The Houston Chronicle looks at the number of states mulling public financing programs for judicial elections, including Wisconsin and Washington, as these races become the latest hotbed of controversy over the role of money in our elections. The Chronicle talks with Justice at Stake, a group committed to preserving an impartial judiciary and as such supportive of full public financing for judicial races, like the system in North Carolina. Look at some of the scary stats they provide on the rising costs of running for a seat on the bench: _ Television ads soared, with campaign commercials in 10 of the 11 states with contested supreme court seats last year. In 2000, only four states had ads out of 18 states with contested supreme court races._ Spending on TV ads rose to more than $1.6 million in states with contested races, up from $1.5 million in 2004._ Sitting and would-be judges personally attacked their opponents much more often, reversing earlier trends. Candidates sponsored 60 percent of attack ads last year, up from 10 percent of attack ads in 2004. Meanwhile, this AP report out of Washington echoes many of the same concerns while revisiting the recent Supreme Court elections in the state that drew big money like a moth to a flame. Though Governor Christine Gregoire's proposal to create a judicial public financing program was blocked by the legislature this year, the information in this article is compelling evidence to revisit it post-haste.