<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://www.progressivestates.org" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>From the Dispatch</title>
 <link>http://www.progressivestates.org/policy/issue/66/dispatch</link>
 <description>Dispatch (w arg for policy resource context)</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Arbitration: &quot;Set up to squeeze small sums of money out of desperately poor people&quot;</title>
 <link>http://www.progressivestates.org/node/21925</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;
The headline above is a quote from former &lt;b style=&quot;font-family: Arial&quot; id=&quot;xj_7&quot;&gt;West Virginia&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;asen0&quot; style=&quot;font-family: Arial&quot;&gt; Supreme Court
Justice Richard Neely, describing what his role was as an arbitrator at
the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), a for-profit company
hired
to enforce mandatory arbitration clauses for credit card consumer
loans.  &amp;quot;NAF is nothing more than an arm of the collection
industry hiding behind a veneer of impartiality,&amp;quot; says Richard Neely.&lt;/span&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In a devastating &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/08_24/b4088072611398.htm&quot; id=&quot;t-wu2&quot;&gt;expose
by&lt;span id=&quot;t-wu3&quot;&gt;&lt;i id=&quot;u1wo&quot;&gt; BusinessWeek&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span id=&quot;t-wu4&quot;&gt;&lt;i id=&quot;u1wo0&quot;&gt;, &lt;/i&gt;&lt;/span&gt;Neely
and other former arbitrators describe an arbitration system
stacked completely
against consumers-- a system where creditors win 99.8% of all disputes
involving companies ranging from Bank of America to Sears to Citgroup.
Arbitration clauses buried in the fine print of credit card
offers means consumers lose the right to have disputes decided in an
independent court and instead are forced into corporation-selected
arbitration firms.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.progressivestates.org/node/21925&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/187">End Mandatory Arbitration</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/117">End Predatory Lending</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 06:10:00 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Nathan Newman</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">21925 at http://www.progressivestates.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Corporate Influence on State Supreme Courts Show Need for Reform</title>
 <link>http://www.progressivestates.org/node/21917</link>
 <description>Over the past decade, elections for state high court seats have gone
from sleepy, mildly partisan affairs to major political battles with
huge campaign spending, millions in independent special interest
advertising, and misleading and negative attacks in the forefront.&lt;span id=&quot;p0pb6&quot;&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.justiceatstake.org/files/NewPoliticsofJudicialElections2006.pdf&quot; id=&quot;k9c-3&quot;&gt;TV advertising is now apart of virtually all (91%)&lt;/a&gt; contested state supreme court elections, up from about one in five elections in 2000.&lt;span id=&quot;p0pb8&quot;&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;And in 2006 business groups were the source of more than 90% of those ads.&lt;span id=&quot;p0pb9&quot;&gt;  &lt;/span&gt;Business groups are also the source of almost half of all campaign contributions in these races. 
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.progressivestates.org/node/21917&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/1731">Public Financing of Judicial Elections</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/57">Consumer Protection &amp;amp; Corporate Accountability</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/189">Protecting Jury Power to Award Damages</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/26">Missouri</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/32">New Mexico</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/49">West Virginia</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/50">Wisconsin</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 05:52:00 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Nathan Newman</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">21917 at http://www.progressivestates.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Expanding Access to Justice in the Courts</title>
 <link>http://www.progressivestates.org/node/801/expanding-access-to-justice-in-the-courts</link>
 <description>James Madison, one of the main drafters of the Constitution and the fourth President, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.atla.org/pressroom/TrialbyJury.aspx&quot;&gt;wrote&lt;/a&gt;
that, &amp;quot;Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the
liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.&amp;quot;
Yet, today, consumers, employees and victims of corporate negligence
are increasingly being denied access to justice through the courts. 
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.progressivestates.org/node/801/expanding-access-to-justice-in-the-courts&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/187">End Mandatory Arbitration</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/188">Secret Settlement Disclosure</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/190">Legal Services for Poor and Working Families</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/66">Protecting Access to Civil Justice</category>
 <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 07:00:09 -0700</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Nathan Newman</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">21875 at http://www.progressivestates.org</guid>
</item>
<item>
 <title>States Barred from Protecting Consumers Hurt by Faulty Medical Devices, Says Supreme Court</title>
 <link>http://www.progressivestates.org/node/778/states-barred-from-protecting-consumers-hurt-by-faulty-medical-devices-says-supreme-court</link>
 <description>In one more example of lax federal agencies being empowered to block
tougher state protection of consumers, the Supreme Court ruled
yesterday that states are barred from protecting consumers from faulty
medical devices, such as breast implants, if the Federal Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has already approved those devices.
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.progressivestates.org/node/778/states-barred-from-protecting-consumers-hurt-by-faulty-medical-devices-says-supreme-court&quot;&gt;read more&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/163">Federal Preemption Must Be Explicit</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/189">Protecting Jury Power to Award Damages</category>
 <category domain="http://www.progressivestates.org/taxonomy/term/1">All 50 States</category>
 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 05:42:00 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Nathan Newman</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">21854 at http://www.progressivestates.org</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
