Wired Cash Cow

Democratic Judge Susan Chriss is doing something very unorthodox in the realm of judicial campaigning. Online campaign contributions have been on the rise for presidential campaigns but not so much for local and state wide campaigns for judges. She is the first of her kind to take advantage of the internet, drumming up money for her campaign. The Galveston Democrat is running for Place 8 on the Texas Supreme Court. The seat is currently held by Justice Phil Johnson, a Republican. As I have recently learned in my Texas government class most judges get most of their campaign contributions from either law firms of big corporations, usually in hopes of gaining favor in legal cases. Money most certainly corrupts the system we currently have in place. So if the common individual can step up to the plate and donate, grassroot campaigns like Susan Chriss’s may be the long awaited answer we Texans have needed to hear.

According to the Houston Chronicle’s main blog Texas Politics, “Criss, who said in a phone interview this afternoon she has already raised $5,000 through her web site, wants to use the money to buy statewide TV ads.” Television ads are the life’s blood of a campaign. If you don’t have money for the TV face time then you may as well just hang up your ten gallon now. The fact that it takes so much money to win a campaign in Texas is mind boggling. But according to a survey done by the league of women voters, “A statewide survey of judges by the League of Women Voters of Texas in 2001 disclosed that most judges surveyed preferred elections, but a majority believed elections should be nonpartisan. A substantial number agreed that they had been victims of negative and misleading campaign advertising. They disagreed that campaign contributions had an influence on judicial decisions. Over half opposed public financing of judicial elections in Texas.”

This statement seems almost contradictory to common sense, and not to mention what I’ve learned in class. According to statistics campaign contributions do affect the outcome of a case, take Texaco vs. Pennzoil for instance.It’s hard to wipe the slate clean, when doing so means having to bite the hand that feeds. Although I do find it funny that on Judge Chriss’s home site the first page that pops up is the contribution page. You have to actually click on another link on the page to get to her beliefs and politics.

Maybe the internet will be the answer to all our problems, the economic decline and the current recession we can all feel despite the fact that we never actually hear anyone talk about it. Watch dog websites will become more main-stream then news organizations owned by major corporations. And Judges will be able to earn money in a more honest way, if more eyes are watching then maybe the internet can keep em honest.