logo
Will $100M Supreme Court elections be the new normal in Wisconsin?

Will $100M Supreme Court elections be the new normal in Wisconsin?

Yahoo05-05-2025
GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN - MARCH 30: Billionaire businessman Elon Musk arrives for a town hall meeting wearing a cheesehead hat at the KI Convention Center on March 30, 2025 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The town hall is being held in front of the state's high-profile Supreme Court election between Circuit Court Judge Brad Schimel, who has been financially backed by Musk and endorsed by President Donald Trump, and Dane County Circuit Court Judge Susan Crawford. (Photo by)
On April 1 Wisconsin voters decisively voted against unprecedented, massive outside interference in our state Supreme Court election by the nearly $30 million from the richest and second (to Donald Trump) most egotistical person in the world – Elon Musk. In handing Musk's endorsed candidate, Brad Schimel, a more than 10 percentage point, 269,000-vote drubbing, Wisconsinites rendered the nation a great service by humiliating Musk here and thereby driving him from the corridors of power and influence in Washington D.C. where he has been savaging vital U.S. government services and programs that helped the poorest people in our nation and in the world.
Wisconsin also opted to preserve recent democracy reforms in our state by maintaining the current 4-3 progressive majority on the Court. Fairer and more representative state legislative voting maps and the restoration of the use of secure ballot drop boxes for voters will be preserved and the possibility of new and enhanced political reform is possible in the years immediately ahead either through upholding reforms passed legislatively, through court action, or both.
But what can be done about the obscene amount of political money raised and spent to elect a new Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice in 2025 – as much if not more than $105 million – by far the most amount ever spent in a judicial election in the history of the United States? Wisconsin faces new state supreme court elections every April for the next four years and a continuation of such frenzied and out of control spending for the foreseeable future seems both unbearable and unsustainable.
Voluntary spending limits for Supreme Court candidates with the incentive of providing them with full public financing if they agree to statutory spending limits is a possibility. Wisconsin actually had such a law in place for exactly one Supreme Court election in 2011. The Impartial Justice Act was made possible by passage with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in the Wisconsin Legislature and enactment into law in 2009. In 2011, both candidates for a seat on the high court agreed to the voluntary spending limits of $400,000 each and received full public financing. That campaign was robust, competitive and the result was close, which is what you would expect in Wisconsin. And it cost just a tiny fraction of the more than $100 million that was spent in 2025.
Unfortunately, later in 2011, then-Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled Wisconsin Legislature defunded the Impartial Justice Act and all other public financing for elections, Four years later, Walker and the GOP completely eviscerated and deformed Wisconsin's campaign finance laws. They did away with limits on what political parties and outside groups can raise and spend in elections, increased individual campaign contribution limits and, most alarmingly, legalized previously illegal campaign coordination between so-called issue ad spending groups and candidates, which greatly increased opportunities for corruption and undue influence through campaign spending. Disclosure requirements were weakened and, in some instances, dismantled altogether.
In just four short years, Wisconsin was transformed from one of the most transparent, low spending and highly regarded election states in the nation to one of the worst, least regulated special interest-controlled political backwaters in the nation, akin to Texas, Louisiana or Florida.
This current corrupt status quo will remain in place for the upcoming state Supreme Court elections in 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029 unless the governor, Legislature and the Wisconsin Supreme Court take action and do the following:
Re-establish an 'impartial justice' law for the public financing of state Supreme Court elections modeled after the 2009 law which was in place for only one election before it was repealed. Update and revise it to better fit current times and circumstances including more realistic spending limits and higher public financing grants.
Establish clear recusal rules for judges at all levels in Wisconsin that clearly decree that if a certain campaign contribution is reached or surpassed beyond a certain threshold amount, then the beneficiary of that contribution (or of the expenditure against her/his opponent) must recuse from any case in which the contributor is a party before the court.
Restore sensible limitations on the transfer of and acceptance of campaign funds and make illegal again campaign coordination between outside special interest groups engaged in issue advocacy with all candidates for public office — particularly judges.
Petition the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the disastrous 2010 Citizens United vs F.E.C. decision which ended over 100 years of sensible regulation of unlimited corporate, union and other outside special interest money in federal and by extension state elections, unleashing the torrential flood of campaign cash drowning democracy today.
These are common-sense, achievable reforms that, if enacted into law, would go a long way toward restoring desperately needed public confidence in the fairness, impartiality and trust in Wisconsin's courts and in particular, our Wisconsin Supreme Court which was regarded as the model for the nation and the best anywhere a quarter century ago. But it will take determined action by all three branches of Wisconsin's state government working together with the voters to uphold election integrity and curb corruption in a way all of us can embrace.
Ultimately, of course, it's up to us, the voters, to hold our governmental institutions accountable and ensure that they work for us instead of for their own narrow interests and those of the donor class. In this critical season of resistance and defiance against tyranny — speak up, make noise and ensure that your voice is heard. Demand real reform and an end to the corruption of our representative government.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Virginia Giuffre's family expresses shock over Trump saying Epstein ‘stole' her
Virginia Giuffre's family expresses shock over Trump saying Epstein ‘stole' her

