faces a well self-financed Republican candidate who is a wealthy doctor and owner of several medical clinics. Although the race is challenging, Ed has the strong support of Congresswoman Judy Chu and outgoing Assemblyman Mike Eng in this district with a large Asian population. 

Contacting voters for our candidates

 All over Los Angeles County, CAALA members are volunteering for campaign work for our CAOC priority candidates.  Our members are working on the voter contact phone banks for a number of candidates.  The candidates and locations include Assembly candidate Al Muratsuchi in Torrance, Assembly candidate Ed Chau in Alhambra, Assembly candidate Jimmy Gomez in Highland Park, Assembly re-election candidate Betsy Butler and Senate re-election candidate Fran Pavley.

 All CAALA members are invited to join us for the voter contact phone banks. It’s a great way to support our candidates at no cost.  To volunteer for a phone bank, please contact Mark Wirth.

 District visits to legislators

 CAALA members are continuing to make district visits to legislators to discuss important CAOC issues.  On October 1^st, Mike Arias lead a delegation in a meeting with Senator Curren Price.

 If you would like to join in visits to legislators or want information on our political action, please contact Consumer Attorneys Governmental Relations consultant Mark Wirth at markwirth1@aol.com or 909-794-7091.

Good news from Sacramento: Gov. Jerry Brown has signed AB 1875, the CAOC-backed measure to curb marathon depositions, and AB 1481 to fix the recent problems with jury fees. These are both outstanding developments that will help improve the rights of your clients as well as the health [...]]]> Governor Signs Deposition Bill, Jury Fee Fix

Good news from Sacramento: Gov. Jerry Brown has signed AB 1875, the CAOC-backed measure to curb marathon depositions, and AB 1481 to fix the recent problems with jury fees. These are both outstanding developments that will help improve the rights of your clients as well as the health and quality of your practice.

As described in more detail in this press release, AB 1875 limits depositions in most cases to seven hours, bringing much needed protection in particular to our most gravely ill clients whose health can be put to risk by needless grilling. We owe a debt of gratitude to the bill’s author, Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Burbank), as well as our lobbying team, in particular Legislative Director Nancy Peverini, who was the primary advocate for the measure.

AB 1481 addresses recent problems with proliferating jury fees, an issue that sprang out of the budget approved in late June by the Legislature. You can see a press release that goes into some detail about the issue, but suffice to say we fixed the problem of plaintiffs being charged multiple jury fees. Under this bill, the jury fees will be limited to a single $150 assessment per side in a case. Thanks to Nancy Drabble, our CEO and Chief Lobbyists, for quickly shepherding this important fix through the legislative process.

While our legislative year did not see as many gains as hoped, these two efforts – along with our successful push to defeat numerous tort reform bills during the year – serves as an outstanding example of how CAOC helps preserve and protect your practice and the rights of your clients to seek justice.

CAOC once again successfully fought off efforts by the California Chamber of Commerce, the Civil Justice Assn. of California and the rest of the tort deform crowd to push through legislation that would put further limits on class action litigation, wipe out Business and Professions Code 17200 cases and allow defendants not to post bonds on appeal.

During the budget battles, we fought hard to ensure that funding to our courts wasn’t going to turn out worse than it might have been – and it truly might have been if not for the efforts of our team. An example: We helped successfully convince court leaders and the Legislature to use diverted court construction money to funding court operations instead of being siphoned off for other state programs.

But on another of our top bills, SB 1528 dealing with the erroneous Howell v. Hamilton Meats and Provisions decision by the state Supreme Court in 2011, we fought long and hard all year, we pulled out all the stops, we devoted countless hours in negotiations with stakeholders and pushed hard on all the power centers of the statehouse, but came up short during the final hours of the legislative session.

In the best of times, fixing Howell would have been a tough task, but 2012 was a tougher year than most in Sacramento. Proposition 30, pension reform, CEQA and other gargantuan battles took legislative priorities. Even as powerful a leader as Assembly Speaker John Perez couldn’t win approval for the top priority bill he authored on college tuitions.

Add to the mix the reality of our adversaries on Howell. The insurance industry has the deepest of pockets and an army of lobbyists. The makeup of the Legislature remains one in which moderate Democrats can side with Republicans to defeat even the best consumer rights legislation. Undaunted, we started early to meet with the governor, key legislative leaders and stakeholders. By the very last week of the session it looked like we might be able to strike an agreement that would address a huge hole in Howell – making changes to achieve fair assessment of medical care for patients in HMOs and other capitative health care plans. That change alone would have been tremendous. Ultimately, the demands of our adversaries proved too great to accept. By the final vote in the Assembly, the debate turned from substantive to nonsensical, as the health care lobby’s legislative puppets spouted ludicrous suggestions that our bill somehow upended MICRA.

Now we move onward to the November elections and what could prove to be a politically different state Legislature for the 2013-14 session. This year’s elections are the first for the new districts drawn by a citizen commission and the first test of the top-two finisher primary system. It remains unclear both to the pundits and regular people whether it will yield a Legislature that is dominated by lawmakers afraid to make tough decisions or one that will prove willing to take on our top priorities of protecting justice, promoting consumer rights and ensuring corporate accountability.

All of us in the trial bar can play a part in shaping that outcome. All of us care about the future of our law practices practice and the sanctity of the civil justice system. So we need to put our time and treasure on the line for it. Look to CAOC for where you can help with the upcoming elections to support candidates who will truly make a difference. Remember: We don’t fail unless we stop fighting.