Propublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates power abuse. Sign up for Dispatches. This is a newsletter that spotlights misconduct across the country, and receives your stories in your inbox every week.
Ten years ago, when Wisconsin lawmakers approved a bill that would allow unlimited spending in state elections, only one Republican voted.
“I thought big money was evil and a curse on our politics,” former state Sen. Robert Cowles recently said of his 2015 decision to defeat his party.
As Wisconsin voters head to the ballot next week and choose a new state Supreme Court judge, Cowles supports his assessment. Voters were hit by a barrage of attack ads from special interest groups, and record-setting amounts were spent on the people to upset. Moreover, according to Cowles, there is little discussion of the major issues. The candidates discussed only once.
“I definitely think the law made things worse,” Cowles said in an interview. “Our public discourse is basically someone who can inflamble things in the cleverest way with a scary TV ad that is probably not true.”
As of March 25, more than $80 million has been poured into the race, according to two groups tracking spending in the contest, the Brennan Judicial Center, a nonpartisan law and policy group following the judicial race, and news outlet wispolitics. This surpassed the previous most expensive judicial race in the country’s history, spending around $56 million on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court competition two years ago.
With money poured into elections in this swing state very quickly and many ads reserved, political observers now believe the current race is likely to reach $100 million by Tuesday, election day.
“I think people are totally tired of political scope just by the amount spent on the Spring Supreme Court election in Wisconsin,” said Jay Heck, executive director of the Common Cause, who has long advocated campaign finance reform.
But most elected officials who can revamp their campaign finance systems and put pressure on change on either side of the aisle are silent. This session has not been introduced. There will be no press conferences from lawmakers. The Senate does not even have a designated election committee.
The current election welcomes former Republican Attorney General of Brad Simmell, a conservative Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge, against Susan Crawford, a judge of Dane County, the state’s liberal fortress.
Although the race is technically independent, Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, support Crawford. The party is financially supported by liberal billionaire George Soros. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump posted a message on social media platforms on March 21st. He urged his supporters to vote for Shimmel, and much of Shimmel’s money comes from political organisations linked to Elon Musk.
The stakes are high. Anyone who wins will decide the ideology of seven courts, just two years after Janet Protesiewitz won a court seat and swayed the Liberal Party. With Protasiewicz in court, the majority have broken down the state’s legislative maps drawn to support Republicans and restored the use of dropboxes to collect absentee ballots.
Simel’s victory could revive these and other voting issues, as well as determining whether state women will continue to have access to abortions.
Two Prosimel groups linked to masks (US PAC and American Future of Buildings) had disclosed spending about $17 million as of March 25th. Musk himself gave $3 million this year to the Republican Party in Wisconsin. In the final stretch of the campaign, the news report revealed that Musk’s US PAC plans to give Wisconsin voters $100 to $100 to sign a petition denying the action of “activist judges.”
It raised concerns among several election watchdogs. It has been investigating whether offers from masks are illegal incentives to vote for people.
On Wednesday night, Musk went further, unveiling a $1 million award to Green Bay voters. Musk has pledged to hand out other million-dollar awards before the election.
Musk has a personal interest in the direction of Wisconsin courts. His electric vehicle company, Tesla Inc., is suing the state with a law requiring manufacturers to sell cars through independent dealers. Musk and Tesla did not respond to requests for comment on his involvement in the race.
Also on Simel’s side are billionaires Diane Hendrix and Richard Woorin, a dark money group founded by billionaires Charles Koch and his late brother David, and Americans for the Americans. Americans for Prosperity report that they spend around $3 million primarily on digital advertising, canvas, mailers and door hangers.
A campaign mailer sent to Wisconsin residents during the state’s Supreme Court election. Credit: Photo collage edited for readability and privacy by Propublica. Retrieved by Propublica.
The political fund, along with Better Wisconsin, a union-backed election group, has increased more than $6 million to drive Crawford forward. In other big spending, Soros gave the state Democrats $2 million, while Illinois Gov. J.B. Pretzker gave another billionaire $1.5 million. California venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, donated $250,000.
In Wisconsin, parties can guide candidates with unlimited amounts.
Sen. Jeff Smith, a Democrat and minority leader, called the spending frenzy “indecent.”
