The Nation's Worst State Attorneys General 2010

8/8/2019 The Nation's Worst State Attorneys General 2010

1/30

CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitute

Issue Analysis

Advancing Liberty From the Economy to Ecology

The Nations Wors

By Hans Bader

Ju 2010

2010 No.

State AttorneysGeneral

ly


2/30 1Bader: The Nations Worst State Attorneys General

The Nations Worst State Attorneys General

By Hans Bader

Executive Summary


3/30 Bader: The Nations Worst State Attorneys General



Introduction

1

3

4

5

6

8

Under all state

constitutions, the

legislature, not the

attorney general, is

given the power to

make laws.



11

Criteria for AG Ratings

1. Ethical Breaches and Selective Applications of the Law

The recent wave of

lawsuits brought by

state attorneys general

has fostered corruption,

circumvented

legislative checks on

regulation, taxes, and

government spending,made government

less transparent, and

diverted attention

away from their

core responsibilities

of defending state

agencies in lawsuits

and providing legal

advice to public



2. Fabricating Law

3. Usurping Legislative Powers

4. Predatory Practices

Report Card

Subject: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Attorney General:

1. Jerry Brown, California

13



14

15

16

TheLos Angeles Times

18

)

As

noted, Browns

decision to switch

course at the last

possible moment before

the courts deadline,

surprised many legal

experts. The attorneygeneral has a legal

duty to uphold the

states laws as long as

there are reasonable

grounds to do so.



Shortly

31

33

34

35

36

Brown brought so

many lawsuits over

global warming

against businesses

and local governments

that the state

legislature curbed

his ability to suelocal governments.



38

2. Drew Edmondson, Oklahoma

41

4344

45

46

48

Edmondson has

abused the power

order to intimidate

political opponents.



51

53

54

55

56

58

The Oklahoman

61

Edmondson persisted

in his politically

motivated prosecution

until 2009, when he

inevitability that he

would be found in

violation of theFirst Amendment.



63

64

65

66

68The Wall Street Journal

3. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut

The Tobacco Racket

It is worth nothing

how ironic it is

for Edmondson to

complain about

outsiders meddling

in Oklahoma politics,

when out-of-state

opponents of theinitiative routinely

harassed the petition

gatherers, without

Edmondson or anyone

else questioning

their right to come

into the state to do so.



includingsales in

states that did not join the tobacco settlement

without their knowledge

As the federal appeals

court with jurisdiction

over Connecticut

observed, had the

tobacco company

executives entered into

a similar settlement

without the collusion ofthe attorneys general,

they would long ago

have had depressing

conversations with

their attorneys

about the United

States Sentencing

Guidelines.



81

83

84

85

As attorney general,

Blumenthal has

supported meritless,

politically motivated

lawsuits.



S

i.e.,

86

88

4. Patrick Lynch, Rhode Island

Blumenthal has

attacked private

property rights,

including advocating

that private homes

be subject to

government seizure

for use by privatedevelopers.



As The Providence Journal



)

)

A non-partisan ethics

watchdog observed

that Lynchs conduct

does not pass the

smell test.



5. Darrell McGraw, West Virginia

111

As TheWest Virginia Record

113

114

115

116

118

McGraw hired lawyers

on a contingency fee to

sue tobacco companies

in 1995. In response,

told by the state judge

handling the states

tobacco lawsuit thatpaying contingency

fees to lawyers hired

to represent the state

was illegal. But he

went ahead and did it

anyway.



TheCharleston Daily Mail

The Charleston Gazette,

131

133

134

135

136

McGraw has used

other court settlements

as his own political

slush fund, so often

that

summed

him up as a lawyer

who sues on behalfof a client, settles

out of court, and

keeps the money.



138

141

143

144

145

146 although

6. William Sorrell, Vermont

148

Few state attorneys

general have done

more damage to the

fabric of the law than

William Sorrell.



151

153

Sorrells bill severely

undermined the

principle of individual

responsibility, by

holding a tobacco

company liable for

a smokers injuries

even if the smokerknew the risk of

smoking and chose

to smoke anyway.



154

155

156

1,000 percent158

161

Conclusion

Many state attorneys

general across the

nation conscientiously

every day. However,

others have failed to

heed the limits on

their own power.



Notes

1 Issue Analysis

Corporate Legal Times

3 Blumenthal v. Barnes

In re Cardizem Antitrust Litigation

4

5 Blumenthal v. Barnes

6 Morales v. Trans World Airlines

Miller Bros. v. MarylandHealy v. Beer Institute

8

See also

See also

See also

See also

Up In Smoke

see also A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co. v.

