Weren't maintenance laws ended for a reason? In England I thought it had more to do with the differences in class, commoners could sue lords but without ano

Weren't maintenance laws ended for a reason? In England I thought it had more to do with the differences in class, commoners could sue lords but without another lord on their side they were pretty disadvantaged. So other lords could simply lend their name or backing to a commoner and the original lord would have to fight a more substantial case, regardless of merit. The lords passed the law to protect themselves. Lords and commoners are closer now. I'd argue that maybe we need to come up with a way to go even further. This is only interesting because the idea of actually materially harming a corporation through litigation is so foreign these days. That and for some reason a few employees of some major news papers have allowed gawker to be lumped in with their own publications, giving "maintenance" to the idea that this is a first amendment issue. Do you have anything to substantiate that it's "not good" to allow third-party money in the courts? I'm sure there are things we haven't thought of but can it be worse than big money in politics? There are still judges that run their courts, right? They still have a roll here.