Does Conlin Support $1.5 Billion Tax Break for Trial Lawyers?
- Friday, July 30, 2010, 2:05
- Iowa, News Center
- 600 views
- 13 comments
DOES FORMER TRIAL LAWYERS’ PRESIDENT CONLIN SUPPORT $1.5 BILLION TAX BREAK
FOR TRIAL LAWYERS? WE’LL TAKE THAT AS A “YES”
Based on her campaign’s response to media questions, U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin apparently supports an Obama administration move to give a $1.52 billion tax break to trial lawyers.
Conlin, a trial lawyer who claims to oppose tax breaks for wealthy Americans, has been silent on the break that would let wealthy trial lawyers deduct loans to clients as a business expense. The president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform has said the tax break would increase the number of frivolous lawsuits and add to the federal deficit.
When asked directly if Conlin, a former president of the American Trial Lawyers Association, currently supports the tax break or has ever advocated it, her campaign spokesman instead repeated previous unsubstantiated criticism of incumbent Chuck Grassley.
“That evasive response says it all. The Conlin campaign was given an opportunity to give Iowans a direct and honest answer about its candidate’s position on an important public policy issue and they ducked it,” said Eric Woolson, a spokesman for Grassley’s re-election campaign. “Until the Conlin campaign decides to level with Iowans, we’ll take that answer as a ‘yes’ and another validation of Roxanne Conlin’s hypocrisy when it comes to tax breaks for the rich.”
Photo by Dave Davidson
About the Author
The Iowa Republican has written 548 stories on this site.
13 Comments on “Does Conlin Support $1.5 Billion Tax Break for Trial Lawyers?”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I wonder if Grassley supports tax breaks for rich farm land owners who’ve been full-time politicians since 1958?
ConDem – What tax breaks would those be? BTW, the question was posed to Conlin and summarily deflected. She should come clean with an answer either way.
Grassley became a full time politician in 1975.
Oh, well there-ya-go, that’s better’n 1958 I guess. 1975’s only 35-years ago, why shucks, some of you weren’t even born yet in 1975.
Nice job, Conservative Dem. You answered the question with just as much honesty and clarity as Roxy’s campaign! Change the subject, deflect, prevaricate – anything but a direct answer to a direct question!
That’s the Democratic way, isn’t it….
d sez: “Change the subject, deflect, prevaricate – anything but a direct answer to a direct question!
That’s the Democratic way, isn’t it….”
_IF_ you see that only in Democratic Party politics and fail to see it in equal quantity in Republican Party politics, _THEN_ Sir, you are either a duped fool or a conniving party hack.
Never forget Lee Atwater.
Roxanne would be bad for America just like every other dim.
Conservative Democrat? Now there’s an oxymoron if ever there was one. Those guys died out years ago. Anyone claiming to be one today is either a liar or a fool. On the other hand, I guess there are speedy turtles, tall midgets and honest liberals.
Trial lawyers need those tax breaks to write off business expenses such as prostitutes, country club dues, hiring crooked accountants to do their taxes, buying off witnesses, hiring illegal aliens to do household chores, the spouse’s high ticket credit card purchases, etc. etc. And off course, those tax breaks will be given back to democrats in the form of campaign donations, above board and below the table.
MM sez: “Trial lawyers need those tax breaks to write off business expenses such as prostitutes, country club dues, hiring crooked accountants to do their taxes, buying off witnesses, hiring illegal aliens to do household chores, the spouse’s high ticket credit card purchases, etc. etc.”
Doggone Man, for a moment there it sounded like you were reading off the list of RNC expenditures.
The difference CD, is that Republicans get in trouble for doing those things, Democrats get re-elected because their supporters expect no more of them.
Plaintiff’s front the expenses for their clients cases which could be considered a business expense. Plaintiff’s attorneys cannot loan money to clients outside of fronting expenses in almost every state, there are a few exceptions. However, those expenses are paid back when and if a settlement is reached or a verdict paid. So the expenses can be handled in one of two ways. They can be deducted as business expenses when paid out, however, they will be taxed when paid back to the attorney as income. or they can be not deducted when they are paid out as expenses and then also not taxed as income when reimbursed. If the attorney is never reimbursed because there is no recovery, they would then count as a business expense or loss. This issue is a complete red herring and just an attempt to bash a very well respected trial attorney. conlin is well respected by plaintiff’s and defense attorneys and judges.
Silence
mainstreet, seen now, who used campaign funds to go to fetish strip joints in LA, oh yeah, that was the RNC.
Silence