A Stitch in Haste

Good op-ed by the increasingly important Dick Morris on campaign contributions from John Edwards' trial lawyer friends:

During his run for the top job, John Edwards relied heavily on leading trial lawyers. Twenty-two of his top 25 donors were trial attorneys. And those donations likely cloak a multitude of sins and violations of the campaign-finance laws.

Edwards' trial lawyers bundled massive contributions from their assorted law firms and client lists to float his presidential run. Bundling isn't illegal — except when the donors are straw men and women putting up money given to them by a wealthy patron.

For example, $1 million of Edwards' funds came from trial lawyers' wives — identified merely as "homemakers" in the campaign-finance filings. If the money came from their husbands, there could be a violation of law.

I suspect this will have legs.

More on who's bankrolling Edwards' campaign:

...Mr. Edwards raised a bigger proportion of his campaign war chest in $2,000 donations than any of his Democratic rivals.The list of donors who maxed out included not only the expected plaintiff’s attorneys and their spouses, but also a roster of low-paid paralegals, receptionists, and other support staffers of law firms along with their spouses — even though (as an investigation for the Hill revealed) some of the staffers had recently suffered bankruptcies and other personal financial reverses and some were not recorded as having voted in years.

“In many instances, all the checks from a given firm arrived on the same day — from partners, attorneys, and other support staff,” reported The Hill. The law-firm employees duly denied that their employers had signaled any willingness to reimburse the donations — that would constitute a violation of federal law, after all. But pursuing the money trail was not easy, since Mr. Edwards, alone among major candidates, refused to disclose the identities of the big financiers who bundled checks for him...

Hat tip to Overlawyered.com.

An update to my earlier post on John Edwards' backers, courtesy of Walter Olson in the Wall Street Journal (subscription site, sorry, but see here):

What scares the daylights out of his business adversaries isn't just that Mr. Edwards is a seasoned trial lawyer who decided to switch careers, in the manner of Orrin Hatch, Ernest Hollings and others. It's that from day one he's been at pains to construct a tightly organized fund-raising and electoral machine whose dominant figures, with scarcely a known exception, are wealthy plaintiff's lawyers like himself. In fact, most of his key backers are drawn from the tiny handful of tort lawyers even more successful than he, sometimes by orders of magnitude. Mr. Edwards is estimated to have quit with $38 million, but that's pocket change to many veterans of the tobacco and asbestos wars.
...
Famously unapologetic, the Edwards campaign merely shrugged this spring when Sen. Kerry's press secretary assailed the North Carolinian's White House bid as "wholly funded by trial lawyers." More remarkable yet was how Edwards's spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri had earlier responded to similar sniping: "We have no problem if 100% of our money came from trial lawyers." On the relatively few issues on which Mr. Edwards has taken a high profile in the Senate, agenda items for the trial bar (e.g., blocking limits on future post-terrorism lawsuits) have comprised a high share. There's every reason to believe that the men behind Mr. Edwards have a clear expectation of entering Washington next January as victors, and closer to the center of power than they've up to now dared to dream.

I said from the outset that this issue had legs...and now they're being stretched.

A quick John Edwards observation, courtesy of the Washington Times:

During his career of allegedly championing the helpless, he took no pro bono cases.

Here is the ABA Model Rule on pro bono service.

RULE 6.1 VOLUNTARY PRO BONO PUBLICO SERVICE
Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal services per year.

As for North Carolina, it appears that while law school students are required to satisfy a pro bono activity, admitted attorneys are not (there's not even an official suggestion regarding pro bono in the North Carolina ethics code).

Still, it's not like Edwards couldn't afford to take some time off:

In his 20 years as a lawyer, Edwards has a number of trophies he can boast. In at least 63 big cases, he won more than $152 million. His performance earned him an induction into the Inner Circle of Advocates, a society of 100 of the nations best lawyers (all of whom have won at least one case with an award worth $1 million) and a mention as one of Lawyer Weekly USA's "Lawyers of the Year" in 1996. His great fortune, earned from the cases he won, and a cornucopia of professional contacts that he amassed during his career permitted him to make his unexpected jump into the political realm. Source.

