Comments | gamepolitics: ESA Seeks $644,000 in Attorney's Fees From State of Illinois

gamepolitics

ESA Seeks $644,000 in Attorney's Fees From State of Illinois

Mar 16, 2006 09:26

( Read more... )

illinois, esa, court cases, legal fees, blagojevich, legislation

Comments 36

I'm curious jabrwock March 16 2006, 17:36:09 UTC

It sounds like the state was willing to pay the ESA's legal fees, but demanded something in return. I'm curious what those extra conditions were that the state insisted on?

Re: I'm curious silver_derstin March 16 2006, 17:42:37 UTC

I am pretty sure I know, due to the threat of the ESA... The condition was most likely NOT to disclose how much was spent on this bill. That's about the only concession they could try to get from the ESA, but Lowenstein appears to be a tad bit better at politics at this time.

Don't think it's about being bitter... duncan_922 March 16 2006, 18:42:59 UTC

At least not entirely. But the fact of the matter is that every idiot senator that craps up a bill like this is actually MAKING money from their salaries, while the ESA LOOSES money trying to stop it. It's pretty obvious that most of these laws are just pathetic attempts for the senators and mayors to grab a little spotlight. If a precedent is set that if they loose, they'll have to pay for court expenses, maybe they'll think twice.

markusdragon March 16 2006, 18:07:18 UTC

Hmm... half a million per state, 50 states, that's potentially 25 million dollars of wasted tax money if this ban-happy culture continues.

silver_derstin March 16 2006, 18:11:46 UTC

They could send all that money to the Aware Online Gamer Association (namely US) really. Would do a lot more good in our hands... maybe.

jabrwock March 16 2006, 19:48:03 UTC

Hmm... half a million per state

And that's only the ESA's lawyers' costs. That doesn't include the cost of the government lawyers, experts compensated for their testimony, court fees and costs of tying up the facilities and staff during the whole affair.

Not to mention all the money wasted writing and advertising the bill in the first place...

It would be better... the1jeffy March 16 2006, 18:44:11 UTC

if the ESA got the money, then immediately donated the exact amount to help tornado victims. I believe Illinois was fairly well rocked by storms recently.

Re: It would be better... blitzfitness March 16 2006, 18:47:35 UTC

We were, as was much of the midwest (i'm south side Chicago). I had the idea that this would be perfect if they returned the money to the tax payers, but your's is much better.

Sadly, I doubt anything like that will actually happen, but I can't fault the ESA for that.

Re: It would be better... ex_nozomu778 March 16 2006, 19:06:24 UTC

If the ESA gets the money, it's going to go to their lawyers. The government wasted their time and resources, and the government is responcible to pay for it.

Personally, I hope the ESA takes the money and continues to fight for our first amendment rights. It may be a thankless job, and you may even get scorn heaped on you (look at the ACLU), but if we didn't have groups like the ESA to fight this bill, then it would have been enacted and enforced.

Re: It would be better... brainswarm March 17 2006, 04:34:15 UTC

The money already went to their lawyers. They would just be getting the money they spent reimbursed.

hmm.. akiko_kawatachi March 16 2006, 21:00:11 UTC

"we would have preferred to spend our resources on cooperative programs to help parents ensure their kids play appropriate games"

It would look really great for all of us if the ESA holds to that statement...

And think of how much dumber Blagojevich will look if the ESA not only gets the money, but uses said dollars to start a program that really works?

bitnine March 17 2006, 15:29:48 UTC

Yeah, this pretty much has to happen. The state can't be allowed to drain the finacial resources of target industries or companies through junk legislation. Particularly if the relevent bills appear to be not be passed through good faith.

Let's say that lawmakers started passing bills that outlawed board games. Well, Parker Brothers certainly can fight and will definately have any such law struck down. But let's say that a particular block of lawmakers pass 2-3 different versions of this bill in dozens of states every year. The board game makers of America would have to spend a giant amount of effort and money to fight and overturn these bills. Eventually it would have a signifigant impact on the viability of board game companies.

There simply needs to be a recourse mechanism for such actions. If there were not, legislation could be used as a chilling effect in a manner that circumvented our legal protections.