I see both sides of the issue. I am on the board of directors of our local trial lawyers association, which is probably the most cohesive and effective group in the state. Since we are tax exempt, we cannot support political campaigns of any sort whatsoever. But privately, we work very hard to support particular legislative and judicial candidates. maximum corporate and personal contribution for a general election is $500. Last week, for example, people from our group hosted the first fundraiser for Orlando's chief judge, who is being opposed by one person out of spite and the second who blames him for the Casey Anthony verdict.
Some can afford to stroke a check for $500 and the rest of us can't and write checks for less. But, my point is that we raised $27,000 in checks during the week before the event and the "bundle" of checks was given to the campaign treasurer. It can cost upwards of $150k to run a judicial campaign that is heavily contested here- which is totally pathetic. In a week or two, another trial lawyer law firm with 75 lawyers is holding another fundraiser for the judge. He could easily raise double what we put together for him. And, everyone will be there again to curry favor with the chief judge (and his judge-friends).
This is important because it truly is we lawyers who know who the good and bad judges are, NOT the public- which also basically could care less. So, I feel that our involvement is very important to our local judiciary. Yet, at the same time we are indeed trying to buy some influence- some as individuals and others as a whole. Surely the lawyer who threw the event will get recognition from the judge for a very long time. But, the other judges in town-perhaps 50 in total- all will know exactly what went down and how it worked out for the chief judge. This will bring them on board too. Now, I wouldn't ever expect a judge to rule in my favor when he/she shouldn't- I would just want to make certain that my client's interests and arguments before that judge get to be fully heard. The most I would ever expect would be a one time continuance on a case that might not otherwise be given. And, I would think that might happen once or twice on different cases- and that is it.
The same goes for legislative candidates. When we lobby them every session, we just want them to listen to our side of the argument. We ask that they just hold off on following their party-line vote without listening to us first. We ask that when there are issues that we truly are experts at, that we be allowed to testify just like the corporate and insurance industry representatives are. In a perfect world, none of this would be allowed influence buying would be necessary or allowed. But, that's not the real world we live in- and never will be.
Here is my point: We have become so dominant in the election/re-election arena within our community and elsewhere with our contributions and support, I really think some do get a lot more in return for our contributions and support. And to a rather large extent, this is just plain wrong.
Even thinking about all of this from the "inside", I still truly wish that all these campaigns would be adequately, publicly funded and that "legitimate" candidates receive public funding. But, this does conflict with public rights of free speech- without any doubt. And, i just cannot figure out any real way of striking some sort of balance. I don't think anyone e er will either. So, we are going to continue to see pendulous swings back and forth over the first amendment issue for many, many years to come...
rfenst wrote:
