A question for Mr. Dellinger
Submitted by Brunette on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 7:58pm
Mr. Dellinger,
Could you please submit a statement regarding the recent to-do on this blog regarding Womble Carlyle and the idea that it should be denounced for representing Blackwater?
Since you are an attorney and the matter of attorney's being criticized for the clients they represent has been discussed on this blog recently, I am interested in your response.
Good one, Brunette
I'll bet he sides with you. I would if I were him.
Which is why I'm glad I'm me. So to speak.
:)
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
ok , but
I don't think this is an issue that distinguishes consciences so much as experience, and, as Goldie expressed it, familiarity with the professional code of ethics.
Compare this to the free speech issues that arise with literature. There are actually "liberals" out there who want Huckleberry Finn banned because of its use of the word "nigger." These are not evil people. These are people who genuinely believe that they are going to improve our society by deciding what is "ok" to read and isn't. I think the issues are very similar.
One either does or does not support the free market place of ideas. When you support that concept, you don't seek to squelch the free speech opportunities of unpopular causes. And though I know that is not what you see yourself as doing by seeking to denounce Womble Carlyle for its representation of this unpopular client, I would have to argue that that is exactly what you are doing.
One should protest against a business or cause one dislikes or finds otherwise objectionable. But to suggest that those who help provide that business or cause its voice in the court of popular opinion (i.e. the halls of the General Assembly) are to be criticized for being in bed with the devil, or other sentiments to that effect, is indeed to suggest that only you (or I) have the real handle on what speech is morally permissible.
This is why I dislike the so-called "hate crimes" laws. One cannot, and one should not attempt to legislate what another person thinks, even when the thoughts are horrific. Consult Orwell for more on that concept. Even the term "hate-speech" smacks of 1984.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I see it in 2 ways.
Because I'm a Pisces, and I'm like that.
Blackwater has a right to legal representation in a court of law. No question. Every person and business in the US does, no matter how evil I might think they are.
My problem is not their legal representation in a court of law, but their hiring of a law firm to be lobbyists. That bugs me. They are basically asking the law firm, and the law firm is agreeing, to be PR for them with the government. That is not the role I see for law firms. I don't think everyone has the right to a lobbyist, and I really hate the idea of taxpayer money, laundered through government contract, being used to lobby for more taxpayer money for more government contract.
I don't see it as a matter of legal representation. I see it as a matter of ethics.
::shrug:: Your mileage may vary.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
mileage gauge
I agree that not everyone can afford a lobbyist, and while I hate the inequity, I don't know the answer to righting that. I also hate that I find myself in agreement with the concept that it really is a form of free speech to hire a lobbyist. If there were a good way to level the playing field, I'd support it, but so far I don't see it.
With respect to this issue -- which, again, I see as a speech issue -- I don't make the distinction between legal representation in court and representation to the General Assembly because essentially they are two paths to a given point -- i.e., the "cause" of the business or individual interest. A court can only decide limited issues based upon the plain language of a law. The General Assembly is the body that decides what that language is. If you lose at the General Assembly, you've lost at court before you get there.
Having spent a lot of time watching the General Assembly, I have a healthy dislike of the tactics, the games, the b.s. that passes for lobbying -- and this is leaving aside entirely the outright corruption that stinks up the place -- yet I also appreciate the efforts of many lobbyists who don't play those games, who represent causes that you and I dearly hope will be given an ear at the General Assembly, and who bear great responsibility for measures that you and I and most of the participants on this blog applaud and are grateful for. As an example, I'm thinking of our environmental lobbyists, whose strength has really increased in recent years.
It is definitely a mixed bag, but that's government.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
It's not an issue of free speech.
Seriously. This is where I don't believe that corporations should have the same rights as individuals. I can't afford to higher a lobbyist. Most individuals can't. But Blackwater, the corporation, can. So they get a bigger say in legislation. That's not free speech. That's bought and paid for speech. It may be government, but it isn't right.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
I hear ya
I appreciate the arguments against regarding lobbying as speech and wish I could be convinced.
It might be a failure of imagination for now, because at this point I just can't conceive the legal rationale for banning lobbyists or how the chips would fall or float or be distributed (?) if groups were not allowed to lobby for their interests.
I can imagine someone suggesting, for example, that only nonprofits be permitted to lobby, but given the fact that corporations do have legal standing as "persons," it's difficult for me to see how such a law would withstand legal challenge.
I'm not comfortable in this position, but I don't see a way out of it yet.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke
I get it. I do.
I'm just not comfortable thinking of Blackwater as a "person", with the same rights as I have. Lobbyists representing non-profits are generally representing a group of individuals who have come together in support of a cause, not a for-profit group in support of - more profit.
I would rather say 'no corporate lobbyists' at all than have Blackwater in there spending millions saying it's ok to have a mercenary army headquartered in NC, operating above the law in a war zone, and generally behaving in a way that I find morally reprehensible.
It sucks that individual citizens cannot be heard over the din of the almighty dollar.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi