CPSIA – Jan Schakowsky’s Expert Opinion

790 days have passed since ANY Democrat in Congress did ANYTHING to help us on the CPSIA. There are only 20 days left until Election Day.

I guess I’m famous now. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL9) is talking about me to the Wall Street Journal:

“Ms. Schakowsky said Mr. Woldenberg’s success as a fundraiser, is proof that ‘very cynical … special interests are highly engaged in the [Ninth District] campaign.’“

It seems strange that Ms. Schakowsky is so certain that I am an official Special Interest, a cynical one at that. When I ran into her at the BJBE candidate forum on Monday night, she asked me who I was. I was just a touch insulted, since as a cynical Special Interest, I would have expected her to know who I am. After all, she did tell Elizabeth Williamson of the WSJ that I was attempting to cynically influence the election in her district. This is what cynical Special Interests do, apparently.

What sneaky business am I up to? I want to amend the CPSIA. Ms. Schakowsky does not want to change her seminal law. That makes me a Special Interest. In other words, I disagree with her. And I thought my “special interest” was educating kids. Apparently not.

I never met a Special Interest before but now I know what one looks like. Here’s a picture of a Special Interest:

What makes Ms. Schakowsky such an expert on Special Interests, anyhow? Well, it turns out she has experience. For instance, Crain’s Chicago Business recently pointed out the “highly unusual intervention” by Ms. Schakowsky to stop foreclosure procedures against a “group” of borrowers in her district. What a caring, generous act, always looking out for her constituents! Here’s Ms. Schakowsky both explaining and congratulating herself:

“In an interview, Ms. Schakowsky says she was concerned that Devon Avenue ‘essentially would go dark. . . . If there are communities that are (in danger of being) decimated, I assure you that any member of Congress would do everything they could to deal with the devastation of foreclosures. I feel very proud of this,’ she says, adding that Mr. Singh’s contributions had nothing to do with her decision to help. ‘It was clear to me there was a widespread problem,‘ she says.” [Emphasis added]

What a swell Congressman!

Ummm, some of the borrowers were donors to Ms. Schakowsky and her Democratic cronies. Is it okay for the Congressman to do this? Should she be “proud” of her magnanimous act? Republican challenger Joel Pollak filed an updated House Ethics Complaint against Ms. Schakowsky providing following details:

• “While initial reports suggested that Schakowsky had helped about 20 businesses in the local South Asian-American community, court documents show that 19 of the 24 loans (80%) in foreclosure . . . were held by just three individuals: Mr. Amrit Patel (12, including 3 held jointly), Mr. Balvinder Singh (5), and Ms. Shahira Khan (4, including 2 held with Patel). One of the remaining 5 loans is held by Mr. Haresh Patel, who is apparently Mr. Amrit Patel’s son.”
• “Court documents indicate that only 3 of the 24 affected properties are actually located on Devon Avenue. Only 4 are actually in the neighborhood. Except for those few, and for a small cluster of multi-unit properties further north near the intersection of Touhy Avenue and Clark Street, most are well outside the area, including properties as far away as Calumet City, Itasca, Barrington, and Sauk Village, IL.”
• “Some of the key individuals who benefited from Schakowsky’s actions have close political ties to her and her allies. Mr. Singh contributed $500 to Schakowsky in 2004 and $2000 in 2006. He has also given thousands of dollars to other federal, state, and local Democratic candidates. Mr. Patel contributed $1000 to Ms. Schakowsky in 2002, and raised $50,000 for former governor (and convicted felon) Rod Blagojevich (D) in 2006. He also paid $34,000 to Mr. Blagojevich’s wife in real estate consulting fees; similar transactions were probed by prosecutors during Mr. Blagojevich’s recent corruption trial. . . . In addition, Mr. Patel’s lawyer is Democratic state senator Ira Silverstein, whom Schakowsky backed successfully in 2008 for the position of 50th Ward Democratic Committeeman.”

Cozy! Does that sound like a Special Interests story to you? If it does, perhaps Ms. Schakowsky IS an expert on such things . . . .

[Btw, I am Joel Pollak's Finance Chair. On the occasion of the WSJ profiling me in that role, Ms. Schakowsky labeled me as a Special Interest.]

Still wondering about her authority on the topic of Special Interests? According to FEC records, Ms. Schakowsky seems to hang out with Special Interests by the basketful. How many Labor Unions, lobbyists and trial lawyers does it take to be tainted by Special Interests? Or are Special Interests just small educational toy companies which complain about laws that Schakowsky defends???

