Attanasio closes his letter by asking: “Is this the best we can do? Let’s switch to merit selection of judges in Pennsylvania.”

We agree that it is time for Pennsylvania to move to merit selection. Merit Selection focuses on candidates’ qualifications to serve on the bench, opens up the opportunity for qualified candidates of all backgrounds and from across the Commonwealth to apply for judicial vacancies, and gets money out of the process. Simply put, Merit Selection is a better way to select judges.

Among the candidates who received contributions were some current and former members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This particular fact prompted strong comments from Philadelphia Inquirer reader John R. Attanasio:

But how “surprising” was it that two justices made the list? Did they run for office “advocating slots gaming in the commonwealth”? They didn’t publicly. Or were they supported by casino money because the contributors hoped to influence their future actions on the bench?

Whatever their motivations, we know one thing for sure: [one of those justices] participated in the court’s ruling that struck down a statutory ban on campaign contributions from gambling interests. Even if that case was correctly decided, his being involved in it certainly doesn’t look good for him, or our legal system.

There are two lessons here: First, big political contributions can create at least the appearance of a corrupt influence on public policy. Second, the idea of judges’ running for election, and raising money from special interests to do so, is absurd.

Mr. Attanasio makes a good point: electing judges makes no sense.