In states across the country, judges are being forced to raise millions of dollars to win seats on the bench at all levels. From Washington to West Virginia, judicial elections are big business. Just like campaign contributions for legislators, one has to wonder what influence these campaign contributions have on a judge when they are hearing the case of the contributors. Justice is supposed to be blind, but it's hard when there are thousands of dollars in campaign contributions giving you bifocals.   Texans for Public Justice has released a new report highlighting the connections between the donors to Supreme Court candidates and the business these donors have before the court. According to the press release, “A new study finds that the six current, major-party candidates for the Texas Supreme Court took two-thirds of the $2.3 million that they raised from January 2007 through June 2008 from lawyers and litigants who have had business before that court since 2005.” The three Republican incumbent justices received 65 percent of their campaign cash from those who’ve had business before the court and 69 percent of the money for the Democratic challengers came from so-called “courtroom contributors.” "Today, the main people bankrolling judicial campaigns are those with a direct interest in the court’s rulings. We must eliminate the incentive that special interests now have to give money to Texas judges," said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. Two states, North Carolina and New Mexico, have passed full public financing for judicial elections as an alternative to the pay-to-play system. In North Carolina, several judges have been elected using the system. Judge Wanda Bryant, on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, recently talked about her experience with public financing on a panel discussion at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Legislative Conference. You can watch the video here.