Maybe Balko could add this to his list of questions for Edwards.

Meanwhile, here's Halliburton's website regarding community service, corporate giving, etc.

UPDATE #1: The good folks at Overlawyered.com, whom I respect tremendously, point to a New York Times article that suggests that in fact Edwards "handled no notable pro bono cases." On the other hand, we have freerepublic.com pointing to this site which asserts "no pro bono or civil rights litigation."

And of course, searching www.johnkerry.com for "pro bono" returns a bit fat zilch.

I find it hard to believe that, had Edwards had done any pro bono work, he wouldn't have let us know by now. Still, if the Washington Times turns out to be wrong, I will certainly announce it here.

UPDATE #2: Elizabeth Edwards' speech mentioned quite a litany of volunteer activities by her husband as well as his 20-year legal career of "championing" the disadvantaged.

(Sidebar: Can we please dispense with this nonsense that taking cases on contingency is pro bono work? See Page 8 of PDF link.)

Edwards himself talked a lot about Kerry's volunteering for Vietnam and (very) briefly about his own law career.

Since nothing was said by either Elizabeth or John Edwards about any pro bono work, I consider the matter closed.

John Edwards quoted in the New York Times:

"John Kerry and I will keep America safe, and we will not divide the American people to do it," he said.

So does that mean he won't go from Two Americas to Four Americas, or that there really aren't Two Americas after all, or what?

Too bad the batteries in my HP 12c are dead.

Remember John Edwards?

Remember his divisive gobbledygook about "Two Americas"?

Remember how he disingenuously claimed to champion one of those "Two Americas" in his role as one of the most successful personal injury attorneys in the country?

Remember how he was so busy championing -- as an ambulance chaser -- "his half" of America that he never once in his legal career took a pro bono case?

Well now we have even more evidence of which of the "Two Americas" Edwards sides with:

BusinessWeek has learned that Edwards has signed up to work for the New York-based private investment concern Fortress Investment Group as a part-time senior advisor. As such, he will be "providing support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global economic issues," says Edwards spokesperson Kim Rubey. Fortress declined to comment about hiring Edwards, who teamed up with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry in a losing bid against President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney last year.
...
Fortress apparently has had its eye on Democratic politics and Edwards for some time. During the 2004 Presidential campaign cycle, the employees political action committee of the company contributed $143,650 to Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House, including $4,000 to Edwards. They gave just $10,500 to Republicans running for federal office.

There's a word for lawyers like John Edwards:

Shyster.

More thoughts from both Mike and Norm at Crime & Federalism.

So John Edwards is running for president again.

Yawn.

I have little to say about the announcement that I didn't already say in the last presidential campaign.

Except to note:

1. How astonishing — and depressing — it was to see a man intentionally making divisiveness the core theme of his campaign. It is wrong when conservatives do it ("us versus gays," "us versus immigrants," "us versus Muslims"), and it's wrong when liberals do it ("us versus the rich," "us versus Wal-Mart," "us versus Wall Street"). September 11th wasn't so long ago that such categorizations are proper.

2. Becoming a successful multi-millionaire, while hardly a sin, is also not "selfless public service." Such spin was a crock when Bill Frist tried it; it was crock when John Edwards tried it and will still be a crock should he try it again. All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives. Being a rich trial lawyer beforehand is hardly an offset.

3. I sincerely hope that, one way or the other, the Edwards campaign will set the record straight on whether he ever did any pro bono work while he was making his millions "defending the little man." I'm fairly certain that Edwards would have corrected the media reports had they actually been incorrect. But perhaps not. In any event, he has a second chance — and voters should demand a straightforward answer.

More thoughts from PoliBlog.

UPDATE: Edwards' campaign site is now live. The biographical section contains the following --

For the next 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children just like the families he grew up with in Robbins. Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families through the darkest moments of their lives to overcome tremendous challenges. His passionate advocacy for people like the folks who worked in the mill with his father earned him respect and recognition across the country.

It also earned him tens of millions of dollars. Which, again, somehow qualifies him as a "selfless public servant."

Meanwhile, the website's search function yields no results for the term "bono."

