The Republicans in the state legislature are, as always, trying to erect barriers to stop individuals from holding corporations responsible for reckless or dangerous actions. This time, it's a pair of bills that would require you to pay for an expensive "expert opinion" before you could even file suit against a corporation, and another capping attorney fees for plaintiff's attorneys (but, of course, not limiting how much money corporations can spend on their own defense).

Outgoing state Democratic party chairman Ivan Holmes made the correct argument against it, but demolished his own effectiveness in his first sentence (as quoted by Blue Oklahoma):

In a recent press release, Ivan Holmes, the state Democratic Party chair, put it this way:

The Republican Party has made 'tort reform' or what I call 'corporate immunity' their number one issue and the Democratic Party will make it our number one issue.

It is going to come down to who do you want to protect, big insurance companies or the little guy.  We are going to prove that it is the insurance companies who are the villains when it comes to so-called 'tort reform' and the Republicans have sided with them.

Lawyers are hired by the citizens to help them fight for their individual rights while insurance companies have one goal--to make as much profit as possible at the expense of the policy holders.

The press release statement pointed to a study by the Consumer Federation of America that showed insurance companies made $157 billion in profits over three years. It also referred to a New England Journal of Medicine study that showed only 2 percent of people hurt by physician negligence ever file a lawsuit.

Just by adding "what I call" to the first statement, Holmes inserted himself as the scapegoat for changing the frame (pre-persuasion) away from something that sounds good-ish ("tort reform") to a more accurate description of the harm it causes ("corporate immunity"). Had there been a halfway decent editor involved, we might have seen this instead:

The radical legislators in the Republican Party have made corporate immunity their number one issue, once again disguising it as "tort reform." The Oklahoma Democratic Party will make it our number one issue as well

It boils down to a simple question: who do you want to protect? Big insurance companies, or the average Oklahoman? The insurance companies are the villains, labeling their attempts to gain total immunity for their actions as "tort reform," and the Republicans have again sided with them against the Oklahomans they're supposed to represent.

Just a few simple changes:

1. This isn't about Dr. Holmes. If it's corporate immunity, and it is, don't qualify it by saying that's what you call it. If you're right, it doesn't need qualification. If you're wrong, use words that aren't wrong. Either way, don't make it about your opinion, make it about the facts. And here, Dr. Holmes is right—this is just plain old corporate immunity, an attempt to protect corporations by raising the burden on individuals who've been harmed and want to seek redress.

2. There's subject-verb disagreement in "Republican Party … has made … their number one issue". Are you arguing against one entity (the party) or the plural individuals who comprise it? Make it all plural to keep the focus on the legislators, not on the party itself. Lots of registered Democrats vote for Republican candidates, and they might be persuaded otherwise if the opposition attacked those candidates and their votes, rather than immunizing them as party apparatchiks. Change the subject to "radical legislators."

3. If you're asking a question, use a question mark.

4. I would be surprised if most people thought of themselves as "the little guy," but most people do consider themselves "average citizens." Phrase arguments in ways that let readers connect with the situation you're describing, not that easily let them dismiss it as applying to "someone else."

5. If "tort reform" is an incorrect description (and it is), don't keep repeating it with mild disqualifiers like "so-called." Your point is that it's not "tort reform," but corporate immunity disguised as such. Never mention their words without clearly demolishing their frame.

6. If you're going to say "sided with them," you need to be clear who they've sided against—the ordinary Oklahomans who have been harmed by corporate actions and would be further harmed by these bills. Don't lose sight of the main argument: the Republicans want to keep ordinary people from suing corporations at all, and stack the playing field in favor of corporations if suits do get filed. Every paragraph, every sentence, and every word must support that point. Otherwise, why bother?

I didn't do the third paragraph, but it's an easy change as well. Keep the active voice and keep the focus on the problem:

Oklahomans take the extraordinary step of paying for lawyers when they need help fighting for their individual rights. Insurance companies keep lawyers on staff at all times to protect their ultimate goal—making as much profit as possible at the expense of the policy holders.

The Republicans want to make lawyers (an unpopular group) the subject. Don't make lawyers the subject of your counter-argument. Keep the focus on ordinary Oklahomans, who would never pay lawyers to have them do nothing. Average citizens only pay for legal counsel when they have no other option in seeking redress. They're the subject.

(Convinced yet that you need to buy the book?) This isn't difficult stuff, provided you keep both your thesis and rules of English in mind. The first step to winning an argument is not to sabotage your own points.