Los Angeles Times

time24 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Virginia Giuffre's family expresses shock over Trump saying Epstein ‘stole' her

The family of Virginia Giuffre, who was among Jeffrey Epstein's most well-known sex trafficking accusers, said that it was shocking to hear President Trump say the disgraced financier 'stole' Giuffre from him and urged that Epstein's former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell remain in prison. Giuffre, who had accused Britain's Prince Andrew and other influential men of sexually exploiting her as a teenager trafficked by Epstein, has been a central figure in conspiracy theories tied to the case. She died by suicide this year. Her family's statement is the latest development involving Epstein, who took his own life in a New York jail in 2019 while facing federal sex trafficking charges, and the Republican president, who was his one-time friend. Trump denied prior knowledge of Epstein's crimes and said he cut off their relationship years ago, but he still faces questions about the case. Trump, responding to a reporter's question on Tuesday, said that he got upset with Epstein over his poaching of workers and that Epstein had stolen Giuffre from his Palm Beach, Florida, club. 'It was shocking to hear President Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been 'stolen' from Mar-a-Lago,' the family's statement said. 'We and the public are asking for answers; survivors deserve this,' it continued. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt noted the president was responding to a reporter's question and didn't bring up Giuffre himself. 'The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees,' she said. The family's statement comes shortly after the Justice Department interviewed Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 on sex trafficking and other charges and is serving a 20-year sentence in Tallahassee, Florida. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewed Maxwell in a Florida courthouse, though details about what she said haven't become public. Maxwell's lawyers have said she testified truthfully and answered questions 'about 100 different people.' They have said she's willing to answer more questions from Congress if she is granted immunity from future prosecution for her testimony and if lawmakers agree to satisfy other conditions. A message seeking comment about the Giuffre family's statement was sent to Maxwell's attorney Thursday. A Trump administration official said the president is not currently considering clemency action for Maxwell. Giuffre said she was approached by Maxwell in 2000 and eventually was hired by her as a masseuse for Epstein. But the couple effectively made her a sexual servant, she said, pressuring her into gratifying not only Epstein but his friends and associates. Giuffre said she was flown around the world for appointments with men including Prince Andrew while she was 17 and 18 years old. The men, including Andrew, denied it and assailed Giuffre's credibility. She acknowledged changing some key details of her account. The prince settled with Giuffre in 2022 for an undisclosed sum, agreeing to make a 'substantial donation' to her survivors' organization. The American-born Giuffre lived in Australia for years and became an advocate for sex trafficking survivors after emerging as a central figure in Epstein's prolonged downfall. Her family's statement said she endured death threats and financial ruin over her cooperation with authorities against Epstein and Maxwell. Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

Josh Hawley says he had 'good chat' with Trump after dustup over stock trading bill

time26 minutes ago

Josh Hawley says he had 'good chat' with Trump after dustup over stock trading bill

