For Us or Against Us? Lobbyitis

Share

Wisconsin, the People’s community

Re: lobbyist’s and special interest’s contrary to Wisconsin Interests

We people of Wisconsin have the responsibility and the authority to make the rules and decisions of our Wisconsin Community. Our Government is the infrastructure which is to carry out our demands. The Wisconsin Manufactures and Commerce represent only business and business interests. The only interest they have is to make money, which is a valid interest but must be combined with the society, environment, welfare, and needs of the people of Wisconsin.

To often the WMC and other lobbyist’s looks only at immediate gain. To sustain a healthy climate for commerce, the people must prosper and experience quality lives.

The present economic crisis came as a result of ignoring the people. Laws restricting commerce from monopolizing their interests, laws requiring lending institutions to be honest and transparent in their dealings with the people were rescinded. If you look at the WMC agenda below (I comment on them) you will see they are not in the interest of Wisconsin.

WMC AGENDA                                                                                        Limit Frivolous Lawsuits                                                                     Protect product manufacturers from lawsuits where damages arise from an open and obvious characteristic of a product, or result from product misuse, alteration, or modification. B- Obvious to who? We are not scientists, nor have we had opportunity to test these products. Manufacturers must be held accountable for products they produce, just as I am accountable for the work I do.

Limit Joint and Several Liability                                                            Limit the application of joint and several liability in product liability cases, so that a manufacturer is only responsible for their proportionate share of any damage award. B- But they must be held liable for their error’s.

Establish Liability Time Limits                                                                Limit a manufacturer’s liability for manufactured products that are at least 15 years old. B- This must be determined on the item, not a general rule. If a “pace maker” is installed in a person and fails after 16 years when it was purported to last twenty years the manufacture’s must be held liable.

Limit Expert Testimony                                                                        Allow expert testimony only if it is based on sufficient facts or data, and is the product of reliable principles and methods which can be properly applied to the facts of the case. B- “Sufficient facts and data” is determined by the jury. Withholding testimony limits the jury in making its determination.

Protect Product Sellers                                                                         Limit the liability of product sellers where they play no role in the manufacture, assembly or packaging of a product. B- Any product seller must be held responsible for the products they choose to sell. This is a major factor which is now costing us many dollars by inventing agency’s to “oversee” products. If a seller imports toys from China which are painted with lead paint and poison our children, that seller made the decision to sell harmful, inferior products. The seller is responsible for that item.

Limit the Risk Contribution Theory                                                             Limit the application of the ‘risk contribution theory” to re-establish the principle that only the company that actually manufactured the product that caused the injury can be held to pay damages. B- Certainly the manufacture has responsibility, but if the product were not sold it would cease to exist. It is the seller who brings the product to the people and it is the seller who must determine that the products they sell are not a hazard to the people.

Limit Punitive Damages                                                                       Limit the circumstances in which punitive damages can be imposed to situations in which a defendant intentionally caused an injury to a plaintiff. B- This statement does not make good sense. Any entity who intentionally cause injury must be held responsible, period. Intentional means the entity had knowledge and forethought. They certainly must be held responsible for all damages which resulted from their “intentional” decision.

Posted: March 27, 2007 http://www.wmc.org/AboutWMC/display.cfm?ID=902

# # #