What a choice – between the lawyers or the federal courts, between the greedy solicitors who sue everyone in sight and the judges who chased values out of schools, allowed drunks and the legally blind to drive public transportation, destroyed central city schools in the name of integration, and instituted a get-out-of-jail-free penal system! How about "none of the above?"

In one of the most partisan votes of the year, with the Republicans against the lawyers and the Democrats for beating up the businesses that are the targets of the court suits, the House of Representatives narrowly approved a bill to transfer most class-action lawsuits from state to federal courts. As Rep. John Linder, Georgia Republican, explained, "Hundreds of frivolous lawsuits are filed in favorable state courts and used as high-stakes, court-endorsed blackmail devices against companies that usually settle rather than face a long and arduous court battle." It is surely true that businesses are cavalierly sued left and right in class action cases. But President Clinton promised to repay his No. 1 contributor source, trial lawyers, by vetoing the bill if it ever reached his desk. So, there will be no law but at least conservatives could applaud the House for trying to rein-in the litigation-happy liberals. Or, should they?

This legislation would represent a massive shift of power from state and local courts to the national level. Mr. Clinton may be against the House bill for the wrong reason but that does not mean there are not good ones. Indeed, in the area of environmental law, conservatives have looked to state class-action suits as the preferred alternative to top-down bureaucratic decisions, which are made "fair" only by making them universally applicable to all equally-- which means the rule does not fit anyone precisely, except by accident. Solving environmental or product liability claims by bureaucratic rule is vastly inferior in tailoring solutions to specific problems than court cases that consider the unique facts of each case. Of course, even the House bill would rely upon class-actions but would only make them national in scope. The traditional conservative position has been to prefer local solutions -- indeed, Ronald Reagan made "returning power to states, communities and citizens" the whole point of his reforms.

The real issue is that neither state nor federal legislators will stand up to the trial lawyer lobby and create reasonable rules under which to try product liability or environmental cases. There must be underlying criteria for the courts to follow in determining standing to sue and grounds for determining what is harm and appropriate limits for granting relief, and these must be set by legislators (or bureaucrats if they fail to act). Every attempt to rationalize rules for class-action tort cases leads to claims of "raping the environment'' or "being insensitive to children being harmed by dangerous products." No legislator will vote against nature or children. The lawyers are backed by large, well-organized lobbies that know how to exploit public fears and a media that sympathizes with them. This is why nationalization is no solution to the problem Mr. Linder correctly warns against. The House bill hardly rationalizes the process at all and, certainly, the bargaining necessary with the Senate and President Clinton would take even that. The only solution, as difficult as it is, requires establishing higher thresholds of harm rather than the crazy ones that allow McDonald's coffee being spilled on ones lap or the dearth of gnats in a region to qualify as torts. And it is possible to limit awards to the liability incurred rather than tugging upon the sympathy of a jury that naturally develops for any wounded fellow creature.

Unfortunately, after years of preaching about the benefits of states' rights, states and localities have not fared well under Republican leadership in Congress. Republicans naturally want to protect big business from bureaucrats but the multinational and national firms really want predictability rather than free markets. After all, the dog-eat-dog world of the market consumes them. While small businesses cannot adapt well to regulation and have limited lobbying resources in far-away Washington, the big guys can afford both. Forgetting that their mass base is small business, the GOP often responds to the lobbyist who is nearby. As in the class-action case, he usually represents big business. Reforms in communications and electricity deregulation often follow a similar path. There are some movements in law toward some space for state actions but they are coming more from the courts than legislatures. Two recent Supreme Court decisions in the sovereign immunity area have given states immunity from national laws on labor, patent and trademark law. Even these have been criticized by libertarians for siding with the state over business rather than appreciating that the lower level entity was allowed to make the decision.

Governance is a question of priorities. Yes, no one likes lawyers but the problem is the criteria for class-actions, not class-actions themselves, and only the legislators can change them. But which legislators do it is critical. The more important value involved is the separation and division of powers in the Constitution. The Founders could not be more clear that this was the essence of the government they created. And the proof that it works is the fact it is the world's longest-lasting government. The logic of the Constitution is to balance self-interested politicians against each other. Ordinary citizens do not have the time for government and even activists have limited time and resources.

At the national level, legislators, judges and bureaucrats balance each other. At the local level, only local elected officials have the time to protect local interests. They have the time because they are paid to watch their own interests. But if all power is arrogated to the national level, they become low-level national bureaucrats who respond to those above. Although this has changed somewhat since Mr. Reagan's counterrevolution, centralization is still the dominant mindset. The Republican-controlled House Commerce Committee just approved federal control of boxing, of all things! Obviously, the GOP cannot get it right and, if they cannot learn, they will undermine their whole raison d’etre. Sadly, the only alternative is the Supreme Court, which has announced eight cases where federal power might be limited this term. It would be a welcome irony if the same court that led the parade to central power is the one that now limits it.

---

Donald Devine, former director Of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, is a columnist and a Washington-based policy consultant and a Vice Chairman for the American Conservative Union.