Our View

Our View

Ballot Issue 1 has interest groups in a tizzy

As we inch closer and closer to the November general elections, it is becoming evident that this ballot initiative we’ve been asked to decide upon dealing with setting cap on awards in lawsuits is becoming more than a political battle between lawyers and politicians.

It is now become apparent that the liberal religious leftists are jumping in the fray saying that limiting damages awarded in lawsuits sets arbitrary value on human life.

And, if that weren’t enough, they say limiting damages is contrary to anti-abortion beliefs, and conflicts with biblical principals of justice and helping the poor.

Did you ever notice that the typical and standard argument among liberals focuses sympathy upon the poor and the injustices displayed by the working classes among us and particularly claims of corporate greed.

We’re seeing a political maneuver among the opposition to Issue 1 calling upon Christian groups to convince their flock that putting a cap on awards in lawsuits just simply devalues the lives of those with no incomes, such as the elderly and staying-at-home parents, who would receive little compensation for pain and suffering.

It was interesting to learn that this so-called Family Council’s political involvement in this issue may have been motivated by $150,000 in donations that the group received from a little Rock law firm. As we all know that the trial lawyers in Arkansas are the main opponents to the proposed amendment for the simple fact that their percentage of the take in these type lawsuits will be severely and negatively impacted.

Let’s not kid ourselves into believing this donation wasn’t a factor in getting these religious organizers to use their pulpits to convince their followers that tort reform is a evil and bad thing aimed at hurting the poor people of Arkansas.

And now we have the do-gooder, liberal media columnists expounding on the their belief that it is a “colossal error for the people to help limit the amount anyone can collect based on a figure set by special-interest groups intent upon limiting full accountability for their detrimental actions and inactions.”

This one Little Rock journalist is of the liberal opinion that proponents of Issue 1 “couch their efforts under a proposal for ‘tort reform’, as a pleasant-sounding attempt at changes to a legal industry that too often has its share of justifiable criticisms.”

This liberal columnists says it is beyond a terrible idea for Issue 1 to allow state politicians, AKA the legislative body (of which the corrupt and greedy practices of several now-former members have lately made headlines) to make significant decisions in the legal arena that could likely benefit them.

It can be clearly argued that this liberal journalistic propaganda does not point out these ambulance-chasing trial lawyers pocket a large share of cash awards from these lawsuits and are often the biggest financial benefactors.

The real victims in these lawsuits are the “poor” plaintiffs who are often used as pawns. Issue 1 boils down to lawyer opposing capping their contingency fees at onethird of the net amount recovered, as well as giving lawmakers ultimate overview of the rules of court procedures.