Molly Ivins March 1

AUSTIN — Some you win, some you lose, and some are too weird to call ...

The First Amendment got a nice little boost from the Amarillo jury in the Oprah Winfrey/veggie libel case. True, the test of the constitutionality of veggie libel was dodged when Judge Mary Lou Robinson threw out the count and let the case proceed as a basic business defamation case. Still, the jury got the point. Juror Pat Gowdy said: "We felt that a lot of rights have eroded in this country. Our freedom of speech may be the only one we have left to regain what we've lost." Now, that's a man who gets it.

The cattlemen stoutly claimed that at least their case proved that American beef is safe. I think even that boomeranged.

Lots of people never watch Winfrey and had never heard of cow cannibalism before this trial. That's the practice of feeding ground-up dead sheep and "downer cows" (that means dead, too) to other cows as part of their feed. Experts now agree that this practice caused a cousin of "mad cow" disease among humans in England. The FDA outlawed the practice in this country last summer, but some industry critics believe the new regs are full of loopholes. If they speak up, will they be sued, too?

Howard Lyman of the Humane Society of the United States, who was sued along with Winfrey, said after the trial that veggie libel laws, now in effect in 13 states, unquestionably chill discussion about the practices and products of food-producing industries — "practices and products that may cause harm to American consumers." In fact, the veggie libel statutes are just a specialized version of the SLAPP suits used by corporations to silence their critics.

SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuits against public participation," a legal tactic increasingly common since the early '70s that consists of suing people for speaking up — for using their First Amendment rights. It's not so much that environmental activists and food safety activists and watchdog groups of all sorts ever lose these cases — it's just that it costs them so much in legal fees to get sued that they are effectively silenced ever after.

Winfrey, bless her, is rich enough to fight this nonsense all the way to the Supreme Court. But, for example, a group of concerned working-class moms who live near a factory that emits high levels of lead and who are sending out photocopied letters of concern to their neighbors — these are not people who can afford hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills.

The goal of SLAPP suits is to embroil the defendants in prolonged and expensive legal proceedings almost certain to exhaust them, both financially and psychologically.

Two thirds of these cases are dismissed before trial, and of the few decided in favor of the plaintiffs, most are reversed or dismissed on appeal, according to a study done by University of Denver professors. The even better news is that activists have lately started to SLAPP back, filing countersuits against the corporations trying to silence them.

The news is not so good on the campaign-finance reform front. The McCain-Feingold bill got up to 54 votes in the Senate — a majority, but not enough to shut off the Republican filibuster. As The New York Times acidly noted, political fund-raising proceeded apace all during the debate, and after they killed the bill, the senators and lobbyists all charged away for another round of fund-raisers. Trent Lott, the majority leader who killed the bill, trotted off to a $1,000-a-head fund-raiser for Russell Feingold's opponent in this year's election.

Both Feingold and his opponent have agreed to limit their spending to $1 per voter, to raise no more than 10 percent of their money from political action committees, and to take in at least 75 percent of their individual donations from Wisconsin residents. Can you imagine Phil Gramm doing that?

At the risk of being called before one of Ken Starr's grand juries, I would like to point out that I, too, have severely criticized the special prosecutor's conduct. In fact, I have publicly referred to him as "bonkers," called his treatment of Susan McDougal cruel and unprecedented, and still can't believe he called in Monica Lewinsky's mama and spent two days torturing her for details of her daughter's sex life before she even met President Clinton, etc. etc. In fact, I'm starting to agree with poor Dr. Bernard Lewinsky that McCarthyism, the Inquisition and possibly even Nazi Germany are not too extreme as comparisons.

And I reached all these conclusions by my little old self. Not a single conversation with anyone in the White House have I had. Never met Sidney Blumenthal, never heard from Paul Begala, got no talking points and no faxes, live in Texas, and never heard a single rumor about the prosecutor or anyone who works for him.

I come to hold my current opinion that Starr is out of control and off on a witch hunt with no legal basis just by reading about his actions that are on the public record. I dunno — does that make me part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice?

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

COPYRIGHT 1998 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.