• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP eases lead paint laws after $750,000 in donations

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,329
Reaction score
82,720
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GOP eases lead paint laws after $750,000 in donations


September 14, 2016

Madison — Gov. Scott Walker and the GOP-controlled Legislature approved a measure aimed at retroactively shielding paint makers from liability after a billionaire owner of a lead producer contributed $750,000 to a political group that provided crucial support to Walker and Republicans in recall elections, according to a report released Wednesday.
Click to expand...

Something smells in Wisconsin and it isn't the cheese.
 
I suspect they would still have federal laws and courts to contend with.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'm a bit confused. It says the donor owned a company that made lead, but never mentioned that his company made paint.
Click to expand...

Its a pattern from the John Doe investigations up there. Flowers are red, communists are red, therefore Scott Walker is a potato. The connections don't really matter as long as they reach the same conclusion.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'm a bit confused. It says the donor owned a company that made lead, but never mentioned that his company made paint.
Click to expand...
The donor's company - NL Industries (National Lead Industries) - owned Dutch Boy Paints until 1980 when it was sold to Sherwin-Williams. Both companies were held liable ($1 billion in damages) in a 2014 California lead-paint lawsuit.

The donor obviously didn't want a similar damages-award in Wisconsin ... so he cuts a $750,000 check to a Walker re-election org and is granted legislative retroactive immunity.
 
Simpleχity;1066318345 said:
GOP eases lead paint laws after $750,000 in donations


Something smells in Wisconsin and it isn't the cheese.
Click to expand...

Up North oil based paints have had stricter limits on chemicals applied, and it is becoming more strict as time passes.
Lead based house paints were prohibited years ago.

From 2011
Lead Paint - Canadian Paint and Coatings Association

Lead in gasoline was phased out in the 90's

Still permitted on children's toy, but iMHO should be prohibited as well.

Industry Guide to Health Canada's Safety Requirements for Children's Toys and Related Products [2012]
Surface Coating Materials Regulations

The Surface Coating Materials Regulations under the CCPSA limit total lead to not more than 90 mg/kg and total mercury to not more than 10 mg/kg in surface coating materials. These limits aim to effectively prohibit the intentional addition of lead and mercury in surface coating materials, and serve to help protect children from toxicity associated with lead and mercury exposure. The Surface Coating Materials Regulations apply to a variety of surface coating materials of all forms (for example, liquid, aerosol, dried pellets, gel, wax and powder), including those for use by children for the purposes of arts, crafts, hobbies, etc.
Click to expand...

Interesting article
Reformulating Lead-Based Paint as a Problem in Canada
 
Simpleχity;1066318788 said:
The donor's company - NL Industries (National Lead Industries) - owned Dutch Boy Paints until 1980 when it was sold to Sherwin-Williams. Both companies were held liable ($1 billion in damages) in a 2014 California lead-paint lawsuit.

The donor obviously didn't want a similar damages-award in Wisconsin ... so he cuts a $750,000 check to a Walker re-election org and is granted legislative retroactive immunity.
Click to expand...

Ok, that helps. So let's see if I get this. A company that processes lead used to own a company that used lead in paint, then apparently a legal product. At some point after the law was changed banning lead in paint for consumer use, said company sold off the subsidiary. I'm obviously not familiar with the case, but when a company is sold off, both the assets and the liabilities go with them, no?
 
Oh the horror!

Chill out .........lead paint has been banned for 38-39 years in residential and public housing.

click-bait
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Ok, that helps. So let's see if I get this. A company that processes lead used to own a company that used lead in paint, then apparently a legal product. At some point after the law was changed banning lead in paint for consumer use, said company sold off the subsidiary. I'm obviously not familiar with the case, but when a company is sold off, both the assets and the liabilities go with them, no?
Click to expand...

Not always. Sales can be conditional where the potential liabilities stay with the previous owner. The plant I used to work at had that occur. The ground contaminated the previous owner had the liability provided the current owner does not sell to a certain tye of business
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Not always. Sales can be conditional where the potential liabilities stay with the previous owner. The plant I used to work at had that occur. The ground contaminated the previous owner had the liability provided the current owner does not sell to a certain tye of business
Click to expand...


Happens all the time. The top votes themselves a bonus for not having made things worse. They collect. Sell the company for less than it's break-up value. The broke-up company doesn't even have to declare bankruptcy, though depending on the deal, that could happen. The acquired company just becomes another blah, blah, blah of the main company whom can do with which they please. They already made their money.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Oh the horror!

Chill out .........lead paint has been banned for 38-39 years in residential and public housing.

click-bait
Click to expand...

And even better when libs can go after a favorite target....Scott Walker....Amazing how they are screaming about this but want you to move along when it comes to the Clinton foundation eh?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Not always. Sales can be conditional where the potential liabilities stay with the previous owner. The plant I used to work at had that occur. The ground contaminated the previous owner had the liability provided the current owner does not sell to a certain tye of business
Click to expand...

So we should find out this information and consider it a major factor in our evaluation of this situation.
 
It's really not that difficult.

NL Industries (the previous owner of Dutch Boy Paints) was held jointly liable ($1 billion award) with Sherwin-Williams in a California lead-paint lawsuit.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Ok, that helps. So let's see if I get this. A company that processes lead used to own a company that used lead in paint, then apparently a legal product. At some point after the law was changed banning lead in paint for consumer use, said company sold off the subsidiary. I'm obviously not familiar with the case, but when a company is sold off, both the assets and the liabilities go with them, no?;
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily.

