THE PUBLIC MIND: WEBSTER'S AND OVER CARNAHAN INCOME IS MISLEADING; MONEY CAME FROM SETTLEMENT

~Dear Editor:

I am not involved in party politics and do not intend to be. Rather, I write this letter to expose a deceptive and, I believe, an intentionally misleading political ad currently airing on television on behalf of candidate William Webster. Should we voters just sit back and accept as fact that political ads are going to be a pack of lies? I have not yet become that cynical.

Webster's ad states that Mel Carnahan broke a promise he made in his 1988 campaign for lieutenant governor. Carnahan promised to be a "full-time" lieutenant governor. The ad claims that Carnahan broke that promise by earning greater than $500,000 as a lawyer during his term as lieutenant governor. The ad is a classic example of a half truth because the statement about the promise and the statement about the earnings are technically true. The conclusion, however, is absolutely false.

The fact not mentioned in the ad is that practically all of Carnahan's earnings as a lawyer came from one lawsuit which was originally filed in 1983. A brief review of federal court records shows that the case was a lawsuit filed by Carnahan against an insurance company after a fire at a charcoal plant. The case was tried to a jury, was appealed, the jury verdict was reversed on appeal and the case was sent back for another trial.

When Carnahan was elected as lieutenant governor, the case was set for jury trial in Cape Girardeau in February of 1989. By that time, Carnahan had become lieutenant governor. Should he abandon his client and a case on which he had worked during a period of almost seven years? Carnahan did what any conscientious lawyer would have done; he tried the case. In fact, he tried it so well that he won a jury verdict of $1,750,000. It was this contingency (percentage of the recovery) fee that constitutes substantially all of Carnahan's earnings as a lawyer during his term as lieutenant governor. He was, in fact, a full-time lieutenant governor except for the time spent on that case during the first two months of his four-year term.

The ad is deceptive because a voter unfamiliar with this lawsuit would no doubt think that Carnahan had to work thousands of hours as a lawyer during his term in order to earn the kind of money mentioned in the ad. As any lawyer, including William Webster, knows, it is common for a plaintiff's attorney to work on a case for a long time while being paid nothing until the case is concluded.

Carnahan's case was an extraordinary case not only because of the length of time it took to conclude but also because of the size of its verdict which was at that time, I believe, the largest jury verdict ever rendered in that particular court. If Webster's staff did enough research to know Carnahan's earnings, it is impossible for Webster not to have known about this extraordinary and notorious case which generated for Carnahan such a large fee. I can only conclude that the ad is intentionally deceptive.

William Webster obviously has tried to find some kind of character fault in Carnahan on which he can base his negative campaign. If this grossly misleading ad is any indicator, he must not have been able to find much.

This ad intentionally distorts the truth. Personally, I find it disgusting.

Sincerely,

Mike Payne

Cape Girardeau