Let’s see who gave money to Rep. Schakowsky through June 30:

PACs:

Union PACs:

• AFL-CIO COPE PAC
• Air-line Pilots Association PAC
• Amalgamated Transit Union PAC
• Am. Fed of Govt Employees PAC
• Am. Fed. Of State, County and Municipal Employees PAC
• Am. Fed. Of Teachers (AFL-CIO) PAC
• Am. Postal Workers Union PAC
• United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners PAC
• Letter Carriers Political Action Fund
• Intl Brotherhood of Teamsters DRIVE PAC
• Intl Union of Operating Engineers
• Intl Assn of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Ironworkers PAC
• Intl Assn of Firefighters PAC
• Intl Assn of Machinists and Aerospace Workers PAC
• Intl Brotherhood of Boilermakers Campaign Assistance Fund
• Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC
• Laborers International Union of North America PAC
• Natl Air Traffic Controllers PAC
• Natl Assn of Social Workers PAC
• SEIU COPE
• Transport Workers Union PAC
• United Auto Workers PAC
• UniteHere (Garment and Textile Workers) PAC
• United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union PAC
• United Pilots PAC
• United Transportation Union PAC

Medical Interest Group PACs –

• Am. Academy of Family Physicians PAC
• Am. Academy of Neurology Prof. Assn BrainPAC
• Am. Academy of Phys. Assts PAC
• Am. Assn of Nurse Anesthestists CRNA-PAC
• Am. Assn of Orthospaedic Surgeons PAC
• Am. College of Radiology Assn PAC
• Am. College of Surgeons PAC
• Am. Congress of Oby-Gyn PAC
• Am. Hospital Assn PAC
• Am. Nurses Assn PAC
• Am. Occupational Therapists Assn PAC
• Am. Optometric Assn PAC
• Am. Podiatric Medical Assn PAC
• Blue Cross Blue Shield PAC
• Natl Community Pharmacists Assn PAC
• Natl Emergency Medicine PAC

Corporate PACs -

• CME Group PAC
• Coca-Cola Enterprises PAC
• Credit Union PAC
• Emergent Biosolutions PAC
• Entertainment Software Association PAC
• Ford Motor Civic Action PAC
• General Electric PAC
• Illinois Central Rail Co. PAC
• Harris N.A. PAC
• Hospira Inc. PAC
• Kellogg Company PAC
• Kraft Foods PAC
• Lockheed-Martin PAC
• Microsoft Corporation PAC
• Natl Assn of Chain Drug Stores PAC
• Natl Assn of Realtors PAC
• Natl Beer Wholesalers Assn PAC
• Natl Cable and Telecom Assn PAC
• Northern Trust Corporation PAC
• Raytheon Company PAC
• UPS PAC
• Walgreen Co. PAC

Trial Lawyer PACs–

• American Association for Justice (formerly the Assn of Trial Lawyers of America) PAC

Law Firm PACs

• Drinker Biddle
• Dykema Gossett
• Hogan Lovells
• Holland & Knight
• McGuireWoods
• Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough (former firm of Inez Tenenbaum’s Chief of Staff Matt Howsare and CPSC Executive Director Kenneth Hinson)
• SNR Denton US LLP
• Venable LLP (VEN-PAC)

Others –

• J Street PAC
• Medical Marijuana PAC

Individuals:

Lobbyists –

• Michael Bauer (community organizer/lobbyist)
• Jonathan Cuneo
• Andrew Fields
• Ken Inouye
• Charles LaDuca
• Andrew Quinn
• Ed Rothschild (Podesta Group)
• Larry Suffredin See also this link.
• Susan White (health insurance lobbyist)

CPSC-related -

• Pamela Gilbert (former Exec. Dir. of CPSC under Ann Brown; partner in Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca law firm and lobbying firm; member of Obama Transition team – with now Commissioner Bob Adler – responsible for the CPSC)

Plaintiff/Trial Lawyers –

• Patricia Bobb
• Thomas Clancy
• Robert Clifford
• Kevin Conway
• Philip Corboy, Jr.
• Anne Megan Davis
• Jay Paul Deratany
• Linda Friedman See also this link.
• Andrew Greene
• Keith Heibeisen
• Penny Nathan Kahan
• Thomas Keefe See this link, too.
• Clint Krislov
• Jerry Latherow
• Joseph Power
• Thomas Prindable See this link, too.
• Larry Rogers
• Antonio Romanucci
• Mary Stowell [She gave a mere $98,525 in 2008 campaign donations, and recently felt it was her "duty" to file a complaint with the FEC about Republican Bob Dold's June 30 campaign disclosure for the missing cost of a bus (bill not received).]
• Candace Wayne

