Leading up to this week's election, Wisconsin voters have been inundated with campaign ads for the high-profile state Supreme Court race, and watchdogs say the massive spending should lead to more calls for reform.

The race to fill a seat on Wisconsin's high court has shattered campaign spending records, with nearly $40 million in contributions. The outcome of the contest will affect the court's ideological balance, making it attractive to donors.

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, said the loosening of state campaign finance laws in recent years is a big factor here.

"The campaign finance laws in Wisconsin have been totally decimated in the last 10 years," Heck contended. "We now allow in this state coordination between outside special interest groups and candidate committees, including for the Supreme Court."

The court has had a conservative majority for some time now, sparking backlash about such matters as gerrymandered political maps favoring Republicans. Even with those concerns in mind, Heck argued all voters lose when judicial campaigns are allowed so much access to financial support. He noted the candidates now have to run like those seeking other offices, shedding their impartiality in the process.

Republicans led the charge to overhaul the state's campaign finance laws, and Democrats have made unsuccessful attempts to bring back restrictions. Those who supported the changes argued they were necessary because these activities were already happening. But Heck countered it is grown out of hand, especially for judicial races.

"And I think that's a tragedy, because that's not what Wisconsin used to be like," Heck recounted. "We used to have a reputation for having one of the most impartial, least corruptible court systems in the country."

He warned justices are not required to recuse themselves from a case if there is a conflict of interest stemming from a campaign donation.

Common Cause is not endorsing any candidate, but Heck acknowledged a flip to a left-leaning majority could lead to decisions on election policy his group supports, included overturning a ban on drop boxes for ballots.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email

Nearly 1,000 political scientists from across the U.S. have signed a letter, saying American democracy is under threat based on the early actions of the new Trump administration. A North Dakota expert is among those speaking out. Those who added their names to the statement work for colleges and universities in both "red" and "blue" states. They highlight six specific areas of concern, including the administration acting unilaterally to cancel spending approved by Congress. They say moves like that undermine checks and balances.

Mark Jendrysik, a political science professor based in North Dakota, says he personally feels the nation is in a "constitutional crisis."

"The presidency is attempting to basically render Congress superfluous to almost every important decision, and the most important decision, which is how money is raised and spent," hew said.

He added that Congress, currently under Republican control, seems too willing to surrender that power and said this has been a crisis building for decades, with the executive branch trying to seize more control. In defending certain actions, the White House says it's ensuring that all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.

But Jendrysik, who isn't speaking on behalf of the University of North Dakota where he teaches, says the arguments he's seen from the Trump administration don't hold up. He says he realizes some people choose not to pay attention to what's happening, but he thinks both Congress and citizens should be worried, too.

"Someone else smarter than me [once] said, 'When citizens stop saying "the public affairs aren't my concern," then the republic is lost,'" he continued.

The authors behind the statement say Trump fairly won last fall's election, but add that his
victory doesn't grant him the right to overturn the nation's constitutional and legal order. Other political observers say longtime dysfunction in Congress in addressing the nation's problems has allowed too many voters to consistently view the legislative branch as ineffective, giving rise to an administration willing to push legal and ethical boundaries.


get more stories like this via email

This week marks 15 years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The ruling reshaped campaign finance by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. The decision has left a profound mark on states like Ohio.

Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, highlighted its local impact at a roundtable discussion this week. But first, he remarked on the presence of billionaire donors at Monday's presidential inauguration.

"Oligarchy in America, boy, yesterday was a portrait of that," Morelle observed. "In Ohio, for example, an electric utility used dark money to cause state House lawmakers to ensure passage of a bill which bailed out the coal and nuclear plants, while rolling back clean energy standards."

American Electric Power reached a multimillion-dollar settlement after a federal investigation into its role in Ohio's House Bill 6 scandal. The Columbus-based utility announced it will pay a $19 million fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, underscored the national and local consequences of unchecked political spending.

"Since the Citizens United decision happened, they have spent now 13 times the amount this election," Solomón pointed out. "It's no wonder that you have people who are nurses, teachers, firefighters, everyday Americans who are running for office and just simply can't compete, or who have opted out."

Beyond corporate influence, Solomon mentioned the unmeasured effect of in-kind contributions, such as media control and algorithmic bias. The panel members warned Citizens United has undermined democratic representation, even as proponents defend it as free speech.

Tiffany Muller, president of the advocacy group End Citizens United, was also critical of Ohio's controversial House Bill 6, legislation to secure financial support for the state's aging power plants. She suggested it exemplifies how dark money can influence state policy.

"FirstEnergy paid $60 million to get a $1.3 billion bailout," Muller noted. "The largest pay-to-play corruption scandal in that state's history."

She added the Ohio scandal is just one example of how money can shift priorities toward corporate interests at the expense of voters.

Reporting by Ohio News Connection in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.




get more stories like this via email

Ohio's U.S. Senate race between the incumbent, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Republican Bernie Moreno has become one of the most expensive in American history, now totaling more than $400 million.

At the heart of the high-stakes election is the role of cryptocurrency. Its backers' financial influence has ignited debate over regulation and transparency. Both sides have been vocal on what it could mean, not only for Ohioans but for the future of cryptocurrency regulation across the country.

Mark Hays, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform and the advocacy group Demand Progress, shared his skepticism about the money flowing from the crypto sector.

"The money that's being spent is an effort to punish those politicians for trying to maintain strong regulatory standards," Hays explained.

Moreno has gained substantial backing from the Defend American Jobs super PAC, a group aligned with pro-crypto interests. This PAC has launched a $41 million ad campaign promoting him. Hays argued it is all part of a broader push for lenient crypto regulations in Congress, which Brown strongly opposes.

At a campaign stop in Columbus on Monday, Moreno defended the support from crypto backers, stating, "The reason they supported me is because they agree with me, not because I agree with them." He also addressed questions about his personal connection to cryptocurrency.

"I sold my Bitcoin, so I didn't want to have any nonsense from liberal reporters saying that I'm pro-crypto because of financial interest," Moreno asserted. "And the crypto community understands that this election is an existential threat to their existence here in America."

Brown, who chairs the Senate Banking Committee, has been a key figure in Congress advocating for strong regulatory oversight of the crypto industry. He has not shied away from addressing what he sees as significant risks posed by digital assets.

"The fraud, the scams and the outright theft; you can lose big in crypto's huge price swings," Brown pointed out. "They didn't tell you about the high fees pocketed by the crypto companies. Without regulation, stablecoins can endanger our economy, our payment system, our hard-earned money."

With control of a Senate seat in play and unprecedented levels of funding, Ohio voters are seeing firsthand how digital currency backers can shape political discourse.