| CLICK HERE TO SEE THE LIST OF ALL 400 DONORS Manufacturing Many asbestos-related companies want to limit compensation to injured workers and consumers. Samuel Heyman decided to write his own law. by Michael Scherer March 5, 2001 Samuel Heyman (No. 79) knows all about making friends in Washington. He has been invited to sip coffee at the White House and spend the night as the president's guest. His manufacturing firm, GAF Corporation, spent at least $7 million on lobbyists since 1997, and his campaign contributions, totaling $382,970 in the latest cycle, often came within days of key votes and endorsements. Yet hardly anyone beyond Capitol Hill knows his name. Last year, if the Asbestos Compensation Act had passed Congress, Heyman would have profited handsomely from his anonymity. The bill -- drafted by a Harvard law professor hired by GAF -- would have denied or delayed compensation to thousands of victims of asbestos-related diseases, cost taxpayers as much as $150 million a year, and provided "unwarranted benefits to asbestos companies," according to the U.S. Department of Justice. As a former manufacturer of asbestos-laden building products, GAF found itself in a crushing legal avalanche. The New Jersey-based company has already paid more than $1.5 billion in legal expenses and claims to workers suffering the effects of asbestos, with 100,000 claims still outstanding. Through a holding firm, Heyman owns 98 percent of GAF, an investment worth nearly $1 billion before the recent legal troubles. So it makes perfect financial sense that Heyman delivered a check for $250,000 to the GOP last July 19, only three business days before Republicans delivered the asbestos bill to the full House. From the beginning, Heyman has made it clear that protecting his company from asbestos claims is at the top of his agenda. "While our focus is primarily on the critical importance of reform for sick claimants," he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, "we would hope that the interests of these businesses, their employees, shareholders, the communities who depend on them, and elemental fairness are worthy of the Senate's consideration as well." Lawyers and public-interest groups fiercely opposed the bill, however, and it failed to come to a vote. Denied legislative protection, GAF filed for bankruptcy in January to limit its liability. But manufacturers like Heyman are still counting on the Bush administration to champion their cause, expressing their optimism in a torrent of checks to Republicans. In all, the manufacturing and retail service industries -- intent on curbing taxes, regulations, wages, and lawsuits -- spent $163.5 million on federal candidates and parties, with nearly two-thirds going to the GOP. That's more than twice as much as the same group spent in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected. Former asbestos producers have another reason to be optimistic that Bush will take a particular interest in the issue. Halliburton, the energy services company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, is beset by its own asbestos litigation problem. The number of pending asbestos claims filed against Halliburton rose from 70,500 in 1998 to 107,650 in 1999, forcing the company and its insurance provider to pay approximately $99 million in settlements so far. Cheney and Halliburton, like Heyman, have given heavily to congressional sponsors of asbestos legislation. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the company and its former chief executive gave a total of $157,500 in political donations to 49 co-sponsors of the asbestos bill in the House and to 14 co-sponsors of a similar measure in the Senate. A spokeswoman for Halliburton told reporters that the campaign contributions to asbestos-friendly candidates were "purely coincidental." | | |