Ten years ago, when Wisconsin’s legislators approved the bill to allow unlimited state elections, only one Republican voted for “no”.
“I just thought big money is evil, the curse of our politics,” said former state senator Robert Kales recently about his decision for 2015 to fight the party.
As Wisconsin’s voters go to the elections next week to select a new Justice Supreme Court, Kales is evaluated. Voters suffered from squall advertisements from special interest groups, and record amounts of money were spent on residents. Moreover, Kales said there was little discussion of major problems. The candidates only discussed once.
“I definitely believe that this legislation has aggravated,” Kales said in an interview. “Our public discourse is mostly one who can ignite things in the most intelligent way with some scary television advertising that is probably not even the case.”
According to two groups that track the costs in the competition, more than $ 80 million was sent to the race as of March 25, which trace the costs – Brannan -Center for Justice, non -partisan laws and policies that monitor the lawsuits, and the news authenticity of Wispolitics. This exceeds the previous expensive judicial dew in the country’s history, Approximately $ 56 million He spent two years ago at the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin.
The money is poured into this election on Swing State so fast, and so many ads have been reserved that political observers believe that on Tuesday, the current race could reach $ 100 million, which is the election day.
“I think that people are very disgusting, all the political spectrum with a lot of money spent on the Supreme Court’s elections in Wisconsin,” said Jay Hec, Executive Director in the Wisconsin General Case, which has long been in favor of reforming the company’s financing.
But elected officials who could revise the company’s financing system on both sides of the passage or create pressure on changes, largely silent. No bills were introduced into this session. No press conferences from legislators. The Senate has no more appointed election committee.
The current election was former Prosecutor General of Republicans Brad Shimel, who is now a judge of the Conservative District of Vakes, against Susan Kroford, a judge in the Dane, a state -owned state.
Although the race is technically a non -partisan, democratic party, including former President Barack Obama, approved Cruford; The party received financial support from George Soros’s liberal billionaire. On the other hand, on March 21, President Donald Trump outlined a message on the social media platform in which he called for his supporters to vote for Shimel, and most Shimel’s money comes from political organizations related to Elon Musk.
The rates are high. The one who wins, determine ideological bent From the seven -year court, only two years after Janet Protasevich won the place on the site and unfolded it to the liberals. With protasiewicz on the site most struck the legislative maps that were attracted in favor of Republicans and resumed Using a box for falling To gather the cloudy ballots.
Shimel’s victory may resurrect these and other voting issues as well as determine whether women in the state will still have to access abortion.
Two prof-chemical groups related to the Moscow-American PCC and the construction of the future of America-scraped costs about $ 17 million, as of March 25. Musk himself donated $ 3 million to the Wisconsin Republican Party this year. In the last section of the company News are revealed What America Moscow PCC plans to give Wisconsin voters to $ 100 to sign the petitions by rejecting the actions of “activists’ judges.”
This has caused concern about some election groups studying whether Moscow’s proposal against illegal stimulation will force people to vote.
On Wednesday night, Musk went on, announcing the $ 12 million voter Green -Bey, which he identified only as “Scott A” for “supporting our petition against the judges of activists in Wisconsin!” Musk promised to give out other dollars before the election.
Musk has a personal interest in the direction of the Visconsin courts. His company electric vehicles Tesla Inc., sue the state A law that requires manufacturers to sell cars through independent dealers. Musk and Tesla did not respond to requests for his participation in the race.
Also from Shimele: billionaires Diana Hendrix and Richard uhlein And Americans for welfare, a dark monetary group founded by billionaire Charles Koch and his late brother David. The Americans have reported about $ 3 million for welfare, primarily for digital advertising, showdowns, mailing and door hangers.
Credit:
Photo collage edited for disassembling and privacy propublica. Received propublica.
Best Wisconsin’s Best Political Fund A group that supported the unionrose More than 6 million dollars To promote Kruford. In other great expenses, Soros gave $ 2 million in the State Democratic Party, while the Governor of Illinois J. B. Packer, another billionaire, gave $ 1.5 million. And the California Venture Capitalist raid Hoffman, co -founder LinkedIn, donated $ 250,000.
In Wisconsin, political parties can rule unlimited candidates.
State Senator Jeff Smith, Democrat and Minority leader, called the madness “obscene”.
“There is no reason why companies should cost as much as they are,” he said.
