Ten years ago, when Wisconsin lawmakers passed legislation allowing unlimited spending in state elections, only one Republican, former state Senator Robert Cowles, opposed the measure. Cowles explained that he believed large sums of money negatively impacted politics.
As Wisconsin voters prepare to select a new state Supreme Court justice, Cowles maintains his stance. Voters have faced numerous attack advertisements from special interest groups, with unprecedented amounts of money being spent to influence the electorate. However, Cowles noted there has been limited discussion on key issues, as candidates only participated in one debate.
According to Cowles, the legislation has exacerbated the situation, claiming it has degraded public discourse to a contest of inflammatory and often misleading advertisements.
By March 25, over $80 million had been invested in the race, figures provided by the Brennan Center for Justice and WisPolitics, surpassing the previous record-high for a judicial race. Observers predict spending could reach $100 million by election day.
Jay Heck, director of Common Cause Wisconsin, expressed frustration at the excessive spending on the Supreme Court election. Yet, political leaders have largely remained silent, with no legislation proposed or discussed on campaign finance reform.
The election highlights a face-off between former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel and Dane County Judge Susan Crawford. While the race is technically nonpartisan, the Democratic Party and prominent individuals like former President Barack Obama have endorsed Crawford. Conversely, former President Donald Trump supports Schimel.
The election’s outcome could significantly impact the Supreme Court’s ideological tilt, affecting past decisions and future legal matters, such as women’s access to abortion in Wisconsin.
Significant financial backing for Schimel’s campaign has come from groups linked to Elon Musk, with concerns arising about potential inducements to voters. Meanwhile, Musk has a vested interest in the outcome due to an ongoing Tesla lawsuit concerning state car sales regulations.
On Schimel’s side, major donors include billionaires Diane Hendricks, Richard Uihlein, and organizations like Americans for Prosperity.
Supporting Crawford, groups such as A Better Wisconsin Together have contributed sizeable amounts, with funding also coming from George Soros, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.
State Democrats, including Senator Jeff Smith, have criticized the rampant spending on campaigns, calling it “obscene.” While Crawford expressed gratitude for grassroots support, Schimel’s camp accused her of hypocrisy due to her campaign’s substantial financial backing.
Despite scrutiny, Schimel did not commit to recusing himself from potential Tesla-related court cases, stating he would assess each case for objectivity.
A decade after the decision to allow unlimited campaign spending, some activists question whether a turning point has been reached that might prompt legislative action to institute controls.
Campaign reformers are beginning efforts for change, considering disclosure requirements and public financing measures. However, Republicans uphold the 2010 Citizens United ruling, equating campaign spending with free speech.
Wisconsin’s campaign finance rules, once seen as reformative through the 2009 Impartial Justice Act, have been dismantled. This change led to the current landscape of unchecked spending, with political activism now turning towards other states for potential reform models.
There remains a glimmer of hope: a recent resolution in Wisconsin’s Legislature called for a constitutional amendment to clarify state regulation on federal election spending, which, despite not being voted on, gained support from some Republicans still in office.
