Texans today choose Texas judges in partisan elections. Campaign contributions, many from deep-pockets donors, pay for judicial campaigns. As the 1998 survey data on the attitudes of judges, court personnel, attornies, and the public displayed in this bar chart shows, few people believe that judges completely ignore their campaign contributors. Overwhelming majorites of the public, attorneys, court personnel, and even judges themselves believe campaign contributions Texans today choose Texas judges in partisan elections. Campaign contributions, many from deep-pockets donors, pay for judicial campaigns. As the 1998 survey data on the attitudes of judges, court personnel, attornies, and the public displayed in this bar chart shows, few people believe that judges completely ignore their campaign contributors. Overwhelming majorites of the public, attorneys, court personnel, and even judges themselves believe campaign contributions have a somewhat or very significant influence on judicial decisions. Attorneys--a major source of contributions--almost universally believe their money affects judicial decisions. Ninety-nine percent said contributions were a somewhat or very significant influence. On the other hand, the public appears more conflicted on this matter than elites and insiders. Larger proportions of the public than of any other group believe either that campaign dollars are a very significant matter (forty-three percent) or that they don't matter at all (seventeen percent). Even among judges only fourteen percent believe that campaign contributions have no influence on judicial decisions.