It depends on the legal agreement, but generally the purchasing company will not want the previous liability. Why would they?

But the OP has already stated both companies were found liable in California.

It seems this corporation decided that rather than defend themselves or live-up to their liability, they found it easier and cheaper to buy-off the WI legislature!
 
Chomsky said:
No, not necessarily.

It depends on the legal agreement, but generally the purchasing company will not want the previous liability. Why would they?

But the OP has already stated both companies were found liable in California.

It seems this corporation decided that rather than defend themselves or live-up to their liability, they found it easier and cheaper to buy-off the WI legislature!
Click to expand...

In this case, you really don't know who retained the liabilities, so you are just reacting emotionally to the headline.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
In this case, you really don't know who retained the liabilities, so you are just reacting emotionally to the headline.
Click to expand...
In the California lawsuit, NL Industries and Sherwin-Williams were held to be jointly and severally liable.

This ruling set a precedent for future lead-paint tort lawsuits where Dutch Boy Paints was a defendant.

To get around this legal precedent, NL contributed $750,000 to a Walker reelection organization. In return, the WI GOP legislatures granted NL Industries immunity from such tort lawsuits.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
In this case, you really don't know who retained the liabilities, so you are just reacting emotionally to the headline.
Click to expand...
No, it would seem you are having an (erroneous) emotional reaction and a lack of understanding.

NL Industries has been found liable in other states - specifically in California to the tune of $1.2B, which I cited in my earlier response to your question.

NL's billionaire owner, Harold Simmons, subsequently bought-off the GOP Wisconsin legislature in an attempt to indemnify themselves against further liability, which is why the Governor and legislators are under investigation with persecutors attempting to build a case against them.

You seem to be lacking in understanding in this matter, starting with your initial question, and unwilling to accept the facts when presented.
 
Chomsky said:
No, it would seem you are having an (erroneous) emotional reaction and a lack of understanding.

NL Industries has been found liable in other states - specifically in California to the tune of $1.2B, which I cited in my earlier response to your question.

NL's billionaire owner, Harold Simmons, subsequently bought-off the GOP Wisconsin legislature in an attempt to indemnify themselves against further liability, which is why the Governor and legislators are under investigation with persecutors attempting to build a case against them.

You seem to be lacking in understanding in this matter, starting with your initial question, and unwilling to accept the facts when presented.
Click to expand...

You are conveniently mixing up the two issues. There is the retention of liability which is negotiated as part of the sale or spin-off, and then there are actions attributable to the parent company regardless of the financial liability. I was addressing the first aspect of retaining financial liability and neither of us know the answer to that. The fact that California found that NL Industries contributed to a public nuisance was their own liability--financial liability doesn't surpass lawbreaking.

The judgment was for $1.1B which was divided at some rate between NL Industries, Sherwin-Williams, and ConAgra Grocery Products. The OP has been factual which is appreciated. He got a few things wrong ($1.0B vs 1.1B and the number of companies), but minor details.

One thing is clear, Mr. Simmons won't be testifying for either side and quite frankly, what he did seems perfectly legal and that is upsetting to you. I'm upset that government officials can so easily be bought off.

You don't make a good case for my lack of understanding.

In the article posted, you will read that there is no current investigation into the donations, but newspapers, as is their function, is publicizing what it sees as a possible quid-pro-quo.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You are conveniently mixing up the two issues. There is the retention of liability which is negotiated as part of the sale or spin-off, and then there are actions attributable to the parent company regardless of the financial liability. I was addressing the first aspect of retaining financial liability and neither of us know the answer to that. The fact that California found that NL Industries contributed to a public nuisance was their own liability--financial liability doesn't surpass lawbreaking.
Click to expand...
Fair enough here, and thank you for your response.

I see the legal distinction you're drawing here, but that doesn't negate the larger picture - that being over-all liability. That is what NL is attempting to avoid in WI. It is why they've (apparently) bought-off the legislature. But your technical distinction is fair enough, I suppose.

The judgment was for $1.1B which was divided at some rate between NL Industries, Sherwin-Williams, and ConAgra Grocery Products. The OP has been factual which is appreciated. He got a few things wrong ($1.0B vs 1.1B and the number of companies), but minor details.
Click to expand...
Yes - the above appears accurate as well, and it does indeed appear you have a grasp of the facts as I understand them.

I retract my "lacking in understanding" statement. It was inappropriate.

One thing is clear, Mr. Simmons won't be testifying for either side and quite frankly, what he did seems perfectly legal and that is upsetting to you. I'm upset that government officials can so easily be bought off.

You don't make a good case for my lack of understanding.

In the article posted, you will read that there is no current investigation into the donations, but newspapers, as is their function, is publicizing what it sees as a possible quid-pro-quo.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of the above is the problem, and with the WI Supreme Court weighing-in it would seem this may indeed be left legal.

But legal doesn't necessarily make it right in the eyes of many, and it would seem this might be best exemplified by half the country willing to vote for Trump (for better, or worse), in large part due to rebelling against shenanigans of this nature throughout our political and governance systems. So it seems this WI incident is emblematic of what the country's body politic is collectively attempting to resolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom