Economic uncertainty and a steep decline in employment are two of philanthropy's most dangerous enemies.

So it should come as no surprise that a recent study by the Giving USA Foundation found that charitable giving in 2008 fell by more than $6 billion from the previous year. That's a 5.7 percent drop -- the largest percentage decrease in a half-century.

Ohio has hardly been an exception to this crisis. Contributions to United Way of Greater Cleveland are down more than 10 percent from their levels of five years ago. The drop in charitable donations, combined with significant cuts in government funding, have forced many worthwhile area organizations to cut staff and curtail vital services.

But a bill pending in the Ohio Senate promises to provide upwards of $60 million annually to those charities -- at no cost to taxpayers.

Senate Bill 157 would apply only to class-action lawsuits in Ohio -- lawsuits filed on behalf of a large number of people with a common interest in a matter.

Let's say XYZ Widget Co. makes a defective widget that causes nonfatal injuries to an estimated 1,000 Ohioans. A class action is filed against XYZ. The company knows it is in the wrong and could be hit for huge damages if the case goes to trial. So XYZ Widget -- or, more likely, its insurer -- settles the case and agrees to pay $1 million.

But, as is often the case, not all members of the "class" injured by the defective widget can be located or do not come forward. So, instead of paying $1,000 each to all 1,000 of those injured, XYZ Widget pays the $1,000 to only 600 Ohioans.

Under present Ohio law, the $400,000 in unclaimed damages would revert to the defendant company.

But Senate Bill 157 would provide that, absent agreement to the contrary, the leftover funds would be distributed to a group of Ohio charities and nonprofits agreed to by the lawyers and the judge.

The idea here is to place into Ohio law the age-old legal doctrine of cy pres (a shortened form of the French for "as near as possible"), which has been used at times by courts across the country to direct unclaimed class-action funds to charities.

Business interests, notably insurance companies, claim passage of the bill would discourage settlements of class-action lawsuits. It would also, argued Linda Woggon of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, establish "a very bad precedent in Ohio by punishing people who haven't [been] found to have done anything wrong."

It's true that class-action settlements rarely include an admission of wrongdoing, but totally blameless class-action defendants agree to large settlements about as often as this version of state government does something good for Greater Cleveland. Also worth noting is that SB 157's two prime sponsors are Republican Sens. Tim Grendell and Bill Seitz, two of the legislature's most conservative members.

Seitz said the opposition to the bill is "very formidable for reasons that don't make a lot of sense to me." Grendell said "the insurance lobby has some friends in the Senate who are spreading a lot of misinformation."

Greater Cleveland's large and generous philanthropic community is solidly behind this bill, as are representatives of area charities, many of whom testified in favor of it at a Nov. 10 Senate committee hearing in Columbus. Joining them was Patrick Perotti, widely regarded as the father of Senate Bill 157.

A native of Parma, Perotti, 53, is a successful class-action lawyer and partner in the Cleveland area law firm of Dworken & Bernstein. Beginning in the early 1990s, Perotti refused to settle many cases until defendants would agree that any unclaimed funds due injured parties divert to charities. Since then, the firm has distributed more than $20 million to charities throughout Ohio.

Perotti told senators that making cy pres the standard in Ohio "is important because currently the vast majority of settlements fail to address this, which results in an outcome not consistent with what the court was told about the settlement."

Despite powerful opposition to SB 157 from interests that fund legislators' campaigns, even the critics can't explain away this little bit of logic:

If a defendant agrees that $1 million is fair compensation to end a lawsuit, it's eminently fair to expect that the entire $1 million be paid.

Especially if a portion of that payment goes to worthy charities.

Larkin was The Plain Dealer's editorial director from 1991 until his retirement this year.