Other Notable Lawyers:

• Patricia Curtner (bond lawyer)
• Lynn Cutler (government affairs lawyer)
• Elizabeth Gracie (real estate tax lawyer) See also her 2008 campaign contributions.
• Gail Morse (state tax specialist)

Large Contributors to Dem Causes –

• Lucy Ascoli
• Prudence Beidler
• Pam Crutchfield
• Grace Allen Newton
• Bettylu Salzman
• Susan White
• Lois Zoller

Others –

• Gila Bronner (prominent government contractor)
• Anna Giannoulias (mother of Democratic Senatorial candidate Alexi Giannoulias and family owners of well-known failed bank)
• Laura Ricketts (part-owner of the Chicago Cubs)
• Sheli Rosenberg (executive in various Sam Zell entities)
• Howard Trienens (longtime Chairman of Board of Trustees of Northwestern University)

This list gives me a whole new perspective on Schakowsky’s campaign slogan “A Fighter on Our Side”. Which side is that, precisely?

While I am sure Ms. Schakowsky meant “cynical . . . special interest” as a compliment, I hardly deserve to be in such august company as her campaign contributors. I am sure she really meant “Shoo, fly, shoo”.

On November 2nd, we’ll see who shoos. Don’t forget to VOTE!

Read more here:
CPSIA – Jan Schakowsky’s Expert Opinion

CPSIA – It’s Election Season – What are You Doing About it?

We have suffered through two years of savage persecution by an unmoved federal government seemingly bent on our destruction. Now this Democratic Congress is coming up for reelection. What are you going to do???

In my case, I am committed to put my money where my mouth is. I am not content with mere grumbling in a blog – I am getting involved in several races and intend to raise money for candidates who will support a sharp revision of the CPSIA and rein in the expansion of our lardy and intrusive federal government. The goal is to take away the House Energy and Commerce Committee gavel from the bullying and anti-business Henry Waxman. He has proven time and again that he and his staff don’t care about our problems nor are they interested in understanding how our problems will become everyone’s problems in due course. In casting our industry overboard for a misguided legislative scheme designed by consumer groups, he picked sides. Now we get to pick sides ourselves.

Last week, we were pleased to host Joel Pollak, Republican candidate in Illinois’ 9th Congressional district (www.pollakforcongress.com) at our company. We had a spirited Q&A session that left everyone impressed with Joel’s intellect and integrity. Joel is a breath of fresh air, especially in the 9th district, lately represented by Jan Schakowsky, Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. Ms. Schakowsky is one of the staunchest defenders of the CPSIA and through her actions, has declared herself an enemy of your companies and everything you do. We support Mr. Pollak in his effort to unseat her. More to the point, we are going to do everything in our power to help Mr. Pollak bring his issues to his constituents and put Ms. Schakowsky to the test.

You can do this, too. In your local district or statewide election, your energy and sense of purpose can be a difference-maker. Host a coffee, volunteer some time, ask the candidate to make an appearance. If you are able to raise funds for the campaign, all the better. If you are not happy with the direction of your country or your government, exercise your Constitutional rights and get involved.

We will never take the gavel away from Henry Waxman through worry, frustration or prayer. We are only going to help ourselves by working hard for candidates who understand our issues and will stand up for the free enterprise system. There is a lot at stake here – the future of your company, the jobs you provide your valued associates, the economic well-being of your customers and suppliers and their employees, not to mention the kids, the families and the schools who depend on your products and use them safely every day. All of those people are counting on you to defend them.

Don’t sit still – it’s time to act. The election is only about four months away. Election day could be a real triumph after years of dire straits and frustrations. There’s still time to fix the CPSC and this law – but we all must do our part. A new Congress is a good place to start.

I hope you will use this space with suggestions on how we can all help our chosen candidates. I will publish the best ideas in future blogposts as well as comments to individual blogs.

Read more here:
CPSIA – It’s Election Season – What are You Doing About it?

CPSIA – CPSIA Casualty of the Week for May 10

The Alliance for Children’s Product Safety’s “CPSIA Casualty of the Week” highlights how the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) is disrupting the U.S. marketplace in order to draw attention to the problems faced by small businesses, public institutions, consumers and others trying to comply with senseless and often contradictory provisions of the law. These provisions do nothing to improve product safety, but are driving small businesses out of the market.

