Yesterday, the Washington Post endorsed Brian Frosh for Attorney General of Maryland. Among his opponents' weaknesses, according to the Post, is that he "wants to promote arbitration as an alternative to consumers suing businesses."
On the other side of the issue, a congressional candidate in Virginia (running for an open seat in the D.C. suburb of Alexandria) has touted his opposition to forced arbitration, including removing such clauses from both the employment and consumer contracts used by his own car dealership business.
Will be interesting to see if campaign stands like these translate into interest in legislative action on the issue.
(HT Paul Levy and Christine Hines)
[Correction: an earlier version of this post mischaracterized the Post as attributing the pro-arbitration stance to Frosh, rather than to his opponent. Kudos to alert reader Gregory Gauthier for flagging the error.]
0 thoughts on “Forced arbitration as a campaign issue”
I am disgusted with the “progressive” mishandling of “forced arbitration”.
My wife’s IRA is with Chas. Schwab (who was at one time a discount broker
from San Francisco). We are obligated to compulsory arbitration so that
Schwab can protect themselves. I have no problem with Schwab needing protection. But we are obligated as individuals to HIS choice of arbitrator. It’s corporatism vs. private citizens. Who is looking out for
our private welfare — NOBODY, certainly not Schwab? In modern times David
and Goliath are constantly switching positions with the little guy eventuating the position of David. This is a joke on us. The original idea
of “marketplace” was a neutral place that buyers and sellers could meet on
equal footing. What a mirage that has become.