John Edwards recently made a very public announcement that no fewer than 25 liberal gay activists have already endorsed his candidacy for president:

"I am honored to have the support of so many well-respected LGBT leaders," said Edwards. "They work hard every day to make our country a better place and I am proud to join with them to fight for equal rights for all Americans."

None of the names means anything to me, but then again I don't move around in gay activist circles, especially liberal gay activist circles. I make my donations, write my blog and play with my dog -- which is much more fun than attending a black-tie fundraiser.

The organizations the supporters reflect, meanwhile, are typical far-left entities: Human Rights Campaign, AFL-CIO, Stonewall Democrats, DNC, etc. Plus several unaffiliated but self-described "LGBT Community Activists." Whatever.

So some Democrats are endorsing a Democrat. Hardly newsworthy at first glance. But consider:

--On the one hand, perhaps it's a good sign that a major candidate feels a need to pander to the radical gay liberal base (i.e., as opposed to simply taking the gay vote for granted as in so many past campaigns).

--On the other hand, is it not a wiser strategy for gay liberals to withhold such premature support for any one Democratic candidate? Shouldn't they be holding every candidate's feet to the fire on every gay issue? These 25 "leaders" are now, as a matter of 2008 presidential politics, non-entities. They have, to put it indelicately, shot their wad.

As for Edwards specifically, let's keep a few data points in mind:

--He, like his 2004 running mate, could not be bothered to show up for the critical Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. And for this gay "leaders" reward him?

--More recently, he declared that he is "just not there yet" on the subject of gay marriage. And for this gay "leaders" reward him?

--Edwards, a multimillionaire trial attorney, one of the most successful ever, still has never addressed the reports that he never, not once, personally took a pro bono case. This is the behavior of a "dedicated public servant"?

--Should gays, the current foot soldiers in the Culture Wars, be so quick to embrace a candidate whose entire 2004 campaign was, and most of his 2008 campaign is, predicated on class warfare and the fiction of "Two Americas"? Is going from culture war to class war really such an improvement? Is that the star to which gays should hitch their wagon?

There is of course no way, no never no how, that Edwards will get my vote. I might be open, however, to arguments that he is the least bad candidate. But not so ridiculously early in the campaign and not from overeager liberal gay show dogs. (Or is it "lap dogs"?)

Other thoughts, some more favorable to Edwards, from InterstateQ, Pam's House Blend, Citizen Crain.

Or, more correctly, his "War on Drug Companies" --

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards wants to reduce the cost of U.S. health care by removing patents for breakthrough drugs and requiring health insurance companies to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care.
...
Edwards' plan would remove long-term patents for companies that develop breakthrough drugs and then reap large profits because of the monopolies those patents provide, according to a statement by Edwards obtained Wednesday evening. Edwards said offering cash incentives instead would allow multiple companies to produce those drugs and drive down prices.

From his socialized medicine manifesto (PDF - 26 pages):

Pursue Prizes as Innovation Incentives: Edwards will convene an expert panel to identify disorders where prizes -- not patent monopolies -- would offer new incentives to researchers, guaranteed gains to companies, and lower costs to patients. Drug companies would know that if they generated a life-saving breakthrough, they would be guaranteed a significant payment in exchange for allowing competition in manufacturing and distribution. With prizes, the government will pay more up front, but it will save taxpayers in the end because companies will generate breakthrough drugs more quickly and at a lower cost. Key questions about the pricing of prizes, the appropriateness of prizes for different diseases, and the relationship to patent protections remain to be resolved, but prizes are a promising innovation that Edwards will pursue.

I've debunked the retarded delusions of the "government prize" crowd previously. In this iteration, one need focus only on the words "an expert panel to identify disorders." Translation: The government -- politicians and bureaucrats -- will decide which diseases are more important than others. If you get sick, you better hope you have the "right" (i.e., the politically favored) disease. If not, then too bad so sad.

Welcome to "universal health care."

Who, after such data points as "Reagan and AIDS" or "Medicare and Viagra," could possibly be naive enough to think that politics would not infect such "expert panels"? Who could possibly be arrogant enough to think that they are better equipped to command and control the pharmaceutical industry (i.e., to determine what consumers actually want and need) than the pharmaceutical industry itself?