Congress and the CPSC need to address the problems with CPSIA implementation to help small businesses by restoring “common sense” to our nation’s product safety laws.

CPSIA Casualty of the Week for May 10, 2010:

Beloved Minnesota store The Essence of Nonsense Closed by
the Essence of Nonsense (CPSIA)

Tom Fletcher and his business partner Barbara Anderson-Sannes opened The Essence of Nonsense toy store 14 years ago dedicated to selling unique, high-quality toys out of their St, Paul, Minnesota shop. Offering an array of the best handmade toys from small domestic toymakers and traditional European manufacturers, The Essence of Nonsense became an important retail destination in the local community.

After the CPSIA imposed new restrictions on the toy industry, Tom and Barbara found that their suppliers greatly reduced the range of products available. Even more disturbing, they also noticed that the quality of products was rapidly deteriorating. Rather than sell inferior quality products, they decided to close the store. This was no “victory” for safety – their store had never experienced a recall of any of its specialized products.

“CPSIA cut our choices in half,” says Tom Fletcher. “Some small companies stopped selling or disappeared and the bigger companies, realizing they were the only options, started to reduce quality to save money for themselves. So, we decided to close in large part because the quality of our product offering was changing and the choices were becoming so limited.”

“It’s not that we’re against the [CPSIA-imposed] testing,” Fletcher continued. “It’s just that we need a fair application across the board. Small businesses can’t afford to hire the necessary testers which puts them at a significant disadvantage and can even put them out of business.”

Tragically, the closing of The Essence of Nonsense is a cautionary tale about how the overly-restrictive burdens of the new product safety regime can destroy small businesses and imperil their unique products. On the back of a precautionary law, a wave of destruction is carrying away the life’s work of many small businesspeople.

“When you pick up a handmade toy,” Fletcher says, “you can feel the dedication and effort that went into making it. Someone really loved making that toy. If something isn’t done to protect small businesses, handmade toys will be gone soon. People will look back and say, ‘we had this when I was a kid and we don’t have it anymore.’”

Read more here:
CPSIA – CPSIA Casualty of the Week for May 10

CPSIA – Proposition 65 Provides Funding Mechanism for CEH Crusaders

Has the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) gone into the business of finding violations of law for profit? You gotta wonder.

This past week, CEH capped off a six-week investigation of 250 children’s items at the request of or in partnership with the CA Attorney General’s office, finding seven mildly offending items. As detailed in my blogpost last Wednesday, this rogue’s gallery of offenders include a pair of shoes (soles), sandals (insoles), a poncho, a small patch of material on a bicycle accessory and the like. The CA AG issued cease-and-desist orders on his own, cutting the CPSC out of the picture, and a media feeding frenzy ensued. Presumably to the delight of the CEH troublemakers, Oregon followed up with its own action. [To Oregon's credit, they indicate they would inform the CPSC of their concerns, not take a direct recall action like the CA AG.] Perhaps other States plan to follow the CA lead and jump down the retailers’ throats for these trivial defects.

How did this come to pass? It turns out that the starting point was a tip by CEH on another lead case, this one involving Mattel. As you know, Mattel was responsible for some major lead-in-paint recalls in 2007/8. These recalls were a result of a violation of longstanding federal law, and the authority for the recall was found in the CPSA (before its amendment by the CPSIA). [In other words, the new law was not required to force Mattel to recall these items.] It turns out that California’s Proposition 65, its notorious consumer-right-to-know law, was also violated by those recalls. The insidious Prop. 65 (explicitly exempted from preemption under the CPSIA by the powerful California Congressional delegation including Senators Boxer and Feinstein and Reps. Pelosi and Waxman) requires that products exceeding (in this case) its lead standard be labeled to “inform” the consumer. Prop. 65 lead standards now match the federal standards. By violating the federal standards, Mattel also violated the Prop. 65 label requirements, thus giving California the chance to extend its palm for penalties and other concessions.

In the first of many settlements relating to its recalls, Mattel and other companies settled
a Prop. 65 lawsuit and paid a collective $1.56 million in penalties and fees. [The CA AG extracted similar penalties from Target, TRU and KMart for lead violations earlier this month.] It turns out that this $550,000 penalty case stemmed from a rat out by CEH: “This agreement settles a lawsuit filed by the State of California and the LA City Attorney in November 2007, after receiving notices of violation from the Center for Environmental Health, As you Sow, and the Environmental Law Foundation.” Part of the money extracted ($550,000) was applied to a fund “to test toys for lead and improve outreach about future recalls.”

