State GOP Announces New Corporate Lawsuit Immunity Initiative

Image of Kandinsky painting

(Come on, state Democrats, hold your heads high and keep fighting. Read DocHoc’s
commentary this week in the Oklahoma Gazette, the state’s finest alternative publication.)

As state Republicans launch another effort to give corporations and doctors immunity from large lawsuit damage awards, it’s important to revisit the right-wing nomenclature about the issue.

For many years, the state GOP has tried to put caps on damages awarded in civil lawsuits here. This protects big corporations, which do the most large-scale damage in our culture and have the deepest pockets. In the past, the GOP has called this “tort reform.”

Note the word “reform” here. Obviously, reform in this case is in the eye of the beholder. If you’re someone who has been seriously injured because of corporate negligence and you’re trying to recover damages to put your life back together, you would hardly label a cap on damages “reform.”

Fortunately, so-called recent “reform” efforts granting corporations immunity from large lawsuit damages haven’t succeeded in Oklahoma. So maybe that’s why the GOP and the corporate media here might try to change the language again in order to confuse people about the issue.

For example, a recent Associated Press story published in The Oklahoman about the issue referred to former, proposed corporate lawsuit immunity legislation “as comprehensive civil justice reform…” The headline of the online story reads like this: “Oklahoma GOP Senate majority focuses on justice change.” Is this a major language switch or just more biased reporting and editing?

Note the word “justice” here and the term “justice change.” Essentially, the local right-wing machine is now going to disingenuously sell legislation benefiting big corporations as something related to “justice” as in, perhaps, “just and right.” Of course, it’s only just and right for big corporations.

Here’s how the language was used in context:

The Republicans' biggest obstacle could be Democratic Gov. Brad Henry, who vetoed a comprehensive civil justice reform bill in 2007, specifically mentioning a $300,000 "hard cap" on non-economic damages, referring to awards for pain and suffering by injury victims.

Again, the point is that only someone in favor of capping lawsuit damages for corporations would call it “comprehensive civil justice reform . . .” The GOP uses populist language to sell decisively non-populist laws and policies.

The story tells us Senate President Pro Tem-designate Glenn Coffee will push this coming legislative session for corporate immunity from large lawsuit damages. With GOP majorities in the Senate and House, it might be easier to get the legislation passed and on Gov. Henry’s desk.

That’s why it’s important those who oppose the legislation challenge the distorted GOP language about the issue. So, remember, it's "immunity" or "amnesty," not "reform." The Republicans are trying to take away your right to recover adequate damages in lawsuits. Again, this would primarily benefit large companies. That’s why the GOP initiative should be called “corporate lawsuit immunity” or, perhaps, just “lawsuit damages immunity” or, maybe, "corporate lawsuit amnesty." The GOP here will focus its publicity campaign on doctors, not corporations, but make no mistake the legislation is about protecting wealthy people.

Most everyone supports efforts to bring down malpractice insurance costs for doctors and eliminating frivolous lawsuits, but large punitive damage awards are sometimes the only method to correct malfeasance and negligence by the rich and powerful in our culture.

There are fewer things more American than having the right to sue for damages if you’ve been injured. It’s one of the cornerstones of democracy. The GOP wants to take away this right because it’s the political party that puts the financial interests of corporations above individuals. We’ve seen what that has gotten this country the last eight years under Imperial President George Bush.

What do you think? Vote on a poll about this issue. Feel free to leave a comment.

corporate amnesty

It's a shame, Kurt, that you only have limited access to the general public....Your understanding of Oklahoma's propaganda machine is well-founded...I'm against this bill, and it seems to be the first thing on the agenda, when these bozos get back together...
Juries, made up OF THE PEOPLE should be allowed their discretions...Imagine the emboldened corporate state that will be created, should it be passed into law...This is corruption gone wild...We'll get no reprieve from this kind of legislation until we start standing up against it..Tell me what I can do...I haer that all politics is local... well, I'm ready to put that premise to the test on this one. We must have an informed electorate...
BTW, I was a victim of the recently passed laws regarding workmen's comp...it gave me no other avenue for recourse other than to sue them....filling up the courts, having to go through the company doctors...they refuse monetary compensation while you are healing...then, they make you sign a 'refusal to work' statement, should you be unable to return the next day....after that, the company no longer has to allow you a return to work, upon signing the doctor's release...so, you're fired in essence...that was our current governor, MR. Henry, who signed it into law..