GOP eases lead paint laws after $750,000 in donations

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Still believe the GOP SCOTUS Citizens United ruling saying unlimited corporate contributions do not give rise to corruption or appearance of corruption?
http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...lead-paint-makers-helped-gov-walker/90349256/
Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature approved a measure aimed at retroactively shielding paint makers from liability after a billionaire owner of a lead producer contributed $750,000 to a political group that provided crucial support to Walker and Republicans in recall elections, according to a report released Wednesday.

Citing leaked documents gathered during a now-shuttered investigation into the governor's campaign, the Guardian U.S., an arm of the British newspaper, reported that Harold Simmons, owner of NL Industries, a producer of the lead formerly used in paint, made three donations totaling $750,000 to the Wisconsin Club for Growth between April 2011 and January 2012.

Simmons' donations were made before and after Republicans approved two laws helpful to the industry — one in January 2011 and the other in June 2013. The 2013 measure was inserted in a budget bill in the middle of the night despite warnings about its constitutionality.

...
Simmons' contributions mirror a $700,000 donation from mining firm Gogebic Taconite to Wisconsin Club for Growth around the same time, a donation that was earlier disclosed in court records. After that contribution, the GOP-controlled Legislature and Walker approved legislation aimed at streamlining regulations for an iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin.

Looking out for the little guys:
For instance, in an overnight meeting in June 2013, Republicans on the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee inserted a provision into the budget long sought by the paint industry that was meant to block lawsuits pending against them by 171 children sickened by lead paint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thebobo

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Of course, $750K was just free speech, no quid pro quo. Weakening lead laws was a complete coincidence. You go on believing that.

How about just admitting that's what the politician in question likely would have done anyway? When the Sierra Club gives a bundle of cash to a Democrat, I don't immediately turn around and say "aha, that's the only reason why you're supporting global warming legislation!"
 

Roflmouth

Golden Member
Oct 5, 2015
1,059
61
46
LOL, it's always hilarious watching the crybabies insisting we need more government bureaucracy.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
How about just admitting that's what the politician in question likely would have done anyway? When the Sierra Club gives a bundle of cash to a Democrat, I don't immediately turn around and say "aha, that's the only reason why you're supporting global warming legislation!"
You are comparing an advocacy group for benefit of environment to a business group that is buying specific favors for specific companies?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
LOL, it's always hilarious watching the crybabies insisting we need more government bureaucracy.
You mean the 170 lead poisoned children whose lawsuits GOP tried to block for the benefit of a wealthy donor? Those crybabies? They weren't asking for a bureaucracy, but for private business to pay for the damage it caused to consumers it poisoned.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You are comparing an advocacy group for benefit of environment to a business group that is buying specific favors for specific companies?

Yeah. Campaign contributions are campaign contributions and your "benefit of the environment" is a special interest "specific favor" to me as much as this company's special interests are a "specific favor" to you.
 

Cozarkian

Golden Member
Feb 2, 2012
1,352
95
91
How about just admitting that's what the politician in question likely would have done anyway? When the Sierra Club gives a bundle of cash to a Democrat, I don't immediately turn around and say "aha, that's the only reason why you're supporting global warming legislation!"

They might not have to pay for the vote, but they pay for the initiative. Politicians have lots of goals and only limited time to pursue them. The goals that are desired by top funders get pushed to the top of the priority list. So yes, a politician might have supported a bill anyway, but would that politician, without a donation, spent the time conversing and negotiating with other politicians to make sure he/she could garner the support necessary to pass the bill?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You mean the 170 lead poisoned children whose lawsuits GOP tried to block for the benefit of a wealthy donor? Those crybabies? They weren't asking for a bureaucracy, but for private business to pay for the damage it caused to consumers it poisoned.

Here's what you're arguing for: http://archive.jsonline.com/news/st...tems-in-budget-plan-b9927006z1-210231371.html

■ Limit the scope of a 2005 state Supreme Court decision that found lead paint manufacturers could be held liable even if victims of lead poisoning could not prove their specific product sickened them.

Basically you don't even care about proving a company has any direct liability, you just want "big business" to be shaken down. This is a good law.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Does this sound like a sound legal basis given the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"?

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/st...in-lead-paint-suit-b99317605z1-268494482.html

Under the Thomas case, a lead poisoning plaintiff doesn't have to prove a particular manufacturer caused the injury, only that a manufacturer made or marketed white lead carbonate pigment at the time a house where the plaintiff lived existed. Then it becomes the manufacturer's burden to prove it either didn't, or that its products were not used in the region where the house was located.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Yeah. Campaign contributions are campaign contributions and your "benefit of the environment" is a special interest "specific favor" to me as much as this company's special interests are a "specific favor" to you.
Environment is a specific favor? You don't live in it?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Here's what you're arguing for: http://archive.jsonline.com/news/st...tems-in-budget-plan-b9927006z1-210231371.html
Basically you don't even care about proving a company has any direct liability, you just want "big business" to be shaken down. This is a good law.
Which basically means companies that poisoned kids for profit will pay nothing because the kid doesn't know which specific company's paint was used. If you sold paint with lead, you are culpable.
But also, if it's a "good law" why was this "free speech" in support of it done in secret and it took us a leak to find out about it?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Environment is a specific favor? You don't live in it?

