“Senator Cornyn, take your canned response and stuff it.”

Texas Senator John Cornyn‘s staff should think twice next time before sending out a canned response to one of his constituent’s email communications.
Robin Phelan of Haynes and Boone‘s office in Dallas has long been one of Texas’ leading experts in the area of business bankruptcy and reorganization law. As noted most recently here, Congress is getting ready to enact dubious bankruptcy “reform” legislation that has remarkably little public support except for the well-heeled consumer credit card industry.
Robin’s practice is primarily in big corporate reorganization cases, so he does not have any personal or professional stake in the consumer bankruptcy area that is the primary focus of this bad bankruptcy “reform” legislation. Nevertheless, Robin knows bad bankruptcy legislation when he sees it, and so he took the time to write Senator Cornyn a well-reasoned and dispassionate letter offering his expert view of the numerous defects in this legislation. In response, Robin received this canned email from Senator Cornyn’s office:

Dear Mr. Phelan:
Thank you for contacting me about the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (S. 256). I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this issue.
On February 1, 2005, Senator Grassley introduced S. 256, legislation which I am proud to co-sponsor. This legislation would amend the federal bankruptcy code and reform many areas of bankruptcy practice such as consumer bankruptcy filings, small business bankruptcy, and family farmer reorganization. Additionally, it would address abuse of creditor practices and bankruptcy filings. On February 24, 2005, S. 256 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now awaits a vote on the Senate floor.
I support bankruptcy reform because America needs to restore a greater sense of personal responsibility to its financial system and must act to prevent the abuses of bankruptcy law that we have witnessed in recent years. Bankruptcy relief should be available to those who are unable to pay, not to those who are simply unwilling to pay.
I appreciate the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. You maybe certain that, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will keep your views in mind as the Senate considers S. 256. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

Most folks receiving such a response would simply sigh and say, “Oh well, that’s politics” and move on to the next task of the day. Not Robin. Here is his reply to Senator Cornyn’s canned email:

Dear Senator Cornyn:
Nice unresponsive canned statement that parrots the line given to you by the consumer lenders.
You have ignored the comments of substantially all of the professionals and academics that are familiar with the issues. It is beyond me why you would believe the consumer lenders who have a distinct economic interest in squeezing as much as they can out of consumers and disregard the opinions of almost everybody else.
I don’t have an economic interest in consumer bankruptcies, but I’m close enough to the system, and have reviewed the bill in connection with professional activities, to have a working knowledge of the issues. Campaign contributions by the consumer lenders aside, you have a responsibility to consider that almost everyone else thinks that this is a really bad bill.
Sending an unsolicited credit card to many people is like sending a case of Jack Daniels to an alcoholic and then sending him a bill for the booze a month later. Throwing bankrupts into indentured servitude to the credit card companies isn’t the solution to the non-existent problem manufactured by the lenders.
By the way, “maybe” in the next to the last sentence should be “may be”.
Robin Phelan

H’mm, I wonder if Senator Cornyn’s staff has a canned response to that one?

4 thoughts on ““Senator Cornyn, take your canned response and stuff it.”

  1. Goodness knows, I can understand the frustration that produced Phelan’s response, but no, I wouldn’t expect a substantive response to it, especially after that first line.
    That’s unfortunate. I suspect if Phelan were actually able to interact with a legislative aide knowledgeable of the legislation, we all might benefit from seeing that exchange. Alas, such an exchange seems unlikely.

  2. Kevin, my sense is that part of the frustration of professionals who understand the bankruptcy system and the misguided nature of this legislation is that the Republican leadership did not solicit any meaningful input from either the academic community or the professionals who operate the bankruptcy system. Rather, they just caved to special interests. Not a prescription for statesmanship.

  3. “Nice unresponsive canned statement that parrots the line given to you by the consumer lenders.” is not a sentence. This guy shouldn’t be giving advice on writing.

  4. He was responding via email. Criticizing such a fragment when the context was necessarily quoted immediately below may not be wholly illegitimate, but certainly far less so than in a formal letter.

Leave a Reply