In addition to www.google.com and www.dailykos.com, the other website I have set as my "homepage" in Internet Explorer 9 is www.consumerist.com. I read The Daily Kos for the same reason that I read the Consumerist -- I believe that consumers (or constituents) have a duty to remain informed, ask questions, and hold businesses accountable when they make mistakes, so that everyone is better off once changes are made.
One of their largest issues is the Arbitration Fairness Act (H. 3010)&(S. 1782), which was reintroduced into the House yesterday. I have been following the Arbitration Fairness Act fairly closely on the Consumerist but not much has been said about it here, what with the stimulus and election and Lily Ledbetter and whatnot.
More below the fold:
From www.consumerist.com:
The Arbitration Fairness Act, which will ban binding mandatory arbitration clauses from consumer, employment, and franchise contracts, was reintroduced in the House yesterday.
Rep. Hank Johnson, the original sponsor of the bill, was joined by 36 other House members and will likely get more support in the coming months.
Arbitration is a form of alternative dispute resolution where, instead of going to court, parties agree to make their case to an arbitrator, using fewer rules and a simpler procedure than typically found in litigation. The arbitrator's decision is usually binding on the parties.
Binding mandatory arbitration is the same as the above, except consumers are required to use arbitration (and forbidden from going to court) as part of doing business with the company. Most consumer contracts for credit cards, cars, homes, utilities, insurance, and even employment have clauses requiring binding arbitration, and preventing a consumer from suing if the company hurts him or her. The arbitrators are usually biased towards the company, which picks which arbitrator to use-and often pays the arbitrator's fees (unlike courts, which are funded by taxpayers).
Why do we support the Arbitration Fairness Act? In short, because mandatory binding arbitration is patently unfair to consumers. It is a joke of justice; a fake tribunal where injured consumers will almost always lose to corporations at the hands of a biased arbitrator.
Some of their other resources on this include:
--A GREAT choose your own adventure game about arbitration.
--9 Reasons to Support the Arbitration Fairness Act, a breakdown of the impacts of Binding Arbitration.
--If you've been wronged in an arbitration suit, This DC Law Firm is a place where you can tell your story.
They aren't the only place that has given a lot of attention to this issue lately. The MSM is starting to dig around (again, though, lately, they've been diverted from this by other things).
The Consumerist has 156 articles tagged about Arbitration, either about what it is, chances to opt out, or stories and statistics about people impacted by it. Please check out The Consumerist and learn about this important legislation, and CALL or WRITE your representatives in Washington and ask them to support it.
UPDATE: Haven't done many of these -- still struggling with the formatting. I apologize.
UPDATE (2x): From a comment below (Thanks, MsGrin!), found in "The Nation":
Arbitration does not grant the three main safeguards guaranteed by our public courts: fairness, accountability and neutrality. The corporation chooses a private individual--who is not necessarily a judge or lawyer--to hear and decide the case. Corporations are repeat customers whose appeasement generates steady business. Studies show that arbitrators have financial reason to rule in their favor. Corporate clients get preferential treatment; regular people do not get anything resembling neutral decision-making.