Sure and that means I must by extension support any/all laws the fringe green wants.

How about this one? Do you work for a company or are self-employed and have customers? How do you feel about having the burden of proof as the defendant in a lawsuit like you seem to want for paint manufacturers? Please let me know which company you work for so I can commence my lawsuit against you promptly. I'll settle for a low 7 figure amount if you don't force a trial.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Do you think your business has a right to put poison in paint and not be liable for it because a kid 20 years later can't prove it was your specific paint?
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Which basically means companies that poisoned kids for profit will pay nothing because the kid doesn't know which specific company's paint was used. If you sold paint with lead, you are culpable.
But also, if it's a "good law" why was this "free speech" in support of it done in secret and it took us a leak to find out about it?

Then the state can use its regulatory authority to investigate the matter and use the very different standards for burden of proof and specific responsibility to assign appropriate liability via fines or other means, and then distribute that to the injured parties. Sorta like what we did for the banks involved in mortgage backed securities crash. A private lawsuit isn't the proper place to say "screw it" with presumption of innocence so you can achieve some preferred outcome for the little guy. Sometimes I wonder if folks like you can think ahead to the repercussions of your stupid ideas to see what the predictable downstream impacts will be. What next, the state doesn't need to prove your guilt for a specific charge because due to your class you're presumed guilty and need to show evidence of your innocence? Substitute "lead paint manufacturer" for "black person" and see how that theory plays out. "Well, we know some black kid shot him so although we can't prove you're the specific black person that doesn't matter."
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Then the state can use its regulatory authority to investigate the matter and use the very different standards for burden of proof and specific responsibility to assign appropriate liability via fines or other means, and then distribute that to the injured parties. Sorta like what we did for the banks involved in mortgage backed securities crash. A private lawsuit isn't the proper place to say "screw it" with presumption of innocence so you can achieve some preferred outcome for the little guy. Sometimes I wonder if folks like you can think ahead to the repercussions of your stupid ideas to see what the predictable downstream impacts will be. What next, the state doesn't need to prove your guilt for a specific charge because due to your class you're presumed guilty and need to show evidence of your innocence? Substitute "lead paint manufacturer" for "black person" and see how that theory plays out. "Well, we know some black kid shot him so although we can't prove you're the specific black person that doesn't matter."
So you think state that goes out to stop sickened kids from having a day in court after $750000 "free speech" is going to "use its regulatory authority to investigate the matter?" You must be a Trump supporter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Azuma Hazuki

Azuma Hazuki

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2012
1,532
866
131
I have an idea: all the "hurr hurr environmentalism is a special interest group durrrrph-a-dee" idiots can go live in Flint and drink nothing but the water there. It won't give them brain cancer, because for that you need a brain, but maybe it'll kill them faster.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So you think state that goes out to stop sickened kids from having a day in court after $750000 "free speech" is going to "use its regulatory authority to investigate the matter?" You must be a Trump supporter.

No, just someone who unlike you understands and supports the constitution and centuries of law tradition. If you'd throw away the presumption of innocence to achieve some temporary advantage against big business then you should really ponder what you value about being an American.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Ability to poison people for profit and avoid liability, obviously. As American as apple pie.
 

Roflmouth

Golden Member
Oct 5, 2015
1,059
61
46
I have an idea: all the "hurr hurr environmentalism is a special interest group durrrrph-a-dee" idiots can go live in Flint and drink nothing but the water there. It won't give them brain cancer, because for that you need a brain, but maybe it'll kill them faster.

Yes, if only all those genius government workers had been in Flint, that water would be completely fine to drink.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Ability to poison people for profit and avoid liability, obviously. As American as apple pie.

I know, the rule of law and fact that even big corporations have the same constitutional rights as the "little guy" really bothers you. It would be such a better world if we got rid of all those pesky things standing in the way of you achieving "justice" as you see it. Heck, if we allow this travesty then who knows what will happen next, maybe a billionaire will even be able to assert they shouldn't be forced to testify against themselves or we won't be able to retry some international conglomerate a second time after a jury incorrectly finds them not guilty.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
I know, the rule of law and fact that even big corporations have the same constitutional rights as the "little guy" really bothers you. It would be such a better world if we got rid of all those pesky things standing in the way of you achieving "justice" as you see it. Heck, if we allow this travesty then who knows what will happen next, maybe a billionaire will even be able to assert they shouldn't be forced to testify against themselves or we won't be able to retry some international conglomerate a second time after a jury incorrectly finds them not guilty.
Rule of law that was bought by secret corporate donations (which GOP SCOTUS calls "free speech") for the benefit of the donor. I know you think that's what's great about America. It's a difference of views, I guess.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
35,903
27,559
136
LOL, it's always hilarious watching the crybabies insisting we need more government bureaucracy.
That's what we need less government and more lead in paint. How dare the feds tell businesses what they can put in their paint.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
How about just admitting that's what the politician in question likely would have done anyway? When the Sierra Club gives a bundle of cash to a Democrat, I don't immediately turn around and say "aha, that's the only reason why you're supporting global warming legislation!"

NO, this is what happens after politicians solicit donations to be paid to a third party organization that supports them. Not organizations that fund politicians that support their side of the equation. Can you see any difference?