Philip Morris

11 The Sacramento Bee

See also

See also

13 The Los Angeles

Times

14 The San Francisco Chronicle

15 Baker v. NelsonSee also Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, th

16


See, e.g., Hernandez v. RoblesAndersen v. King County

alsoBaker v. Nelson

The San Francisco Chronicle See also

Vanity Fair

Baker v. Nelson

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, th

Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilsonth

The Los Angeles Times

See also

The San Francisco Chronicle

The San Francisco RecorderSee also

The Oakland Tribune

See also ,

The Sacramento Bee

The Redding RecordSee also



31 See also

The Cleveland Plain-Dealer

33 The Contra Costa TimesSee also

The San Francisco ChronicleSee

also The San Francisco Chronicle

34 See also,

San Francisco Examiner

35 The Charleston Post & Courier


The San Francisco Chronicle

38 The American Spectator

,

LA Weekly

41

Oklahoma City

Journal-Record43 Daily Oklahoman

44 The Daily OklahomanSee also

The Daily Oklahoman

45 The Tulsa World

See also

New Jersey Law JournalSee also

See also

See also

46 Tulsa WorldSee also

The Oklahoman

48 Oklahoma City Journal-

RecordSee also

The Oklahoman

See alsoIn re Initiative Petition No. 379

51 See, e.g.,Muskegon Phoenix

See also In re Initiative

Petition No. 379

See In re Initiative Petition No. 379

53 Nader v. BrewerthSee also Krislov v. Rednourth

54 Chandler v. City of Arvada, Coloradoth

55 Yes on Term Limits, Inc. v. Savageth

56 Oklahoma City Journal-Record

See also Forbes

58 Chandler v. City of Arvada, Colorado See also VanNatta v. KeislingthSee also Landell v.

SorrellSee also Warren v. Fairfax County,th



See American Constitutional Law Found.,See also Meyer v. Grant,

See also Krislov v. Rednour,

The Oklahoman

61 New York Times v. Sullivan

The Politics and Law of Term Limits

63 The Wall Street Journal

64 Brief of the States of Arizona, Oklahoma, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners

United States v. MorrisonSee also Brief of Respondent James LaDale CrawfordUnited States v. Morrison

65 The

Oklahoman

66 The OklahomanSee also

Oklahoma City Journal-Record

68

The New York Times

See also

See also

The Washington Examiner The Columbus Dispatch

The Wall Street Journal

Freedom Holdings v. Spitzer

A Broken Promise for Our Children: the 1998 State Tobacco Settlement Seven Years Later

Martin v. WilksSee also

But see Virginia v. Patriot

Tobacco Co

Connecticut Legal Tribune

Connecticut Law Review

See also

81

See also

83 Erickson v. Foote

84 See also

85 Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp.

AG Watch

See also

See also

88 See also

R.A.V. v. St. PaulSee also Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

See also Brief of the States of New York, Connecticut, Illinois, et al., as Amici

Curiae in Support of RespondentsSee also Gratz v. BollingerSee also Brief of

the States of Maryland, et al. in Support of RespondentsSee also Randall v. Sorrell

See also Brief of the States of Connecticut, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents and Cross-Petitioners



Kelo v. New LondonSee also Brief of the State of Connecticut Through Its Attorney General As Amicus

Curiae In Support of the RespondentsSee also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

State v. Lead Industries Assn

quoting In re Lead Paint Litigation

The Boston Globe

See alsoThe Providence Journal

City Journal

See

See

The Boston Globe

The Delaware News-Journal

See also Tyler v. Superior CourtSee also See also

See also See also See also

State v. Lead Industries Assn

The Lead Paint Trial ContinuesSee

also accordState of Rhode Island v. Lead Indus. Assn

State v. Lead Paint Assn, Inc

See also

111 The Charleston

Daily Mail

The Charleston GazetteSee also

The Charleston GazetteSee also

See also

The Morgantown Dominion Post

113 The West Virginia Record

See alsoThe Charleston Daily

Mail

114 The Charleston Daily MailSee

also The Charleston Gazette

115 State v. Vieweg

116



See also State of West Virginia Campaign Financial Statement(Long Form) In

Relation to 2004 Election Year

See alsoState of West Virginia

Campaign Financial Statement (Long Form) In Relation to 2004 Election Year

See also State of W. Va. Campaign Financial Statement for

Elections in 1996

118 McGraw v. American Tobacco Co. See also See also

The State Journal

McGraw v. American Tobacco Co.

The CharlestonDaily MailSee also The

Charleston GazetteSee also

The Charleston Daily MailSee also

The Charleston Daily Mail

See also The Charleston Daily Mail

See also

The West Virginia Record

See alsoSee also

The Wall Street Journal

131

The Charleston Gazette


133

135

136 See also


138

141

See also

143

144 The Wall Street Journal.

145 Messer v. Huntington Anesthesia GroupSee also State of W. Va. Campaign Financial

Statement for Elections in 1996

146 The State Journal

See also



148 See also

See also

See also Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy

See

151

153

The New York Times

154 American LawyerSee also

New Jersey Lawyer

155

156 See also The Atlantic Monthly

The Richmond Times-

DispatchSee also

Bond Buyer

158

Randall v. SorrellSee also Landell v. Sorrell,See also ParentsInvolved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1See also Brief of

the States of New York, et al,. as Amici Curiae in Support of RespondentsSee also Gratz v. Bollinger

See also Brief of the States of Maryland, et al. in Support of RespondentsSee

also Boy Scouts v. DaleSee also Brief of the State of New York, et al., as Amici Curiae In Support of

Respondent

161 See Kelo v. New LondonSee also Brief of the States of Vermont, et al., As Amici Curiae in Support of

Respondents



About the Author


30/30

CompetitiveEnterpriseInstitute

Washington, DC 20036202-331-1010

Fax 202-331-0640

www.cei.org

8.00

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization ded-

icated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that

consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being allowed to

make their own choices in a free marketplace. Since its founding in 1984, CEI has

grown into an influential Washington institution.

We are nationally recognized as a leading voice on a broad range of regulatory

issues ranging from environmental laws to antitrust policy to regulatory risk. CEI is

not a traditional think tank. We frequently produce groundbreaking research onregulatory issues, but our work does not stop there. It is not enough to simply iden-

tify and articulate solutions to public policy problems; it is also necessary to defend

and promote those solutions. For that reason, we are actively engaged in many

phases of the public policy debate.

We reach out to the public and the media to ensure that our ideas are heard, work

with policymakers to ensure that they are implemented and, when necessary, take

our arguments to court to ensure the law is upheld. This full service approach to

public policy makes us an effective and powerful force for economic freedom.

1899 L Street, NW

12th Floor

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kim-hedum
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

The Nation's Worst State Attorneys General 2010

Documents