Years ago a student of Saul Alinksy—a real student—not just a book reader—decided to take Sauls’ lessons and harm the economy of California and in the long term raise the cost of business for California. (That student was Tom Hayden)
Recently I was in an office building in Orange, California—14 stories. On the glass door entrance was a little sign, “Prop. 65 notice—there might be carcinogenics in this building harmful to pregnant women, etc” A waste of money and a scare tactic—live in California and you will die.
“Not only are these signs a health warning, they should be an alert to an extensive taxpayer rip-off. Tom Caso, a law professor in Southern California has done the math. In a recent article (posted below) he calculated that between 2000 and 2010, more than $142 million changed hands as a result of settlements in lawsuits from Proposition 65. The lawsuits are mostly driven by “bounty hunter” lawyers who legally divert all but 15 percent of the cash derived from Prop 65 settlements to attorney fees and penalties paid to those who file the lawsuits. (link to Caso case here.)
Why should you care? Because a good portion of those settlements should be directed to the state’s general fund, where they could be used to protect public health. Instead, they are being used to enrich a handful of trial lawyers who have made a cottage industry out of Prop 65 abuse.”
Hayden thought he could use government to kill business, raise the cost of products and service—all in the name of “health”—he was right, we got fooled and are still paying for it.
Millions of Dollars Diverted from California’s General Fund
Editorial by Stephen Frank, 4/16/12
You’ve noticed the ubiquitous signs posted for Proposition 65, which warn you are in the vicinity of cancer-causing substances and reproductive toxins. They are posted everywhere from hotels to convenience stores to office buildings. While most of us don’t give these signs a second thought, as a California taxpayer they should stop you in your tracks.
Not only are these signs a health warning, they should be an alert to an extensive taxpayer rip-off. Tom Caso, a law professor in Southern California has done the math. In a recent article (posted below) he calculated that between 2000 and 2010, more than $142 million changed hands as a result of settlements in lawsuits from Proposition 65. The lawsuits are mostly driven by “bounty hunter” lawyers who legally divert all but 15 percent of the cash derived from Prop 65 settlements to attorney fees and penalties paid to those who file the lawsuits.
Why should you care? Because a good portion of those settlements should be directed to the state’s general fund, where they could be used to protect public health. Instead, they are being used to enrich a handful of trial lawyers who have made a cottage industry out of Prop 65 abuse.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris seems poised to do something about it. In January she wrote a letter to attorneys saying some Prop 65 lawsuits had veered away from the law’s original intent and that some might do so intentionally.
Although Harris’ long term plans remain to be seen, the message could be that the good intentions of Prop 65 – to protect our water and prevent exposure to harmful chemicals – could use some fine-tuning. At a time when California’s budget faces a shortfall of billions of dollars, the money from settlements should go to the state’s general fund so we can be assured the dollars are spent on environmental protection and public health.
Harris’ leadership on this issue makes not only good public policy sense, but also good political sense. Public health advocates would see an influx of badly needed funds brought back to the general fund, and small business proponents would appreciate the fact that years of legal shakedowns are finally coming to an end.
That’s something everyone – regardless of their political stripes – should support. (link to Caso case here.)
