Another unique investigation by The New York Times gets A1 play in this Sunday's edition (1 Oct. 2006) under the hed "Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Court's Rulings."  Adam Liptak and Janet Roberts (who probably did the heavy lifting on the data analysis) took a long-term look at who contributed to the campaigns of Ohio's Supreme Court justices.  It ain't a pretty picture if one believes the justices should be above lining their own pockets, whether it's a campaign fund or otherwise.

In any event, there seems to be a clear correlation between contributions -- and the sources -- and the outcome to too many cases.  A sidebar, "Case Studies: West Virginia and Illinois," would suggest there is much to be harvested by reporters in other states.

There is, thankfully, a fine description of how the data for the study was collected and analyzed.  See "How Information Was Collected"

There are two accompanying infographics, one  ("Ruling on Contributors' Cases" ) is much more informative than the other ("While the Case Is Being Heard, Money Rolls In" ), which is a good, but confusing, attempt to illustrate difficult concepts and relationships. 

At the end of the day, though, we are grateful for the investigation, data crunching and stories.