Joined Mar 2009
283 Posts | 0+
Edmonton, Alberta CANADA
They file suits - you pay!
Reprinted from the Trent Loos newsletter
By SALLY SCHUFF
I bet you didn't know that taxpayers often foot the bill for the legal fees when major activist organizations successfully bring lawsuits against the federal government.
Millions of tax dollars have gone to big groups like Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and The Humane Society of the United States.
This tax-funded generosity came as news to me last week, and all because three members of Congress teamed up to make it public. They are sponsoring a bill to bring oversight and full public disclosure of payments made under the 1980 Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) - something that apparently hasn't happened for the past 15 years.
"It's time to shine some light on the hijacking of the equal justice law by some groups and the environmental litigation industry that supports their 'stop everything' agenda," said Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.), who is particularly concerned about the lawsuits' impact on public land use.
She is joined by Reps. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D., S.D.) and Rob Bishop (R., Utah) in a bipartisan attempt to bring the payments into the open. They are underpinning their effort with two new studies that analyze which organizations received payments and how open the reporting system was - or, more accurately, wasn't.
Lummis called on environmental organizations that have benefited from the payments to support the transparency.
When Congress passed EAJA in 1980, it was supposed to "help individuals, small businesses and nonprofits with limited means seek judicial redress against the federal government," the three sponsors explained in a joint statement. Those who won their cases or prevailed in out-of-court settlements could seek repayment of legal fees.
However, the new studies -- one by a Wyoming law firm and one by Virginia Tech University - show that major environmental groups have been the chief beneficiaries.
The Wyoming study found that "14 environmental groups have brought more than 1,200 federal cases in 19 states and the District of Columbia and have collected more than $37 million in taxpayer dollars through EAJA or other similar laws," the statement reported. The data do not include settlements or fees sealed from public view.
The study, which Feedstuffs obtained, showed that the payments were sometimes reported in public documents, but often they were not.
"For too long, taxpayers have unwittingly served as the financiers of the environmental litigation industry. Without improved oversight, EAJA will continue to be abused by organizations that have made a cottage industry out of suing the federal government in an effort to advance their radical political agendas," Bishop said.
The bill, H.R. 4717, would "reinstate and consolidate tracking and reporting requirements under the Department of Justice and would require DOJ to publish an online, searchable database of EAJA payments that is open to the public. It would also authorize an audit of the last 15 years when EAJA operated with absolutely no oversight," the announcement said.
The Virginia Tech study, which surveyed five federal agencies using Freedom of Information Act requests, closely jived with the Wyoming study, the sponsors noted, and the depth of the disclosure problem was confirmed when the study found that two of the queried agencies "could provide absolutely no data on EAJA payments."
The lawmakers listed several groups, particularly those whose members use public lands, as supporters of the legislation -- the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA) and Public Lands Council among them.
"Because the government has neglected to provide oversight, EAJA has become a breeding ground for abuse by radical environmental groups," NCBA president Steve Foglesong said in a statement. "The fact that millions of dollars in taxpayer funds have been awarded with virtually no accounting of who received the payments is unacceptable."
Reprinted from the Trent Loos newsletter
By SALLY SCHUFF
I bet you didn't know that taxpayers often foot the bill for the legal fees when major activist organizations successfully bring lawsuits against the federal government.
Millions of tax dollars have gone to big groups like Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and The Humane Society of the United States.
This tax-funded generosity came as news to me last week, and all because three members of Congress teamed up to make it public. They are sponsoring a bill to bring oversight and full public disclosure of payments made under the 1980 Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) - something that apparently hasn't happened for the past 15 years.
"It's time to shine some light on the hijacking of the equal justice law by some groups and the environmental litigation industry that supports their 'stop everything' agenda," said Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.), who is particularly concerned about the lawsuits' impact on public land use.
She is joined by Reps. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D., S.D.) and Rob Bishop (R., Utah) in a bipartisan attempt to bring the payments into the open. They are underpinning their effort with two new studies that analyze which organizations received payments and how open the reporting system was - or, more accurately, wasn't.
Lummis called on environmental organizations that have benefited from the payments to support the transparency.
When Congress passed EAJA in 1980, it was supposed to "help individuals, small businesses and nonprofits with limited means seek judicial redress against the federal government," the three sponsors explained in a joint statement. Those who won their cases or prevailed in out-of-court settlements could seek repayment of legal fees.
However, the new studies -- one by a Wyoming law firm and one by Virginia Tech University - show that major environmental groups have been the chief beneficiaries.
The Wyoming study found that "14 environmental groups have brought more than 1,200 federal cases in 19 states and the District of Columbia and have collected more than $37 million in taxpayer dollars through EAJA or other similar laws," the statement reported. The data do not include settlements or fees sealed from public view.
The study, which Feedstuffs obtained, showed that the payments were sometimes reported in public documents, but often they were not.
"For too long, taxpayers have unwittingly served as the financiers of the environmental litigation industry. Without improved oversight, EAJA will continue to be abused by organizations that have made a cottage industry out of suing the federal government in an effort to advance their radical political agendas," Bishop said.
The bill, H.R. 4717, would "reinstate and consolidate tracking and reporting requirements under the Department of Justice and would require DOJ to publish an online, searchable database of EAJA payments that is open to the public. It would also authorize an audit of the last 15 years when EAJA operated with absolutely no oversight," the announcement said.
The Virginia Tech study, which surveyed five federal agencies using Freedom of Information Act requests, closely jived with the Wyoming study, the sponsors noted, and the depth of the disclosure problem was confirmed when the study found that two of the queried agencies "could provide absolutely no data on EAJA payments."
The lawmakers listed several groups, particularly those whose members use public lands, as supporters of the legislation -- the National Cattlemen's Beef Assn. (NCBA) and Public Lands Council among them.
"Because the government has neglected to provide oversight, EAJA has become a breeding ground for abuse by radical environmental groups," NCBA president Steve Foglesong said in a statement. "The fact that millions of dollars in taxpayer funds have been awarded with virtually no accounting of who received the payments is unacceptable."