So how did Mattel’s misery pay off for CEH? The CA AG’s press release tells all: “In 2008, Brown’s office reached a settlement with several major toy companies over excessive levels of lead in their products. The settlement allocated $548,000 in funding for consumer safety groups to monitor lead levels in consumer goods and to provide outreach about product recalls. The Center for Environmental Health discovered the current violations with a grant from the Public Health Trust, which administers the settlement fund.”

So, here’s the game – CEH finds violations of the law, and then puts in for grants to find more violations, all funded by the violators. CEH is a not-for-profit – it is not a business, does not make or sell products or services for a profit and its officers and employees have no source of funding other than contributions . . . until now. Proposition 65 is their new funding source. Shaking down corporations under the auspices of Prop. 65 to provide funds for new hires, salaries, raises, perhaps even bonuses. Thus, the unholy alliance of plaintiff lawyers and consumer groups is made even more cozy. Consumer protection as a plaintiff lawyer’s dream. Job well done, CEH!

CEH and its ilk want you to believe that they are simply out there to protect your interests, which is the reason presented to explain their “passionate” search for “scofflaws”. But does that explanation hold water when the consumer group is essentially working on a commission for pay? Can you really be sure these violations are actually dangerous when it is clear that CEH must find them to pay its rent or keep its officers on the job? And what about the interests of the local politicians in this dynamic? Jerry Brown wants to be California’s governor – what are his incentives in this case, being egged on by the pay-by-the-violation consumer group?

Does anyone see the possibility of conflicts of interest here? What is that odor I smell?

Aside from the OUTRAGE of CEH taking money for its escapades, the entire Proposition 65 gambit seems to be a parallel safety law allowing a local politician to upstage and trump federal regulation, all the while shaking down companies with duplicative penalties for the same offense. Mattel, no particular object of sympathy in my book, was hit with Prop. 65 penalties (collectively with others, $1.56 million), a “consumer fraud” settlement with 38 states for $12 million, a CPSC fine of $2.3 million and a class action settlement said to be worth more than $50 million. Since Proposition 65 is exempted from preemption by our wise Congress, this liability bonanza will continue to plague the toy industry for a long time to come (forever?).

What is the consequences of the long term, relentless, pointless (from a social good standpoint) assault on our industry under Proposition 65? A poisoned well. What do you think will happen to small business vendors to retailers who have been hounded and hunted under this law? The ultimate in skittishness. It is just not possible to satisfy their hunger for safety mania. As an example, a large national retailer has been demanding that our company test every product for lead-in-paint . . . regardless of whether it has any paint on it. That can only make sense in a world where the consequences of violations are too horrible to contemplate.

Is a violation of this law really worse than mass murder? I think not. This week’s CEH violations are innocent and have not and will not harm anyone. They are minor manufacturing defects and can be corrected easily and inexpensively. By making each such trivial violation into a capital case, the cost of doing business skyrockets, profit incentive crashes and many players exit. We have already seen one offering memorandum for a customer of ours who can’t take it anymore. Most of the exits are quieter and harder to detect. See my post about Whimsical Walney. If we allow regulators to run roughshod over our industry this way, there won’t be anything left to protect. That would be terrible for all Americans. Sometimes you don’t know what you have until you lose it.

This is your country. Think about the corruption of fee-driven consumer groups and marauding State AGs who don’t answer to the CPSC. What are you going to do about it???

Read more here:
CPSIA – Proposition 65 Provides Funding Mechanism for CEH Crusaders

CPSIA – Too Much of a Good Thing? Nah!

