In the last year or so talk of passing public financing programs for state judicial races has been on the rise and this article in the New York Times illustrates why in describing the results of a study showing a relationship between the campaign contributions a judge had received, and his or her rulings from the bench.A law professor at Tulane University saw what appeared to be an obvious conflict of interest between judicial candidates taking money from people one day, then ruling for or against them in court. So he did a study to find out if this conflict of interest played out as he imagined it would. And, in fact, it did: He looked first at cases in which no one involved in the lawsuit had ever made a contribution, before or after the suit was filed, to establish a baseline. Some judges tended to vote for plaintiffs, others for defendants.Justice John L. Weimer, for instance, was slightly pro-defendant in cases where neither side had given him contributions, voting for plaintiffs 47 percent of the time. But in cases where he received money from the defense side (or more money from the defense when both sides gave money), he voted for the plaintiffs only 25 percent of the time. In cases where the money from the plaintiffs’ side dominated, on the other hand, he voted for the plaintiffs 90 percent of the time. That is quite a swing.“It is the donation, not the underlying philosophical orientation, that appears to account for the voting outcome,” Professor Palmer said.Larger contributions had larger effects, the study found. Justice Catherine D. Kimball was 30 percent more likely to vote for a defendant with each additional $1,000 donation. The effect was even more pronounced for Justice Weimer, who was 300 percent more likely to do so.“The greater the size of the contribution,” Professor Palmer said, “the greater the odds of favorable outcomes.” Yikes. So, you not only need to give money to legislative candidates to help influence the passage of laws that are favorable to you, you have to give to judges to ensure they decide in your favor when enforcing those laws.