CHICAOG, Oct 28 (Reuters) - For judges, few issues create more anxiety -- and passion -- than the prospect of having to raise millions of dollars to run for the bench. That potent mix of fear and passion was on display at a panel discussion, Big Money and Judicial Elections, at the American Judicature Society's meeting on Thursday.

The judges in attendance were treated to pie charts and bar graphs showing the steady rise in spending on judicial elections over the past two decades. And they heard recordings of television and radio ads from judicial elections past, including ones that sharply criticized an Illinois Supreme Court justice for decisions he'd made on criminal matters, painting him as soft on crime.

Robert Cummins, a panelist and Chicago-based lawyer, placed some of the blame for the seep of money and politics on last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision, Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission, which ended most restrictions on campaign giving by corporations, unions and interest groups. Cummins said the decision will invite more money into judicial elections, as special interest groups spend freely on campaigns.

"I think the majority [opinion] went out of its way to create a problem for judges that we're going to regret for a long time to come," said Cummins, the chair of an Illinois state bar association committee on judicial tone and conduct. Outside interest groups spent about 30 percent of the money in state high-court elections in the 2009-2010 cycle, according to a report released on Thursday by Justice at Stake, a Washington-based advocacy organization, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, and the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

While much has been made about the impact the Citizen's United decision will have on legislative and presidential elections, "I think they will pale by comparison to the impact it will have on judicial elections," Cummins said. "What are we going to do about it?"

That prompted some individual judges to stand up and swap their own experiences running election and re-election campaigns.

Janet Stumbo said she was voted off the Kentucky Supreme Court after a "messy" campaign in 2004 in which her opponent painted her decisions as soft on crime. Then two years later, she said, she used a state-wide campaign conduct commission to explain to voters that the attacks on her record were unfounded, and was elected to the state's court of appeals.

"I would not have been able to get back on the bench if not for that," she said.

The panelists raised another specter of fear when they brought up the words "retention elections." In some states such as Iowa and Pennsylvania judges run for simple up-or-down votes after completing a term. While previously sleepy, low-dollar affairs, retention elections have become loaded battles in recent years. After the Supreme Court of Iowa issued an opinion legalizing gay marriage in 2009, a public campaign against three of the judges was mounted and they were ousted in the retention election the following year. The judges were caught by surprise by the opposition's powerful grassroots organization, said Seth Andersen, executive director of American Judicature Society.

"They never once said, 'vote for me,'" said Seth Andersen. "They are not political figures. They are judges. They had no idea how to run a campaign. That's not a negative comment - it's just true."

(Reporting by Carlyn Kolker)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal