The outrageous cost of Alabama’s most recent Supreme Court election has many people considering a change in the way we select justices.

Candidates spent $13.4 million on elections to the state’s highest court, which has an annual budget of only about $8.5 million.

Judicial elections are not so much about partisan politics as they are about vested interests. Trial lawyers and business councils are willing to throw around millions of dollars to support judges they believe will help further their respective causes.

This, of course, creates an appearance of impropriety. When a judge who takes campaign money from an insurance company decides a case for the defense, it looks like the business bought its verdict. It seems similarly suspicious when a judge who benefited from trial lawyers’ donations finds for the plaintiff.

Some state leaders have suggested forming a “blue ribbon panel that has public confidence” to appoint judges, who would later have to run for retention. This is a partial solution, but also is a way to launder the funds through another entity.

Any politician who chooses panel members will surely be a magnet for contributions from those same interests. Assume the governor, for example, is responsible to appoint members of this task force. And, for the sake of argument, let’s say an insurance company makes a substantial contribution to the governor’s campaign — money it might otherwise have donated to a judicial candidate.

Would that insurance company not have the governor’s ear when it came time to appoint the panel? How would this process be any different from the crime for which former Gov. Don Siegelman is currently imprisoned?

As long as the special interests — big business and the trial lawyers — believe their contributions will further their respective causes, they will continue to spend.

While special-interest contributions may appear to taint judges’ decisions, the solutions proposed thus far do little to eliminate the problem.

Under the existing system, at least, judges are accountable to the voters and their contributions are a matter of public record. The problem is, however, that voters can’t figure out who puts the money into political action committees because of PAC-to-PAC transfers.

Complete disclosure is the surest way to elect impartial judges.