Why a big business front group is going rabid over Cass Sunstein.

[Guest guest]

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2009/01/cass-sunstein-animal-righ\

ts-radical.html

 

 

Washington Dispatch: Why a big business front group is going rabid over Cass

Sunstein.

 

By Jonathan Stein

 

January 28, 2009

 

 

Does the famed legal mind President Obama has picked to be his

regulatory czar really have a " radical animal-rights agenda " ? And if so,

is that the real reason an industry front group called the Center for

Consumer Freedom (CCF) has launched a campaign against him?

Cass Sunstein, a renowned Harvard law professor who once taught with

Obama at the University of Chicago, has been tapped to run the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). The agency, little known to

the public but highly influential in the executive branch, oversees all

of the federal government's current and newly created regulations. If

confirmed as the head of the agency, Sunstein will supervise the

implementation of much of Obama's consumer safety, health, and

environmental agenda. Because regulations in these fields are often

opposed by big business, Sunstein will play a huge role in managing the

Obama administration's relationship with industry.

 

No wonder some within industry are raising a fuss about Sunstein's

regulatory beliefs. They have turned to a mega-lobbyist named Richard

Berman, whose firm, Berman & Company, runs a variety of front groups for

big business <http://www.bermanexposed.org/associate/richard-berman> .

In one famous episode from the mid-'90s, Berman established a group

called the Guest Choice Network to fight the creation of nonsmoking

sections in restaurants. The group was quietly funded by Philip Morris.

 

The Berman-run Center for Consumer Freedom claims its mission is

" promoting personal responsibility and protecting consumer choice, " but

its real purpose is to push back against activist groups and public

interest nonprofits. A section

<http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3483> of its

website called " If Bacon Is Wrong, We Don't Want To Be Lite " defends

bacon, ice cream, and hot dogs, saying, " There's no real scientific

consensus on diet and cancer. " An op-ed written by Berman and posted on

CCF's site <http://www.consumerfreedom.com/oped_detail.cfm/oped/297>

dismisses a study published in the Journal of the American Medical

Association that links soft drinks to type 2 diabetes, calling it " the

latest phony food scare. " CCF attributes the American obesity epidemic

not to fast and junk food, but to " sitting disease. "

<http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3810>

 

CCF's latest target is Sunstein

<http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3807> , who it

claims has a " secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the

White House. " The assertion appears similar to the usual alarmism that

Berman peddles to further industry interests, but Sunstein has indeed

made provocative statements on the issue of animal rights.

 

To support its charge that Sunstein is an extremist, CCF points to three

pieces of evidence. In a 2002 working paper

<http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/wp151-200.html> Sunstein authored

at the University of Chicago, he wrote, " [T]here should be extensive

regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific

experiments, and agriculture. " In a 2004 book that he coedited and

contributed to, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, he

wrote, " Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as

their representativesÂ…Any animals that are entitled to bring suit

would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like

obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their

clients' behalf. " And during a 2007 panel discussion at Harvard on

animal rights, Sunstein said hunting for " sport and fun " —not for

food—should be " against the law " and that greyhound racing, cosmetic

testing on animals, and the eating of meat raised in inhumane conditions

ought to be eliminated. He also said at the panel that the current

treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered " a form of

unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin

to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings. "

 

Martha Nussbaum, a professor at the University of Chicago who coedited

Animal Rights with Sunstein, insists that his views are " not in the

least " radical. According to Nussbaum, Sunstein eats meat and has no

secret plan to force vegetarianism on the American people. What he does

support, she says, is " giving consumers more information about the

conditions under which animals have been raised for food, and then

letting them make a more informed choice. " Moreover, his view on

experimentation on animals is not as draconian as CCF asserts. In the

2002 working paper, Sunstein wrote, " I believe that it is excessive to

ban experiments that impose a degree of suffering on rats or mice if the

consequence of those experiments is to produce significant medical

advances for human beings. "

 

As for Sunstein's argument that animals should have the right to sue

humans, Nussbaum says it is simply a novel solution to a tough legal

problem:

 

The problem here is that when existing laws against animal cruelty are

not enforced, nobody has " standing " to get the authorities to enforce

them. Concerned citizens are held to lack " standing " because they are

not the ones who are suffering. So what Sunstein is asking is that

humans be able to go to court as advocates for animals who are being ill

treated, when that treatment violates existing law. So it is not a

radical move; it is a move that solves a problem: We pass laws against

animal cruelty, and then we have no mechanism to ensure that these laws

will be enforced.

 

 

Saul Levmore, the dean of the University of Chicago Law School, echoes

Nussbaum and insists that Sunstein will not foist his views on the

country by influencing regulations as the head of OIRA. He acknowledges

that Sunstein has been " provocative, " but he suggests that that was part

of his job description as a legal scholar and public intellectual.

Levmore adds, " It is just not the Cass Sunstein I know to impose his

beliefs on others in a nondemocratic way. He has great respect for law

and the democratic process. "

 

As for the Sunstein quote that may have raised industry's fears of a

heavy-handed regulatory state— " [T]here should be extensive

regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific

experiments, and agriculture " —Levmore notes that it isn't exactly a

revolutionary idea: " There is extensive regulation of the use of animals

in experimentation and elsewhere. " Adds Nussbaum, " [sunstein] primarily

supports enforcing existing laws against cruelty and neglect. "

 

The CCF campaign at this point is a low-level one, consisting of a press

release and a few pages on the organization's website. But are the CCF

and its backers worried most about Sunstein and animal rights, or do

they fret that he will show less deference to industry than the George

W. Bush administration? And will CCF step up its effort against

Sunstein? The organization did not return a call requesting comment.

(Meanwhile, Sunstein's nomination has also drawn fire from the left

<http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/01/10/cass-sunstein-anti-regulat\

ion/?sortby=toprated> , including by environmental

<http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=3877> and labor activists

who question his " cost-benefit " approach to regulation and his position

on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which he has

suggested could be unconstitutional.)

 

Levmore says of Sunstein, " I don't see him ever saying or meaning that

he would or anyone should make or enforce regulations that do not have

the backing of the legislature and the people. " Sunstein may initiate a

new regulatory regime that protects consumers, the environment, and,

yes, animals at the expense of CCF's clients. But if he does so, it will

likely be at the president's direction, not his own.

 

 

 

So, men are scattered and smeared over the desert grass,

And the generals have accomplished nothing.

 

-Nefarious War

Li Po (Circa 750)