By Hans A. von Spakovsky & Tiger Joyce
Thursday May 26, 2016
‘Progressive” government officials have launched an
Orwellian effort to outlaw research that dares question the soundness of
computer-predicted climate catastrophes or costly policy proposals aimed at
mitigating climate change.
Much has been written about how this attempt to
criminalize inquiry and debate threatens fundamental First Amendment and due
process rights. But how they are going about it is equally troubling.
Some state attorneys general are hiring profit-seeking,
private-sector personal-injury lawyers to do their legal dirty work. Moreover,
any contingency fees collected by these lawyers through settlements arising
from these cases could be used, in part, to fund the campaigns of allied
politicians who embrace the “one, true belief” of man-made global warming.
This is more than an attempt to suppress political and
scientific dissent. Deputizing self-interested personal-injury lawyers with the
awesome power of the state subverts the public interest.
We have seen this unseemly dynamic in action before. Two
years ago, a Pulitzer Prize–winning New
York Times series focused on the business model of the class-action
specialists at Cohen Milstein, a law firm that seeks to create “big paydays by
coaxing attorneys general to sue” large, sometimes politically unpopular
corporations or industries. The firm brags about being the “most effective law
firm in the United States for lawsuits with a strong social and political
component.”
By e-mail, a Cohen Milstein spokeswoman said the firm did
not participate in a then-secret but now widely reported Manhattan meeting of
climate-change activists and political operatives in January. But it certainly
appears as though the class-action bar’s interests were well represented during
the discussions.
A draft agenda for the meeting obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, shows a
determination to use their powers to push a political agenda. Among their
goals: “To establish in public’s mind that Exxon is a corrupt institution that
has pushed humanity (and all creation) toward climate chaos,” and “To drive
Exxon and climate into center of 2016 election cycle.” But money is a big
motivator as well.
Fox News reported that an e-mail from U.S. Virgin Islands
attorney general Claude Earl Walker was most enthusiastic about “identifying
other potential litigation targets” and ways to “increase our leverage.” An
$800 million settlement from Hess Oil Company has apparently only whetted
Walker’s appetite for squeezing money out of big oil. And the beauty of this
win, he noted, was that the settlement money was used to create an
“environmental response trust” — so that they can keep the lawsuits coming.
On cue, at a March 29 news conference, New York attorney
general Eric Schneiderman announced a newly formed cabal of state AGs that
would investigate — and possibly prosecute — corporations that contribute to
research organizations whose work expresses skepticism about man-made climate
change and the multi-trillion-dollar policy “cures” prescribed by
global-warming warriors.
The “AGs United for Clean Power,” Schneiderman said,
decided to “step into this battle with an unprecedented level of commitment and
coordination” against “well-funded, highly aggressive and morally vacant forces that are trying to block every step by the
federal government to take meaningful action” against climate change [emphasis
ours].
Speaking of morally vacant, where on the moral spectrum
might these inquisitors locate the shredding of the Constitution? Do they
believe their power to hire political patrons, issue government subpoenas, and
impose mounting legal expenses, fines, and settlements on inconvenient climate
heretics is divinely derived?
Which brings us back to Claude Walker and Cohen Milstein.
One of the “AGs United,” Walker hired the firm to investigate possible
violations of the Virgin Islands’ version of the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) — the statute famously used to prosecute
the Mafia in the 1970s. Cohen Milstein’s first act was to unleash subpoenas on
ExxonMobil and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, seeking decades’ worth of
climate-change research and communications with scores of third-party think
tanks, foundations, universities, scientists, and others.
But ExxonMobil and CEI are fighting back. They argue that
Walker’s delegation of prosecutorial power to profit-seeking private-sector
lawyers and the burdensome subpoena demands violate their constitutional rights
to free speech, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and due
process of law. And they’ve gotten a governmental boost of their own.
The attorneys general of Alabama and Texas are now
seeking to intervene in the case on ExxonMobil’s behalf, arguing that Cohen
Milstein’s “contingency fee arrangements [with Walker] cut against the duty of
impartiality by giving the attorney that represents the government a financial
stake in the outcome.”
We can’t know how the courts will ultimately decide these
issues. But we do know that pay-to-play relationships between state attorneys
general and the plaintiffs’ lawyers they help enrich (and upon whom they then
rely for campaign support) are inherently corrupting. Efforts to crush
climate-change dissent for political and financial gain is a disgraceful
assault on the Constitution — one that should offend every American who
cherishes the freedoms enshrined within it.
No comments:
Post a Comment