Walker can't defend or explain Lawsuit Reform!!! Hey, it's something the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants, okay.

A big thumbs up to the Wisconsin Radio Network reporters, who continued to ask Gov. Walker to explain how tort reform would create jobs. At one point, a reporter asked if he could try to connect the job creation dots, so we could all understand. Walker couldn't.

This all happened after Walker proudly accepted an award for his anti-consumerism;

At Madison’s Monona Terrace Tuesday, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce presented Walker with an award for the tort reforms he signed into law earlier this year.

Tort reform is just a part of the bigger plan, says Walker, whether it makes sense or not. And it doesn't.

WRN: Governor Scott Walker says changes to Wisconsin’s tort laws will be good for business. With tort reforms relating to prescription drugs, attorney fees and interest rates on damage awards all included in the latest special session on jobs creation, Walker is countering arguments those changes will make it more difficult for people to seek remedy through the courts. “Wisconsin still has very strong protections for consumer protection, particularly protecting older adults and seniors in our communities,” Walker said. “None of that’s affected one way or the other.”

What Walker intentionally leaves out is how the reform laws discourage lawyers from helping consumers, by reducing their commission rates so dramatically, lawyers would go broke pursuing a lawsuit. Lawyers fees are paid by the company being sued, which at times, could be huge. Walker argues that the elimination of, or capping those fees, would bring "certainty" into the free market. But a free market would never have caps or a free pass from liability, because those are the very checks and balances that make the markets work.

Who Caused the Financial Crisis? How about the biggest complainer of the FCIC Report, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Bankster had the following comments on the just released Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report that pretty much tells you what you needed to know about our corporate "job creating" masters:

In a response to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission releasing its final report on the financial crisis today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pitched a classic hissy fit calling the report an “abuse of the process” that would create “more job-killing lawsuits.” (So much for the new tone in Washington.)

FCIC the New Wikileaks?

The Chamber quickly goes to the heart of the matter:


“The commission’s final report and its pledge to post raw materials – apparently including information obtained from companies as well as other government agencies – is an astounding abuse of process that would effectively create a government-sanctioned Wikileaks,” said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform.

This is what the Chamber fears most of all, the FCIC's planned release of those reckless, imprudent and downright ugly emails from the masters of the universe crowing about how well they do their jobs -- fleecing America.

Conservatives don't get it; Demand dies if there was no minimum wage? Imagine the power business would have over people.

The idea that the economy would be just fine if there was no minimum wage, no wage to low, is mind boggling to me. Yet this is what we keeping hearing from corporate America, who continues to lament the federal wage law, oblivious to the idea of "discretionary money." In the olden days, they called it "blue money."

Knowing that our utility bills, insurance costs, cable bills, cell services and internet will continue to go through the roof, is it just short sightedness or just plain ideological blindness that keeps these business geniuses from not getting the big picture. People need money to be consumers, which in turn, creates demand. I know, if Americans can't buy whatever it is corporate America is selling, business can always set up shop in a developing country. But do we really have to let it get that far?

Here's just another "vilification" of big businesses best friend, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

We Don't Deserve our Entitlements, but Corporate America Does. The Odd Argument from the Right.

Corporate tax horrors have gotten a lot of traction by Republican candidates this year, again. Is zero too much? ZERO!

While we're being asked to "man up" and sacrifice entitlements that have been too generous, we're all supposed to believe that corporations should have their entitlements increased. Think about it. Rachel Maddow offers proof:

Related articles

• Joe Miller's Extreme Views On Gay Rights (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Mystery Of Entitlement (dragonintuitive.com)

Allegations of Foreign Money Influencing Voters Judged Bad Politics by Media

So far, the news media isn't coming close to taking this seriously, even though they found the subject of death panels riveting journalism. For Democrats, the bar is high, and evidence must be presented before the start of any investigation. For Republicans, fantasy and lying are subjects for an "honest" debate, because they whine the loudest.


The case is simple: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not have to disclose anything about the money they're spending or bringing in. Any red flags here? No questions? Why so much spending to defeat Democrats and not Republicans? Anybody there?

Sen. Claire McCaskill is proposing a better idea:

Richard L. Hasen on Slate says the problems lies in vague laws and courts that aren’t ver definitive:

We owe the recurring controversy to the inadequacy of our campaign-finance disclosure laws, which don’t allow for random audits of political committees to make sure the foreign money is kept out or segregated for nonpolitical purposes. And the Supreme Court reignited this issue in its divisive Citizens United opinion last term by specifically leaving open the question whether the ban on foreign spending in U.S. elections violates the First Amendment. As Democrats broadcast their breathless allegations that Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce are taking “secret foreign money to influence” the midterm elections, the real problem is why the logic of Citizens United can’t justify a ban….

The court opened the money spigot with a kind of First Amendment absolutism: The five-justice conservative majority repeatedly stated that when it comes to political speech, the identity of the speaker does not matter, that more speech is always better, that the public cares only about the message, not the messenger, that even millions of dollars in “independent” spending cannot corrupt a candidate, and that the public won’t lose confidence in the electoral process because of these independent gobs of money.

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

Related articles

• Newsy Releases App for BlackBerry Users (prweb.com)
• Chamber lends a hand to corporatist Dems (dailykos.com)
• Political Wisdom: The 'Foreign Campaign Money' Can of Worms (blogs.wsj.com)
• White House's charges are false (cnn.com)

When Democrats Alledge Foreign money in elections, Media Pushes back. Like they did with Health Care Abortions, Death Panels..?

This is serious stuff, yet alleging possible co-mingling of funds from foreign contributors in our electoral process is getting rebuffed by the news media, as if an investigation would be an outrage. Chris Matthews makes the best case here, with Chris Cillizza completely clueless to the possibility. We should take the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's word, right?

The cable news outlets never pushed back on the flimsy evidence of WMD's in Iraq. Lesson learned? Nope. When it comes to the corporate takeover of our elections with foreign money, who cares. Somebody take away their press card please.

My conservative friend has taken the side of the Chamber, demanding proof, the kind of evidence that could only be found AFTER an investigation. He says he just doesn't care or believe it. Check out the linked conservative crazy stories below.

Related articles

• Spineless Anonymous Democrats Carp About White House Attacks on Chamber of Commerce (news.firedoglake.com)
• Newly nativist Democrats and their own foreign funny money (michellemalkin.com)
• Foreign Money Flowing Into Campaign? (abcnews.go.com)
• SPIN METER: Foreign money in politics? Not proven (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Zemanta" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=4c7a5a05-5b6c-4ff9-ba09-55579808c173">