Asking to comment on a lot Historical focus The main support in Wisconsin from people who do not want Elon Musk, which controls our Supreme Court. “
Shimelya called Crioford a “hypocritical”, saying that “he sacrifices, receiving more money than any candidate in US history thanks to George Soros, Hoffman’s Raid and JB Pritzker, who send money to their campaign.”
On Monday, a reporter was held on Monday on whether he would refuse himself when the Tesla case went to the Supreme Court, Shimel did not accomplish: “I will do the same thing I do in each case. I will study if I can really hear the case objectively.”
A decade after Wisconsin opened the gateways to unlimited money in the company in 2015, some good government activists are wondering whether the state has reached a turning point. Do they ask, what political leaders of the state can be convinced to impose control?
“I frankly, I believe that people are open around the money in such a way that they were not before,” said Nick Ramas, the Wisconsin Executive Democracy Executive Company, which monitors the company’s expenses, reported to reporters during a race briefing.
A poorly organized group of company reformers begins to set the basis for change. A Wisconsin Democracy Campaign Recently called a meeting with scale, which included representatives of public interests inside and outside Wisconsin, dark money researchers and election experts.
They were looking for ways to defeat the reform during the current legislative session. In particular, they study and consider what models make sense and can be reached, including high requirements for disclosure, state financing and restriction of candidates Coordination with groups of dark money by the release of advertising.
But Republicans say the expenses are a natural by-product of the US Supreme Court decision 2010, which has equated the spending on a speech company and opened spyware for big money.
“For the most part, we are not really like Republicans, we want to see the brakes for free speech,” said Ken Brown, the past chairman of the Gop Rusin Party, a city south of Milouoki. Noticing that he did not stand for the party, Brown said he did not contribute to the cost restrictions. “I believe in the first amendment. This is what is. I believe that the” only citizens “was right.”
Asking to comment on the current system of unlimited money, the press -secretary of the Republican Party, Wisconsin Anika Ricardo, did not answer the question, but instead criticized Crudard and its sponsors.
The bill after the reform opened the gateways
At one point, Wisconsin was seen as a roadmap for reforms. In 2009, the state passed a law on impartial justice. The legislation adopted with two -party support is provided for state financing the Supreme Court races, so the candidates could work without addressing special interests for money.
Pressing this measure occurred after increasing external interests and two Supreme Court races: 2007 elections that cost еstimulated $ 5.8 million and the 2008 contest that Approached to $ 6 millionAccording to the Wisconsin Democracy campaign.
The candidates who agreed in 2009 for state financing and cost limits received grants of up to $ 400,000 per race. The money was received from the Fund of Trust Democracy, which was supported by the income tax in the amount of $ 2.
“Reformers will win the fight for the cleaning of the court races,” the title in the Capital Times at the time.
But the law was created for only one election, in April 2011. Both candidates for the general election of the court this year agreed to accept public financing, and the valid justice David Prasser, the Conservative, narrowly won the re -election. Then the Republicans eliminated the financing of this measure that summer. Instead, the money was scheduled for the implementation of the brutal law on voter certification.
Until 2015, Goop executives completely repaired the company’s financing law, and the Democrats in the Assembly even refused to vote for this measure.
“This republican bill opens gateways to unlimited billionaires, large corporations and maneuver special interests that affect our elections,” said Democrat Lisa Subek, debates.
Wisconsin is no longer called the model. Activists point to other states, including Arizona, Oregon and Rod -Ayland. Arizon and Oregon Established information disclosure measures to trace the stream of dark money, demanding that the company costs find the initial source of donations. Rod -Ayland Not only the sponsor but also the main donors of the organization should be called advertising so that voters can better access the message and its authority.
Among the skepticism that Wisconsin will hold the costs of agitation may be some reason for optimism.
A year ago offered a joint permit The United States’ legislative body, which was unleashed. The resolution states that “these costs can suppress the rights for all citizens, narrow discussions, weakening of federalism and self -government in the states and increasing the risk of systemic corruption.”
The resolution called for amendments to the Constitution, which clarifies that “states can regulate money costs on the influence on federal elections.”
And although this never came to the vote, 17 members of the legislative body signed it, a dozen of them. Eight of them are still in the legislative body, including Senator Van Wanggaard, who voted in favor of the bill on the Wisconsin’s financing bills.
Wanggard did not respond to a comment request. But the assistant expressed a surprise – and distrust – seeing the name of the legislator in the resolution.