The CPSC’s notorious Resale Roundup was greeted with more “acclaim” by Fox News this week. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Be sure to check out the article (“New Government Policy Imposes Strict Standards on Garage Sales Nationwide”), the slideshow (“Ridiculous Recalls?”) and the video . Each is worth your time. For those who are not familiar with this novel new program, the CPSC is fanning out to save you from “evil” resellers who might be foisting off recalled items on you. This includes spying on local garage sales, visiting your local resale shop and poking around on eBay and Craigslist.com. The CPSC has apparently given up on education and individual responsibility as a way to protect against harm – instead, they are redoubling their effort to be the Cop On The Beat, like it or not. In this case, they have chosen to make up a fake crisis, the resale of recalled items, to justify becoming an active protector of the public safety. To get the flavor of this article and the basic problem, here are a few quotes: 1. “The [strict CPSIA] standards were originally interpreted to apply only to new products, but now the CPSC says they apply to used items as well. ‘Those who resell recalled children’s products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children’s lives at risk,’ said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. ‘Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children.’” RW – Note that Ms. Tenenbaum justifies this massive incursion into people’s lives by the claim that recalled items “[put] children’s lives at risk”. While I concede SOME recalled items might in fact endanger children’s lives, please check out the slideshow for perspective on the mortal danger posed by many recalled items. Hmmm. A little hyperbole, perhaps? There are ways to deal with the limited problem of certain dangerous items circulating without resorting to the claim that there’s a Five Alarm Fire burning. 2. “CPSC spokesman Scott Wolfson says the fines are intended for large companies with serious infractions. ‘CPSC is an agency that has used its penalty powers over its 30-year history against companies,’ Wolfson told FOXNews.com. ‘CPSC is not seeking to pursue penalties against individuals hosting a garage sale or yard sale, we are encouraging them to take the right steps to not resell recalled products.’ But FOX News Legal Analyst Bob Massi says the law makes no distinction for families and small resellers. . . . Don Mays, senior director of product safety planning at the publisher of Consumer Reports, says the hefty penalties are necessary to have an impact. ‘The former civil penalty limit of $1.87 million was too small to be an effective deterrent to large companies who flagrantly violated the law,’ Mays told FOXNews.com. ‘Mattel and its subsidiary Fisher-Price, for example, recently paid a $2.3 million penalty for importing about 2 million toys that violated the CPSC 30-year-old lead paint ban — that amounts to just over one dollar per toy.’” RW – CPSC says they won’t hit you with big penalties, but the law permits it. The Fox video shows that people are afraid. It’s hard to trust a regulatory agency out looking for “bad guys” in your garage with a BIG stick and no checks, balances or controls on how it will use it. Yes, they claim to be all sweetness and light – but what happens if they change their minds? The consumer groups are all for hefty fines, as Mr. Mays confirms, and nowadays, they seem to be passing notes to Congress and to the CPSC. So, is it any surprise that many people are quite alarmed? Side note: Don’t worry, the CPSC says they won’t be coming into your home (yet): “Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the agency, said it wouldn’t be dispatching bureaucratic storm troopers into private homes to see whether people were selling recalled products from their garages, yards or churches. ‘We’re not looking to come across as being heavy-handed,’ he said. ‘We want to make sure that everybody knows what the rules of engagement are to help spur greater compliance, so that enforcement becomes less of an issue. But we’re still going to enforce.’” Aha. Personally, I feel SO much better now. 3. “‘It is scary to think that there could be such hefty fines imposed on unsuspecting households,’ another garage sale organizer, Patti Lombardi, told FOXNews.com. ‘I think I speak for many people when I say that the government spends too much time interfering in the individual citizen’s personal life and this is almost bordering on the ridiculous … what if it opens up a Pandora’s box of litigation brought by the purchasers of items at garage sales?’” RW – Ms. Lombardi hits the nail on the head for the business community. We all KNOW that litigation will follow in the wake of this law. There is a reason why the trial bar-supported consumer groups are all so gung-ho on this law. Everything’s illegal now (check out your reporting requirements under Section 15(b) of the CPSIA – you have a generous 24 hours to report ANY violation of ANY term of ANY law, regulation or rule enforced by the CPSC (they don’t even publish a list, btw) – super!). Litigation by public attorney generals, State attorney generals and the Feds is expected by everyone. Given that it is inevitable that everyone will have violated something, and with the imputed knowledge standard of the CPSIA, probably deemed to have done so “intentionally”, the choice of when and who to sue will favor the government rather substantially. The law was written to terrorize – and mission accomplished, it has. 4. “‘If I’ve got a wirebound notebook, the lead content in that wire binding is now under scrutiny, even though the chance of ingesting lead in any amount from something like that is virtually non-existent, [TimetoPlayMag.com content director Chris Byrne] said. ‘It’s a level of political grandstanding to say ‘we’re taking care of everything,’ but the science clearly demonstrates that the transference is not really possible — I mean, a child who eats the wire binding from a notebook is going to have significantly worse health problems than lead.’” Perhaps you get the idea. I wonder if the CPSC and Congress will EVER get the idea.

More:
CPSIA – Too Much of a Good Thing? Nah!