“Unlimited Money in Wisconsin Elections: A Tipping Point for Change?”
In Wisconsin, a state Supreme Court election is making headlines for the record-breaking amount of money being poured into the race. With more than $80 million already spent as of March 25th, this election is on track to reach $100 million by election day on Tuesday. The influx of money has sparked concerns among voters and watchdog groups, who are questioning the impact of such massive spending on the democratic process.
Former state Sen. Robert Cowles, who voted against a bill allowing unlimited spending in state elections ten years ago, expressed his concerns about the current state of affairs. He believes that the flood of money has led to a decline in public discourse, with attack ads dominating the airwaves and little discussion of substantive issues. Cowles’ sentiments are echoed by many across the political spectrum, who are dismayed by the sheer amount of money being funneled into a spring Supreme Court election in Wisconsin.
The current election features former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel and Judge Susan Crawford, with both candidates receiving significant financial support from high-profile donors. Schimel has ties to political organizations linked to Elon Musk, while Crawford has received endorsements and funding from liberal billionaire George Soros. The outcome of this election will determine the ideological balance of the seven-member court, with implications for key issues such as voting rights and abortion access in the state.
The unprecedented spending in this election has raised alarms among election watchdog groups, particularly regarding a controversial move by Musk’s America PAC to offer Wisconsin voters $100 to sign petitions against “activist judges.” Some groups are exploring whether this offer constitutes an illegal inducement to vote. Musk’s personal interest in the outcome of the election, related to a lawsuit involving his company Tesla, adds another layer of complexity to the race.
Despite the outcry over the massive spending, elected officials on both sides of the aisle have been largely silent on the issue of campaign finance reform. Calls for greater transparency, public financing, and restrictions on coordination with dark-money groups are gaining traction among reform advocates. However, some Republicans argue that the current system is a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which equated campaign spending with free speech.
Wisconsin’s history of campaign finance reform, including a brief period of public financing for state Supreme Court races, serves as a cautionary tale of the consequences of dismantling such measures. While some lawmakers have expressed support for reining in campaign spending, the path to meaningful reform remains uncertain. As the state grapples with the implications of unlimited money in politics, the future of campaign finance regulation in Wisconsin hangs in the balance.