Final answer:
Texas enacted campaign finance regulations to limit the influence of money on judicial elections, with specific contribution limits per individual and law firms. The Supreme Court allows individual contribution limits but has struck down total spending caps in elections.
Step-by-step explanation:
In order to limit the potential influence of money on judicial candidates if elected to office, Texas enacted campaign finance regulations. The Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo established the precedent that while individuals can give money to political campaigns, there are limits to preserve the influence of average citizens. The Court let stand limits on individual contributions to prevent a wealthy individual from exerting excessive influence over the political process. These limits help ensure that candidates must raise funds from a broad pool of contributors, creating a more level playing field.
Additionally, the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission case ruled that limits on the total amounts of money individuals can donate during two-year election cycles are a violation of the First Amendment. However, individual contributions to single candidates and PACs are still capped at certain amounts. For judicial candidates in Texas, specific dollar limits per individual and a collective cap from attorneys at any law firm have been set, though the specifics of these limits were not provided in the student's question.