It's somehow appropriate that the adversary system -- in this case, a contested vice-presidential election -- has revealed some uncomfortable truths about the American Association for Justice, the renowned trial lawyers' group. In a candidate's statement, Simona Farrise of the Farrise Law Firm argues that AAJ needs to refocus on its membership. "AAJ continues to shed members at an alarming rate," Farrise wrote. "Ten years ago, AAJ claimed 50,000 members. Today's AAJ member numbers are less than half that -- at a time when our fight requires that our numbers multiply." (Hat tip to Carter Wood at PointofLaw.com.)

Farrise's opponent in the AAJ vice president's race is Lisa Blue of Baron & Blue, whose deceased husband, Fred Baron, was a mainstay of the trial lawyers' group. In her candidate's statement, Blue agrees that AAJ needs to boost membership numbers, but she also homed in on another theme: money. Blue cited her fundraising record in the last year, when she brought in $130,000 in one initiative for AAJ's own coffers and spearheaded AAJ's fundraising for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Membership and fundraising are obviously intertwined, since AAJ members pay dues. (According to Blue's statement, membership costs $525 a year.) But the election highlights an existential question for trial lawyers at a time when, thanks to Citizens United, their pro-business foes are contributing tens of millions of dollars to the candidates of their choice. What's the best way for AAJ to combat that influence and make sure its agenda isn't smothered in its opponents' cash?

Christopher Scholl, the AAJ's new director of communications, said Farrise's account of sheer membership numbers is somewhat misleading. The trial lawyers' group has tightened rules for membership and culled its roster, Scholl said, so 10-year-old statistics are not relevant. "We're quite strong and getting stronger," he told me. (Farrise was in a trial and unavailable to comment; Blue told me AAJ "is very strong and as financially strong as we've ever been.")

I asked Scholl for hard numbers to back his assurances of AAJ's continued success. He said the group does not disclose membership revenue, but he did send me a spreadsheet of contributions to AAJ's Political Action Committee, which are publicly reported. According to the spreadsheet, which goes back to 1995, 2011 was a record year for the PAC, which took in more than $2.7 million. That followed a slight dip in 2009 and 2010, when receipts were around $2.4 million a year. This year, the PAC had taken in $1.3 million as of June.

Scholl pointed out that the AAJ PAC is ranked seventh in the list of top contributors to candidates at Opensecrets.org, an invaluable campaign spending site. "Additionally, our members are some of the most politically active individuals in the country. They contribute millions of dollars on their own -- over and above the PAC," Scholl said.

They'll have to if they want to keep pace with pro-business donors. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce alone spent $33 million in the 2010 campaigns, according to Opensecrets.org, and alreadyspent $4.76 million in the 2012 election cycle. And that doesn't include the spending of state chambers of commerce, or the multitude of Super PACs and political non-profits dedicated to squelching litigation against and regulation of businesses.

Scholl said AAJ understands what it's up against and is confident it can carry out its mission. "Despite its money, the Chamber's efforts to curb access to the civil justice system have been beaten back by AAJ time and time again," he said in an email. "AAJ is unquestionably the most powerful and effective voice fighting to preserve justice and accountability for all Americans. To suggest anything other than that would be inaccurate."

(Reporting by Alison Frankel)

(This blog post has been updated to include response from Farrise.)

Follow us on Twitter @AlisonFrankel, @ReutersLegal  | Like us on Facebook