“There’s no reason why the campaign costs just as much as they do,” he said.
Asked for comment on the huge amount of money in the race, Crawford told Propovica:
Simel’s campaign called Crawford a “hypocrite” and said he “plays the victim while he receives more money than any judicial candidate in American history thanks to George Soros, Reed Hoffman and JB Pretzker leaking money into the campaign.”
A quiz was Monday by a television reporter on whether he would reject himself if Tesla cases arrived at the state’s high court. Shimmel did not commit.
Ten years after Wisconsin opened its lock for unlimited money in its campaign in 2015, some great government activists wonder if the state has reached a turning point. Is there any amount that state political leaders can convince them to impose control?
Nick Ramos, executive director of the independent Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks campaign spending, told reporters during a briefing on spending at the race.
A roughly organized group of campaign reformers is beginning to lay the foundation for change. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign was recently called the Zoom Conference, which includes representatives of public interest groups both within and outside of Wisconsin, dark money researchers and election security experts.
They were looking for ways to support reform during the current legislative meeting. In particular, they are studying and considering which models make sense, including greater disclosure requirements, public funding, and limiting candidates’ coordination with dark money groups in published ads.
But Republicans say spending was a natural byproduct of the US Supreme Court’s 2010 Civic Uniformation Decisions, equating campaign spending with free speech and opening up Spigot for a big-budget race.
“Most of the time, as Republicans, we don’t want to see the brakes of freedom of speech,” said Ken Brown, chairman of the GOP party south of Milwaukee. Noting that he hadn’t spoken for the party, Brown said he would not support spending restrictions. “I believe in the First Amendment. That’s what it is. I think the decision to unite the citizens was right.”
Asked to comment on the current unlimited money system, Wisconsin Republican spokesman Annika Ricardo did not answer questions and instead criticised Crawford and her funders.
The reformed bill has opened floodgates
At one point, Wisconsin was seen as providing a roadmap for reform. In 2009, the state passed the Fair Justice Act. The law enacted with bipartisan support, which provides for public funding for state Supreme Court races, can allow candidates to run without resorting to special benefits for their money.
The move comes after an increase in external special interests and spending by candidates in two state Supreme Court races and an increase in spending after an estimated $5.8 million election and a 2008 contest approaching $6 million, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
Candidates who agreed to public funding and spending restrictions in 2009 received a grant of up to $400,000 for the race. The fund came from the Democratic Trust Fund, supported by a $2 income tax check-off.
“Reformers win the fight to wipe out court races,” the headline in a Capital Times editorial I read at the time.
However, the law was implemented only in one election in April 2011. The court’s general election candidates agreed to take public funds that year, while incumbent conservative Judge David Prosser won narrowly. Republicans then removed funds for the summer measures. Instead, money was allocated to enforce the strict Voter ID Act.
By 2015, GOP leaders have completely revised the state’s campaign finance laws and even refused to vote for protest measures.
“This Republican bill will open the floodgates to unlimited spending by billionaires, large corporations, and bring special benefits to impact our election,” Democrat Lisa Sabook said during a floor discussion.
Wisconsin is no longer cited as a model. Activists refer to other states, including Arizona, Oregon and Rhode Island. Arizona and Oregon have established disclosure measures to track the dark money flow and have called for campaign spenders to clarify their original source of donation. Rhode Island has requested that the ads name not only sponsors, but also the organization’s top donors. So we have made sure voters have adequate access to the message and its reliability.
There may be reasons for optimism amid skepticism that Wisconsin will curb campaign spending.
A year ago, a joint resolution proposed in the Wisconsin Legislature united citizens, which unleashed spending. “This expenditure could erase linguistic rights for all citizens, undermine narrow debate, federalism and autonomy in the state, and increase the risk of systemic corruption,” the resolution said.
New Utah laws seek to crack down on life coaches who provide care without a license
The resolution called for a constitutional amendment to clarify that “states may regulate money spending to affect federal elections.”
And it never came to vote, but 17 members of Congress signed it, dozens of them are Republicans. Eight of those are still in Congress, including Sen. Van Wanggard, who voted for the 2015 bill that undermines Wisconsin’s campaign finance rules.
Wanggaard did not respond to requests for comment. However, the aide expressed his surprise when he saw the name of the lawmaker regarding the resolution.