The answer to both question is, of course, "John Edwards" (who, last time I checked, was neither a physician nor a pharmacist, and who has also never been an entrepreneur in any field, nor ever worked for a private entrepreneurial firm in any field). This is the man who claims to "just knows best."

Anyone even vaguely familiar with Edwards' 2004 campaign, let alone his current screeches, knows that his "vision" for this country is a mile wide and an inch deep. It's "all class warfare, all the time." Looting (there is no other word for it) the intellectual property of drug companies is just one eddy in his ocean of un-American (un-Two-Americas?) blather.

John Edwards, who recently dismissed the War on Terror as a "bumper sticker," is sealing his political doom by resurrecting the dumbest political bumper sticker in recent memory:

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is bemoaning the growing divide between rich and poor as he returns to the signature theme of "Two Americas" from his unsuccessful 2004 White House bid.
...
"Our tax system has been rewritten by George Bush to favor the wealthy and shift the burden to working families. That is simply wrong," Edwards said, according to text provided by his campaign. "There are still Two Americas."

This is, of course, utter nonsense. It is the worst kind of politician blather.

Some hasty stitches:

--The concept of "Two Americas" is simply absurd as a question of empirical fact. There is no clean and crisp divide between the "rich" and the "poor." There are a small number of Bill Gates, Scottie Pippens and Powerball winners at one end of the income spectrum, a small number of crack whores and trailer trash at the other end, and about 300 million Americans in between. The middle class swamps, by orders of magnitude, the caricatures of Edwards' "Two Americas."

--Our federal income tax system already exempts the lower half of the population by income. They pay nothing. Many actually receive money via the Earned Income Tax Credit. So the question becomes: Just how much more progressive than "the rich pay almost all and the poor pay nothing" would -- or could -- Edwards make the tax code?

--Anyone who claims to champion the working poor must, by definition, advocate Social Security (and Medicare) reform. Not merely tweaking the dials with even more payroll taxes or even more raises in the retirement age -- but real reform that relieves the oppressive 15.3% payroll tax burden on the very people Edwards claims to commiserate with.

--Similarly, the single greatest income equalizer in America (at least across generations) is public education. Or, more correctly, "was" public education. Who for the most part has controlled America's failing inner city public schools for the past few decades -- Democrats or Republicans? Anyone who wants to alleviate income equality should start, not with "the rich," but with the teacher unions and educrats who have strangled public education for over a generation. Think Edwards will pick such a fight with them?

--Finally, it demands repeating: It is still soon enough after 9/11 that the very phrase "Two Americas" is downright despicable.

"Two Americas" is something I expect -- and get ad nauseum -- from radical social conservatives -- in the form of "Homosexual America versus 'Normal' America." We don't need such un-American divisiveness from radical class-warrior liberals too.

A modified version of a comment I left at another blog on the not-news that John Edwards is continuing to make class warfare the centerpiece of his (soon to be failed) presidential campaign — this time in the form of ever higher federal taxes on the people who already pay most of the federal tax bill anyway:

Meanwhile, what two words appear nowhere in the article?

That's right: "deficit reduction."

I could almost not loathe him and his class warfare if he were to say, "Yes, I'll raise taxes, but only to reduce the deficit. Read my lips: No new programs!"

(Without of course, the moral defective inaccuracy of the George H.W. Bush version of those three infamous words.)

---

One quick fisk:

He also would raise the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent — the same rate signed into law by President Reagan. Edwards said the increase would ensure that high-income investors pay taxes on their investment income at a rate similar to what regular families pay on earned income.

Ah yes, the Buffett Lie. Expect to see it more and more as the campaign progresses. In reality, since corporations remit about 35% of their net income in federal taxes on behalf (mostly) of shareholders, the true capital gains tax rate is often as high as 50%, hardly "a rate similar to what regular families pay on earned income."

(Incidentally, what is a "regular family"? Can a "regular family" not have capital gains (e.g., from selling mutual fund shares)? "Traditional marriage should be limited to one paycheck and one bank account..."? Good grief.)