"Nowhere in your letter do you allege that we have violated any law or regulation, nor can you."Editors' note: Although executives of West Publishing Co. declined to be interviewed in depth for these articles, the company issued a 6,000-word letter on Feb. 22 in response to written questions prepared by the Star Tribune. While West's responses are reflected in the articles, we wanted to make these fuller excerpts available to our readers.-- West Publishing, in response to written questions prepared by the Star Tribune.
On West as an employer |
Today, we employ
over 4,500 people in Minnesota alone. . . We have never laid off
employees, and continue to
provide a strong benefits package . . . In fact, in a Nov. 28, 1994, article the
Star Tribune noted that West
"has a reputation of talking care of its employees in ways that today are
regarded as exceptional for a large
corporation." . . .
We began recycling in 1906 and today we are a leader in environmental programs and in using environmentally sound technology. We are a good corporate citizen. We have donated over $10 million worth of facilities to Ramsey County, provided over $1 million in support for the development of the Southwest YMCA, provided ongoing financial support for the arts, and given major support for the United Way.
|
|---|---|
On competition in legal publishing |
. . .(I)n 1922,
there were some 65 competing publishers of case reports providing
at least 190 case law
sources. At the end of 1994, there were over 170 competing providers providing
over 700 different sources of
case law. Now, in early 1995, the number of competing case law providers exceeds
190 entities producing over
750 case law sources. This amounts to increases of about 300 percent in each
category over just the past two
years.
The industry is not only attracting more competitors, it is attracting multibillion-dollar, multinational conglomerates headquartered in foreign countries. Reed Elsevier, an Anglo-Dutch company with 1993 sales in excess of $4.1 billion, acquired Lexis Nexis, a major competitor of ours, in 1994 for $1.5 billion. Thomson Corporation, a Toronto-based, Anglo-Canadian company controlled by Lord Thompson, with worldwide sales in 1993 in excess of $5.8 billion, has acquired various legal publishing companies to the tune of $1.3 billion in the last decade. These vast, worldwide conglomerates dwarf American-owned West in size.
|
On the Star Tribune's inquiries |
Your letter
purports to pose several "questions." In fact, a fairer
characterization of the "questions" is
that each is an attempt to artfully link truths, half-truths and innuendos to
concoct circumstances in which
perfectly legal activities "might appear improper." The level to which you have
stooped in an attempt to
discredit us is perhaps best demonstrated by your question which asks whether we
"recognize. . . that the
provision of those benefits might nonetheless make opponents feel uneasy?"
Apparently, in the Star Tribune's
odd view, litigants are to act in ways that take into account the "feelings" of
their opponents. This strikes
us as a completely unrealistic standard. We question whether the Star Tribune
directs its litigation counsel
to bear in mind the "feelings" for its opponents, such as unease by Star Tribune
litigation opponents that
the Star Tribune may be a news source providing a supposedly impartial report on
the litigation. We suspect
not.
As you well know, the laws and regulations regarding activities with public officials and political contributions are in continuous process of change. We have assiduously attempted to follow such changes and abide by them. Nowhere in your letter do you allege that we have violated any law or regulation, nor can you.
|
On the Devitt Award |
The recipients
of the Devitt Award have been judges who have consistently
distinguished themselves. . . each
recipient has been a "judge's judge."
Our sponsorship of and involvement in the Devitt Award have been fully open and public from the outset. Nominations can be made by anyone, and the recipient is selected by an independent panel comprised of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge and a U.S. District Court Judge. . . Our role in the Devitt Award is simply as follows: First, we make the Award available (i.e. we established the Award, underwrite the cost of the obelisk and cash component of the Award). Second, we provide or pay for printing and mailing the correspondence soliciting nominations and announcing the recipient, the program for the presentation ceremony and the post-ceremony brochure which contains the remarks of the presenters and recipient. Third, we arrange for and pay the expenses associated with the selection panel's meeting to review the nominations and select a recipient. While we host the selection panel's meeting, neither West nor our executives are involved in the selection process itself. Fourth, we maintain a post office box where the nominations are sent and we collect and present the nominations to the selection panel. Our role is thus that of sponsor and organizer of the Devitt Award. The Devitt Award itself and our involvement in the Award comply with all applicable laws, regulations and codes of professional conduct and responsibility. . . . . .(M)any organizations sponsor awards which are given to members of the judiciary for particularly distinguished service. It is simple-minded to suggest that there is something improper about such awards per se (as your questions imply) and equally simple-minded to conclude that any judge worthy of such an award would in any way allow it to affect his or her judgment in a particular case or matter.
|
On relations with judges |
Our relations
with members of the federal judiciary in the Eighth Circuit are
entirely proper, as are our
relations with all members of the federal judiciary. . . There was and is nothing
improper in our providing
complimentary tickets to a golf tournament to a judge or in the fact that the son
of a judge is employed by
us.
With respect to the first issue, you are apparently referring to the 1992 U.S. Open. We did have a corporate tent at the U.S. Open, so did the Star Tribune. So did some 45 other local and national companies. We viewed our involvement as an opportunity to be a good corporate citizen and to promote our company. We suspect every corporate sponsor -- the Star Tribune included -- viewed it the same way. Perhaps you would care to share your invitation list so that others can determine whether anything "might appear improper."
|
On cases heard in Minnesota |
Where a case
is to be heard is strictly governed by the venues statutes contained
in the United States Code.
