The Painful Joke that Is the US Congress — Going after Litigation Financing — while Accepting the Gargantuan Overflow of Quasi-Bribery that Citizens United Permitted

© 2015 Peter Free

 

28 August 2015

 

 

There is arguably no fool so loathsomely (repulsively) hypocritical as a Congressional one

 

Consider this example:

 

 

The practice of advancing millions of dollars to help people and companies file lawsuits has had critics for years.

 

While proponents of the “litigation finance” industry say it helps level the playing field for those who would otherwise be unable to pursue lawsuits, critics have long complained that such third-party investors give outsiders undue influence over legal decisions and allow frivolous lawsuits to go forward, driving up the overall cost of litigation.

 

In a typical litigation finance arrangement, a funder will give money to a plaintiff to pay for the cost of litigation, and take a chunk of any recovery in the end. If the case is unsuccessful, the funder usually doesn’t get its money back. But the details of such deals are usually undisclosed.

 

The latest pushback against litigation finance comes from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R.,Texas). The pair is calling for more transparency in the litigation finance industry, in part by sending letters to three of the largest litigation funders with a list of demands.

 

The letters, to Burford Capital, Bentham IMF and Juridica Investments Ltd., ask for a slew of information, including a complete list of cases each company has funded from 2009 to 2014, how much money they made, and whether the financing arrangements were disclosed to other parties in the litigation.

 

“It’s vitally important to our civil justice system that litigation decisions aren’t unduly influenced by third parties,” Mr. Grassley said.

 

© 2015 Sara Randazzo, Lawmakers Taking Closer Look at Litigation Funding, Wall Street Journal Law Blog (27 August 2015)

 

 

Distilled and maximally enriched Oil of Hypocrisy

 

“It’s vitally important to our civil justice system that litigation decisions aren’t unduly influenced by third parties.”

 

Thus:

 

(a) while themselves droolingly accepting

 

(i) billions of dollars in third party-donated,

(ii) Citizens United-permitted,

(iii) corporate and plutocrat-sponsored,

(iv) politically intended,

(v) quasi-bribe money  —

 

(b) these affluent,

 

(i) Republican Congressional

(ii) money-idolaters

 

(c) want to clamp down on the few sources of litigation-sponsoring funds —

 

(i)  that our rich guy-favoring civil justice system requires in fuel,

(ii) just to do its job and move legal conflicts and injustices toward resolution.

 

How’s that for a sentence?

 

But you get the point.

 

 

The moral? — Congress, especially Republican Congress, is almost never an ordinary person’s friend

 

If we are looking for even a glimmer of honorably exercised smarts, we almost always have to search elsewhere.

 

However, if we seek a bottomless supply of brimming-over hypocrisy — delivered in unapologetically ethically repellant fashion — this is the place to go.