5 ms·

What. the. fuck. http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-republican-credit-agency-bills-20170919-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/lazar

by snsr 9y ago

What. the. fuck. http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-republican-credit-agency-bills-20170919-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-republ... > The FCRA Liability Harmonization Act is particularly noxious. Authored by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), the bill would cap actual and statutory damages for class actions involving credit agencies at $500,000, and completely eliminate punitive damages. Loudermilk said Friday that his bill “is aimed at curbing frivolous class action lawsuits against businesses under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” which contains many of the rules for credit agencies.

revmoo 9y ago
> Loudermilk said Friday that his bill “is aimed at curbing frivolous class action lawsuits against businesses under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” Has this ever even happened?
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Sure, when you define "frivolous" as "anything aimed at one of my campaign contributors".
pjc50 9y ago
People keep voting for representatives that do this kind of thing. And it's a bipartisan problem, but Republicans seem a lot more shameless about it, especially the "we must prevent the giant monopolistic business from lawsuits by wronged customers or bystanders" language. Fortunately Wikipedia points us at Loudermilk's legislative history. We can see such gems as HR3441, which opponents say "creates a new definition of “joint employer” that strips workers of their legal recourse for wage theft or unfair labor practices when multiple employers jointly control labor conditions." http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-09-08%20Joint%20Employer%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-09... Or we can look at his campaign contributions: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?two_year_transaction_period=2018&data_type=processed&committee_id=C00543892&min_date=01%2F01%2F2017&max_date=12%2F31%2F2018 https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?two_year_transaction_peri... "EXPERIAN NORTH AMERICA, INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXPERIAN PAC)" A clickthrough (this is a nice website, btw) shows the total Experian payments: https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00379768/ https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00379768/ Only $285,000, unless I've missed an "all figures are in thousands" somewhere. That's a pretty cheap way of buying yourself some legislation.
- pjc50 9y ago
  This is just a goldmine of grim hilarity. https://www.congress.gov/member/barry-loudermilk/L000583 https://www.congress.gov/member/barry-loudermilk/L000583 You can guarantee that the title of a bill tells you who it's going to screw over. "H.R.3330 - Ensuring Quality in the Unemployment Insurance Program (EQUIP) Act" = " To amend title III of the Social Security Act to permit States to conduct substance abuse risk assessments and targeted drug testing as a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefits, and for other purposes." "H.R.3312 - Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017" = something to do with Dodd-Frank "H.R.3257 - Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency Ac" = screw over the civil service. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any employee in the civil service hired on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act shall be hired on an at-will basis. Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." "No employee or applicant for employment in the civil service may be awarded by any court a remedy (including damages, costs, or attorney fees) under any of the provisions of law listed in paragraph (3) in a dollar amount that, in the aggregate, exceeds $50,000." Then a bunch of stuff removing national labour relations law that would otherwise pre-empt state law; allowing concealed carry in DC by holders of other state licenses; something to do with marine mammal protection, probably removing it; and a change to labour law to require a majority of employees not just of union members in certain votes, presumably making strike action much harder.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  > People keep voting for representatives that do this kind of thing. People don't vote (less than 40% in that election). Make voting mandatory, like in Australia (or at least make it a national holiday), and require a certain amount of real political coverage in the media -- politicians would then better reflect the needs of the people.
  - 9y ago
uptown 9y ago
The best government money can buy: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/pacs?cid=N00035347&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/pacs?cid=N00... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000033552 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000033552
ams6110 9y ago
Not to defend this congressman, because I've never heard of him and I don't know anything about him, but frivolous lawsuits are a thing, and though you'd expect a judge to recognize them, by the time it gets to that point a lot of time and money has already been wasted. And not to defend Equifax, because how can you, but a lot of people make their living there and in general corporations deserve reasonable protection under the law just like individuals do. After all most of them are net positives for society: they provide employment, benefits, and many support their local communities in a variety of other ways.
- RangerScience 9y ago
  > they provide employment, benefits, and many support their local communities in a variety of other ways. I mean I hear you - corporations are important, as they're a great way for a group of people to accomplish something together - but if the most important thing you do for society is employment, you sound like a pretty shit corporation. On the other hand, The New Deal did a lot of that. Hmmm.
  - al3xnull 9y ago
    I don't think he was saying it's sole importance was employment. If you had read the sentence in a more critical manner, the purpose of the corporation is to generate value. They can't provide employment to citizens, tax money for the government, or help in charity work without generating monetary value for it's products or services. The New Deal(s) did not really do the above. Although it really provided value in the form of infrastructure as well as employment to citizens it had to take money from people as well as borrow large amounts to do it. Hating on corporations and trading them for the government as a pseudo-corporation is just as bad. Sounds like a comment dripping with naivety from a college history class as if it's a final 'gotchya' against someone who is looking at the situation from all avenues.
    - RangerScience 9y ago
      Where in the sentence is the purpose of corporations mentioned? There are definitely corporations that provide employment, tax money, and/or charity work without generating monetary value (how long until Facebook actually sold anything?). But you're larger point is correct; those companies either don't last, or don't stay in that state. The entire point of the New Deal was to provide employment first and foremost (then, why not do something possibly useful with those employees? Hence the infrastructure.) > take money from people as well as borrow large amounts to do it. How is this different from any other corporation? Every company I interact with - including the ones I don't pay - takes value from me; and most (if not all) have taken loans and/or investment. Usually it is money, and I get back something; but it's not like I gave Equifax my personal info [from which the took monetary value]. While yes, taxes ARE categorically different than prices (and bonds are different than stocks), you can still definitely adopt the perspective that they're how you pay for all the civilization supplied by the society you're a part of. And if you don't want to pay for those things, there's still ways to stop; and you don't even have to give up all the things you're getting for the price you're no longer paying. I'm not hating on corporations. I'm saying that I would expect a corporation whose primary purpose is employment of people to do a poor overall job of adding value to society; at least compared to corporations with goals of delivering products or services. It's not a question of "does this not produce value", it's a question of which kind of value is most produced. ...And I'm probably wrong anyway, because that's basically what temp agencies do. Overall, your reply sounds like a comment arguing with an imaginary person you disagree with as if your imagined reality resembles the real thing. Try starting with a question next time, it'll help you figure out if what you think is going is actually what's going on.
chiph 9y ago
IANAL and haven't explored the feasibility of this, but the CRA firms got your data via your banks because in the fine print when you opened an account there's a phrase about "We will share your data with our trusted third parties". Well, the third parties haven't proven to be all that trustworthy, so suing your bank & credit-card firm(s) for releasing your information might be an interesting approach to take. If the CRAs have the source of their data cut to a trickle, they might start taking this seriously.

by snsr 9y ago

revmoo 9y ago

> Loudermilk said Friday that his bill “is aimed at curbing frivolous class action lawsuits against businesses under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” Has this ever even happened?

ceejayoz 9y ago
Sure, when you define "frivolous" as "anything aimed at one of my campaign contributors".

pjc50 9y ago

People keep voting for representatives that do this kind of thing. And it's a bipartisan problem, but Republicans seem a lot more shameless about it, especially the "we must prevent the giant monopolistic business from lawsuits by wronged customers or bystanders" language. Fortunately Wikipedia points us at Loudermilk's legislative history. We can see such gems as HR3441, which opponents say "creates a new definition of “joint employer” that strips workers of their legal recourse for wage theft or unfair labor practices when multiple employers jointly control labor conditions." http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-09-08%20Joint%20Employer%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf http://democrats-edworkforce.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-09... Or we can look at his campaign contributions: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?two_year_transaction_period=2018&data_type=processed&committee_id=C00543892&min_date=01%2F01%2F2017&max_date=12%2F31%2F2018 https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?two_year_transaction_peri... "EXPERIAN NORTH AMERICA, INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (EXPERIAN PAC)" A clickthrough (this is a nice website, btw) shows the total Experian payments: https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00379768/ https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00379768/ Only $285,000, unless I've missed an "all figures are in thousands" somewhere. That's a pretty cheap way of buying yourself some legislation.