These laws specify where a case may be properly venued and under what
circumstances a party may seek to have
a case transferred to another judicial district. The statutes identify objective
criteria, such as
convenience to witnesses, location of evidence, and relative burden of the
current location to the parties,
which must be weighed by the court in the district where the case was initially
filed before a case may be
transferred to another venue.
On occasion, we have made motions to transfer litigation out of a venue which we feel improper under the venue rules. Similarly, in other cases we have not made such motions when we felt that a case was appropriately venued. . . .
|
Court personnel |
We
have been, and continue to be, involved in programs regarding legal matters
for the benefit of lawyers,
legal writers, the judiciary, court personnel, law librarians, law students and
others associated with the
law. We sponsor speakers, scholarships, receptions, art exhibits, events,
conferences and awards. We do so to
educate people about our company and our products and about legal issues, to
promote the legal profession,
and to honor excellence. Your suggestion that we engage in activities which are
not of a kind provided by our
competitors is simply not true. Our competitors have similar programs for their
own purposes . . .
An example of another organization which receives funds from legal publishers is the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), which West helped to establish. NCSC received approximately 5% of its 1993 operating revenue from private sources. NCSC, which has a Board of Directors consisting principally of state and local judges, identified 90 corporate and foundation contributors (not including law firms) in its 1993 Annual Report. Among them are numerous companies which are or have been litigants or contractors with the courts, including Compaq Computer Corp., Dow Chemical Co., Electronic Data Systems Corp., Exxon and IBM, to name only a few. Organizations affiliated with publishing are also included in the list. In addition to us, contributors include the McGraw-Hill Foundation, Mead Data Central, Inc., The Michie Company, the Oakleigh L. Thorne Foundation and Time Warner, Inc.
|
Political action |
As you note,
our personnel and PAC, and the personnel and PAC of our main outside
counsel, have been active
politically, including making substantial contributions to political parties and
campaigns. This is their
right as American citizens. We note that you allege no illegalities or
improprieties in this regard. Rather,
your concern seems to be with the overall levels of political activity. However,
within the strictures of the
law, the level of political activity is for each citizen to decide. It appears
that you believe the laws
regarding these matters should be changed. If so, the proper thing for you to do
is to seek to change these
laws rather than criticize those who carefully comply with existing law.
Turning to the specifics you have raised, once again the Star Tribune is digging up the same old tired story about campaign contributions by the Oppermans. Yes, the Oppermans give to political candidates. We also operate a PAC that has existed since 1987, and our main outside counsel, the Schatz Paquin Lockridge Grindal & Holstein law firm, has a PAC that has contributed to political candidates and causes. All of these contributions are made in full compliance with Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regulations and are a matter of public record. Under existing law, all Americans have open access to information regarding contributions to political candidates. Your ability to locate information regarding campaign contributions is proof that our system of disclosing contributions works well. While our PAC has supported candidates whose positions on issues enhance our ability to grow, generate jobs and pay taxes, we expect all public officials to act only in what they believe to be are the best interest of all Americans. It is no surprise that contributions by our PAC, employees and representatives have increased in the last several years. Overall contributions by individuals and PACs have also risen steadily. Your apparent conclusion that campaign contributions have increased because we have issues "before Congress, the administration and the judiciary" is just plain wrong. Our PAC, employees and counsel all have long histories of being active in the political process. It is inaccurate to tie their donations over the past 20 years to any specific issue or legislation pending before a government body. Your inference that such donations have been made as one collective effort is also totally untrue . . . Advances in technology at West have highlighted the importance of sound telecommunications policy. By actively engaging in telecommunication policy discussions, we find ourselves working with corporations that direct some of the largest PACs in the country. For example, AT&T has given over $5 million to federal candidates in the last four years alone. In addition, US West has given almost $1.4 million and Ameritech nearly $1.9 million. These enormous amounts of money dwarf our West PAC efforts. Spending by telecommunication company PACs alone is almost 25 times more than that of the West PAC. Yes, we have a presence, but your effort to paint our PAC as a major corporate PAC is wholly inaccurate and irresponsible. In Minnesota, there are approximately 25 corporate PACs registered with the FEC. If you review the ten most prominent corporate PACs, ours ranks as the fifth largest PAC in the Minnesota corporate community. This "top ten" group of Minnesota business PACs has contributed $5,680,568 to candidates for federal office since 1987. During that period, the fifth place West PAC contributed $475,448. The West PAC share of that total thus amounts to only eight percent. The West PAC eight percent share drops considerably when you include all 25 corporate PACS.
|
Lobbying activities |
In addition to PAC
contributions, other legal publishers have retained some of
the most expensive and high
profile lobbyists in Washington D.C. Patton, Boggs & Blow, Piper & Marbury, and
Andrews and Associates have
represented two of our major competitors, foreign conglomerates Reed Elsevier and
Thomson Corporation. Thomas
Boggs, a federal lobbyist for Thomson Corporation, has personally contributed in
excess of $150,000 to
candidates for federal office. We also have a fine example in Minnesota, where
the lobbying team at Faegre &
Benson represents Cowles Media and as noted above, has been local counsel to Mead
Data Central. The Faegre &
Benson lobbying team has contributed over $100,000 to candidates for federal
office in personal and PAC
contributions.
It is perplexing to us that you continue to raise the issue of campaign contributions when it is clear that our competitors, their outside counsel and lobbyists, and the board of directors of Cowles Media are politically active and extremely well connected. Is it fair to criticize our motives when we follow the same campaign finance laws and operate under the same rules as our competitors, your board of directors, and your outside counsel and lobbyists? |
All Rights Reserved.
Contact rights@monitor.net for permission to reproduce.