WASHINGTON -- WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Josh Hawley is brushing off President Donald Trump's quip that he's a 'second-tier' senator after the Republican's proposal to ban stock trading by members of Congress — and the president and vice president — won bipartisan approval to advance in a committee vote. The Missouri Republican told Fox News late Wednesday that it's 'not the worst thing' he's ever been called and that he and the president 'had a good chat' clearing up confusion over the bill. The misunderstanding, Hawley said, was that Trump would have to sell his Mar-a-Lago private club and other assets. 'Not the case at all,' Hawley said on 'Jesse Watters Primetime.' It was the second time in many days that Trump laid into senators in his own party as the president tries, sometimes without success, to publicly pressure them to fall in line. Earlier, Trump tore into veteran GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa over an obscure Senate procedure regarding nominations. In a social media post, Trump called Hawley a 'second-tier Senator' who was playing into the hands of Democrats. Trump added: 'I don't think real Republicans want to see their President, who has had unprecedented success, TARGETED, because of the 'whims' of a second-tier Senator named Josh Hawley!' Stock trading by members of Congress has long been an issue that both parties have tried to tackle, especially as some elected officials have become wealthy while in elected office. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, it was disclosed that lawmakers were trading as information about the health crisis before it became public. Insider trading laws don't always apply to the types of information lawmakers receive. Hawley's legislation with the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, sailed out of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, after his support delivered a bipartisan vote over the objections of the other Republicans, who have majority control. GOP senators had been working with the White House on the stock trade bill, and some supported a broad carve-out to exclude the president from the ban, but it failed, with Hawley joining Democrats to block it. Trump also complained that Hawley joined with Democrats to block another amendment that would have investigated the stock trades of Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker emerita, and her spouse. Paul Pelosi has been a much-watched trader, but the California lawmaker's office said she personally does not own stock. Hawley said after his conversation with Trump that the president 'reiterated to me he wants to see a ban on stock trading by people like Nancy Pelosi and members of Congress, which is what we passed.' The senator also suggested the Democratic leader should be prosecuted, but it's not clear on what grounds. Pelosi has said repeatedly that she's not involved in her husband's work on investments, strongly supports the bill and looks forward to voting for it in the House. 'The American people deserve confidence that their elected leaders are serving the public interest — not their personal portfolios,' she said. In a joint statement, Hawley and Peters said the legislation, called the Honest Act, builds on an earlier bill and would ban members of Congress, the president, vice president and their spouses from holding, buying or selling stock. An earlier proposal from Hawley, named after Pelosi, had focused more narrowly on lawmakers. If the bill were to become law, it would immediately prohibit elected officials, including the president, from buying stocks and would ban them from selling stocks for 90 days after enactment. It also requires the elected officials to divest from all covered investments, but not until the beginning of their next term in office — shielding the term-limited president from that requirement. 'We have an opportunity here today to do something that the public has wanted to do for decades,' Hawley told the panel. 'And that is to ban members of Congress from profiting on information that frankly only members of Congress have on the buying and selling of stock.' During the committee hearing, tensions flared as Republicans sought other approaches. GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida proposed one amendment that would exempt the president, the vice president, their spouses and dependent children from the legislation, and the other one that would have required a report on the Pelosi family's trades. Both were defeated, with Hawley joining the Democrats. 'We are one step closer to getting this bill passed into law and finally barring bad actors from taking advantage of their positions for their own financial gain,' Peters said in a statement. One Republican, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, said the overall bill is 'legislative demagoguery.' 'We do have insider trading laws. We have financial disclosure. Trust me, we have financial disclosure,' Johnson said. 'So I don't see the necessity of this.' Trump's post criticizing Hawley comes after a similar blowback directed Tuesday night at Grassley. In that post, Trump pressured Grassley to do away with the Senate's longtime 'blue slip' custom that often forces bipartisan support on presidential nominations of federal judges. The practice requires both senators in a state to agree to push a nominee forward for a vote. Trump told Grassley to do away with the practice. 'Senator Grassley must step up,' Trump said, while claiming that he helped the senator, who was first elected in 1980, to win reelection.

Hawley and Trump make up
Hawley and Trump make up

Politico

time26 minutes ago

  • Politico

Hawley and Trump make up

Sen. Josh Hawley is blaming other senators for misleading Donald Trump on his moves to ban congressional stock trading after the president derided the senior Missouri Republican on Truth Social Wednesday evening. Hawley told reporters Thursday morning he has since spoken with Trump and cleared up the confusion. 'Senators — I don't know who — had called and told him yesterday afternoon that the bill had changed at the last minute and would force him to sell all of his assets, sell Mar-a-Lago, sell his properties,' Hawley said the president told him. 'That's just false.' Hawley said he explained that his proposal, which would put a stock trading ban into effect immediately for executive and legislative branch officials, would explicitly exempt the president from having to divest from holdings for the remainder of his term. This fact, according to the senator, changed Trump's mind about the bill. 'He said at the end, 'Oh ok, great. This is good,'' Hawley said of Trump.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store