pjc50 9y ago
This is just a goldmine of grim hilarity. https://www.congress.gov/member/barry-loudermilk/L000583 https://www.congress.gov/member/barry-loudermilk/L000583 You can guarantee that the title of a bill tells you who it's going to screw over. "H.R.3330 - Ensuring Quality in the Unemployment Insurance Program (EQUIP) Act" = " To amend title III of the Social Security Act to permit States to conduct substance abuse risk assessments and targeted drug testing as a condition for the receipt of unemployment benefits, and for other purposes." "H.R.3312 - Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act of 2017" = something to do with Dodd-Frank "H.R.3257 - Promote Accountability and Government Efficiency Ac" = screw over the civil service. "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any employee in the civil service hired on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act shall be hired on an at-will basis. Such an employee may be removed or suspended, without notice or right to appeal, from service by the head of the agency at which such employee is employed for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all." "No employee or applicant for employment in the civil service may be awarded by any court a remedy (including damages, costs, or attorney fees) under any of the provisions of law listed in paragraph (3) in a dollar amount that, in the aggregate, exceeds $50,000." Then a bunch of stuff removing national labour relations law that would otherwise pre-empt state law; allowing concealed carry in DC by holders of other state licenses; something to do with marine mammal protection, probably removing it; and a change to labour law to require a majority of employees not just of union members in certain votes, presumably making strike action much harder.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
JoshMnem 9y ago
> People keep voting for representatives that do this kind of thing. People don't vote (less than 40% in that election). Make voting mandatory, like in Australia (or at least make it a national holiday), and require a certain amount of real political coverage in the media -- politicians would then better reflect the needs of the people.
- 9y ago

uptown 9y ago

The best government money can buy: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/pacs?cid=N00035347&cycle=2018 https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/pacs?cid=N00... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000033552 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000033552

ams6110 9y ago

Not to defend this congressman, because I've never heard of him and I don't know anything about him, but frivolous lawsuits are a thing, and though you'd expect a judge to recognize them, by the time it gets to that point a lot of time and money has already been wasted. And not to defend Equifax, because how can you, but a lot of people make their living there and in general corporations deserve reasonable protection under the law just like individuals do. After all most of them are net positives for society: they provide employment, benefits, and many support their local communities in a variety of other ways.

RangerScience 9y ago
> they provide employment, benefits, and many support their local communities in a variety of other ways. I mean I hear you - corporations are important, as they're a great way for a group of people to accomplish something together - but if the most important thing you do for society is employment, you sound like a pretty shit corporation. On the other hand, The New Deal did a lot of that. Hmmm.
- al3xnull 9y ago
  I don't think he was saying it's sole importance was employment. If you had read the sentence in a more critical manner, the purpose of the corporation is to generate value. They can't provide employment to citizens, tax money for the government, or help in charity work without generating monetary value for it's products or services. The New Deal(s) did not really do the above. Although it really provided value in the form of infrastructure as well as employment to citizens it had to take money from people as well as borrow large amounts to do it. Hating on corporations and trading them for the government as a pseudo-corporation is just as bad. Sounds like a comment dripping with naivety from a college history class as if it's a final 'gotchya' against someone who is looking at the situation from all avenues.
  - RangerScience 9y ago
    Where in the sentence is the purpose of corporations mentioned? There are definitely corporations that provide employment, tax money, and/or charity work without generating monetary value (how long until Facebook actually sold anything?). But you're larger point is correct; those companies either don't last, or don't stay in that state. The entire point of the New Deal was to provide employment first and foremost (then, why not do something possibly useful with those employees? Hence the infrastructure.) > take money from people as well as borrow large amounts to do it. How is this different from any other corporation? Every company I interact with - including the ones I don't pay - takes value from me; and most (if not all) have taken loans and/or investment. Usually it is money, and I get back something; but it's not like I gave Equifax my personal info [from which the took monetary value]. While yes, taxes ARE categorically different than prices (and bonds are different than stocks), you can still definitely adopt the perspective that they're how you pay for all the civilization supplied by the society you're a part of. And if you don't want to pay for those things, there's still ways to stop; and you don't even have to give up all the things you're getting for the price you're no longer paying. I'm not hating on corporations. I'm saying that I would expect a corporation whose primary purpose is employment of people to do a poor overall job of adding value to society; at least compared to corporations with goals of delivering products or services. It's not a question of "does this not produce value", it's a question of which kind of value is most produced. ...And I'm probably wrong anyway, because that's basically what temp agencies do. Overall, your reply sounds like a comment arguing with an imaginary person you disagree with as if your imagined reality resembles the real thing. Try starting with a question next time, it'll help you figure out if what you think is going is actually what's going on.

chiph 9y ago

IANAL and haven't explored the feasibility of this, but the CRA firms got your data via your banks because in the fine print when you opened an account there's a phrase about "We will share your data with our trusted third parties". Well, the third parties haven't proven to be all that trustworthy, so suing your bank & credit-card firm(s) for releasing your information might be an interesting approach to take. If the CRAs have the source of their data cut to a trickle, they might start taking this seriously.