This New York Times blog informs us that Presidential campaign candidates are buying ad space on google--their ads will pop up on the side of the screen when you enter certain key words. This is a campaign strategy that one blogger recommended back in February, and apparently, some Presidential hopefuls have heard that call to action.
Now, if you google the phrase "tort reform" you'll see an ad reading: "John McCain for President." This makes sense as McCain has been pro tort "reform" in the past. But he's also voted against certain tort "reform" measures, earning the reputation of being more left on business issues than other Republicans. So perhaps his purchase of the ad signals his desire to reshape his reputation among conservatives surrounding the issue.
Depending on the time of day, you may get a different ad when you search for a particular word or phrase. The ads cost 10 to 15 cents per click. I wonder if the cost matches the benefits for the candidates, especially given the recent attention McCain's campaign has received surrounding its budget problems. (Just Tuesday, two of McCain's top aides quit the campaign after a dispute about how the already-limited supply of money was being spent.) One article indicates that McCain's ad money is being well-spent. But besides the cost of these ads, what are the implications of this new strategy?
On one hand, some candidates have used this feature to purchase ads that will pop up when you plug in other candidates' names. Not sure how helpful or how effective that strategy is. But on the other hand, this could be a helpful tool for gauging just what the candidates care about most, and with which issues they want to be most closely associated. It might also provide a new avenue from the voter-perspective for holding the candidates accountable to their campaign statements and promises.
One statement we should all listen in for is a statement from candidates on where they stand on the issue of civil justice. How important is it for them to ensure that every-day taxpaying citizens are protected under the law--that their rights against injury from faulty products, predatory loans, employment discrimination, and other bad practices are not cut off by the corporate "just us" version of justice?
And we should look not just at what they are saying, but we should ask: what are they doing? What is their voting record on things like, say, measures to cap the interest rates that can be imposed on economically vulnerable payday loan customers? How have they weighed in on the enforcement of mandatory arbitration agreements against people who had little bargaining power in making the agreement, effectively pushing them out of the courts and into a privatized, pro-corporatiion, pseudo legal system? What do they have to say about insurance industries that exploit policyholders by raising premiums for sheer profit and not true necessity, all under the guise of curbing a mythical "lawsuit crisis"?
I know we are all in a bit of a Campaign '08 frenzy (for obvious reasons). It can be more than a little tiring and very overwhelming. But civil justice is a pressing issue that is quietly absent from the progressive dialogue about the election.
So, who will we see when we go to google and plug in "civil justice" or "access to the courts"? So far, no one has snagged those words. Of course, it's one thing to buy an ad that shows up next to the words, and its another to have the substance to justify that connection.