PMC has  announced that a revised study by the American Judicature Society (AJS) confirms that there is significant overlap between contributors to the election campaigns of Pennsylvanian Supreme Court justices and litigants, lawyers and  law firms appearing before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  (Due to an error that resulted in some court cases being counted more than once, AJS reevaluated all of the data.)
According to the revised AJS study, which evaluated 82 civil cases decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2008-09 (during which there were six elected justices and one who had been appointed to fill an interim vacancy):

• In 60% of the cases, at least one of the litigants, lawyers, or law firms had contributed to the election campaign of at least one justice.

• In nearly one-third of the cases (32%) a single litigant, lawyer, or law firm had contributed to at least four of the six elected justices’ election campaigns.  This represents a majority of the court.

PMC's Lynn Marks explained that the AJS study does not attempt to determine whether campaign contributors received more favorable rulings.  Marks noted, however, that "When one party to a case has contributed to a member of the Court deciding that case, it creates an appearance of influence that causes citizens to doubt the fairness of our judicial system."
Legislation is currently pending in the Pennsylvania legislature to amend the constitution to implement Merit Selection for appellate court judges. “Merit Selection takes money out of the selection process and ensures that we select judges based on their qualifications and experience, not the size of campaign war chests,” concluded PMC's Marks.