Sponsors of a new campaign finance reform law say it would get big money out of politics, and put the public back in charge of elections. The plan introduced Monday would create full public financing for state elections, which supporters say would save taxpayers money in the long run. Under the plan, candidates would have to collect a set number of five dollar contributions to be eligible for public funding, and if their opponent exceeded spending limits, they would get extra help. Assembly sponsor Mark Pocan says record spending in recent Supreme Court, Governor, and Attorney General races show that big spenders have too much say in Wisconsin politics.

"You see what happens when you have the big money influencing campaigns -- they’re very nasty campaigns. It really takes the public interest away, and candidates have to spend so much of their time raising money all too often from special interests."

Mike McCabe with the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign says public financing is a bargain, compared to the costs of the current system.

"Every time we help finance a tax break or a slice of budget pork or a no-bid contract for wealthy campaign contributors, we’re paying for election campaigns."

Critics of public financing say taxpayers shouldn’t pay for political campaigns. The State Senate holds a hearing on campaign finance reform this afternoon.


get more stories like this via email

In the midst of political tensions surrounding Israel's handling of the conflict with Hamas, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., has voiced her support for colleagues facing backlash for their stance.

The "Protect the Squad" campaign is hoping to raise $100 million in an effort to stand up to rival race runners supported and funded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

Tlaib emphasized the need for American citizens to stand up and advocate for peaceful solutions amid escalating violence. Tlaib's statements come as part of a broader discussion about the influence of organizations such as AIPAC on progressive lawmakers critical of Israel's policies.

"Please join me in supporting my colleagues that are standing up," Tlaib urged. "They're getting attacked right now, calls into their offices. They need to hear from the American people who know this is the answer to try to get a peace-loving solution to the violence."

AIPAC and other GOP megadonors plan to spend $100 million on campaigns targeting established progressive leaders such as Bush, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. The "Squad" is rallying to counter by raising funds by April 30, strategically timed for primary races against their AIPAC-backed opponents. The committee was filed with the Federal Election Commission Thursday.

All five Squad Democrats have condemned Hamas' Oct. 7 attack. However, their criticism of U.S. military aid to Israel and of America's unwavering support of Israel's fight in Gaza are seen as inflammatory by Israel's supporters. Bush emphasized the need for equality in humanitarian values.

"You must allow yourself to be consistent in your love and your respect for humanity," Bush emphasized. "You must not let yourself turn a blind eye to the mass murder of Palestinians, even as we strongly condemn Hamas for its appalling attack against Israelis."

Bush faces a tough primary against Wesley Bell in Missouri's 1st District of St. Louis County, trailing by 22 points in a February poll by Remington Research Group. Bell is supported by The Democratic Majority for Israel PAC and narrowly leads in fundraising by more than $5,000.

Meanwhile, Tlaib and Omar are financially thriving. Tlaib, who is the sole Palestinian American in Congress, raised $3.7 million in last year's fourth quarter, according to FEC filings, a sum comparable to Senate candidates.


get more stories like this via email

Census data indicate among voting-age Americans, nearly 25 million Black and brown eligible voters are missing from commonly used registration databases.

A recent study by McKinney Grey Analytics showed people of color are being systematically sidelined by "seemingly inclusive, data-driven digital systems" of voter engagement. Analysts believe it could eliminate thousands of key voters in states such as Ohio.

Prentiss Haney, senior adviser for the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, said it often means many eligible voters must re-register or be disenfranchised.

"Over time, they actually fall off the list, and they're not even in the conversation," Haney pointed out. "And what we see in America is that those voters tend to be Black voters, brown voters and people of color. And it's not because those voters are disengaged. It's that they're cynical about the system."

The Ohio Secretary of State eliminated more than 26,000 names from the state's voting list in 2023 for lack of voting activity for the previous four years. Haney noted many of the people on the list have moved and did not receive a notice. The state has a website where voters can check their status and re-register if they have been purged.

The study found given how close recent elections have been, finding and engaging millions of missing Black and Latino voters will "almost certainly determine" the outcome of elections in the future.

Haney added many of the omitted voters are lost in the system.

"When we say a voter is missing, we mean that in the ways that traditional campaigns do outreach, these voters are not on those lists, they are not being targeted," Haney explained. "They are missing from engagement and the outreach that they should get as someone engaging in our democracy."

Deidra Reese, voter engagement director for the group, said it is important for people purged from the rolls to understand their vote counts.

"It certainly can be challenging because there are people who feel like it doesn't matter," Reese acknowledged. "But we try to help them understand why it does matter when they are engaged, and that when they disengage, it can matter more because a smaller number of people are driving the process."


get more stories like this via email

Undisclosed funding, or "dark money," is pumping into the 2024 election cycle.

Political spending by donors who stay hidden is reaching record highs, according to a report by OpenSecrets.

Author Anna Massoglia - the editorial and investigations manager at Open Secrets - said dark money might be coming from shadowy shell companies or non-profits, and often funds misleading attack ads against candidates from either party.

"When you have dark-money groups fueling this spending," said Massoglia, "the voter may not know what interest the secret donors behind that have in getting a specific candidate elected, a ballot measure passed or any other policy issue."

In 2022, OpenSecrets found that the Conservative Americans PAC spent more than $2.4 million in GOP primary races for U.S. House seats in Missouri, Tennessee and Arizona.

They discovered the super PAC was bankrolled by undisclosed American Economic Freedom Alliance and American Prosperity Alliance support prior to the votes.

Supporters of dark money donations argue they are a form of free speech, and in fact courts have often found that political donations are protected by the First Amendment.

Campaign watchdogs argue in return that even if donations are a form of protected speech, nothing stops the government from requiring full disclosure of who the donations are coming from - and without that, campaign advertising becomes inherently deceptive.

Massoglia says it really varies from one state to the next, in terms of which party and which side of the aisle is benefiting more. And, the patchwork of limits and disclosure rules vary greatly across the states.

"In some states, you can actually have 501(c)(4) dark-money groups or shell companies contribute directly to candidates' campaigns," said Massoglia, "which is something that's not allowed at the federal level. They're only allowed to spend in support of the candidate."

Massoglia emphasized that while dark money can come from various sources, it often comes from one type.

She said 501(c)(4) nonprofits are supposed to exist for social welfare purposes, but due to few restrictions on their spending they are able to spend practically unlimited sums on elections without ever disclosing their donors.




get more stories like this via email