A day after introducing Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, Democratic nominee Kamala Harris takes her presidential campaign to Wisconsin.
Her sudden shift to the top of the ticket has raised questions about how future campaigns might be run. Along with the Harris campaign, the Republican nominee for vice president JD Vance will also be in Wisconsin today. Analysts say Harris was able to quickly garner party support after President Joe Biden opted not to accept the Democratic nomination.
David Schultz, professor of political science at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota, said in the past half-century, campaigns have typically unfolded after the midterms. He wondered if a new mindset will take over.
"If she were to win, this changes the strategy where people might say, 'Well, gosh, I don't have to declare two years in advance and go through all those battles,'" Schultz suggested.
Schultz pointed out another domino to fall is getting the states aligned with their presidential primaries and having most of them held in late spring and early summer. In its polling from 2016, 2020 and this year, the Pew Research Center said a majority of respondents felt election coverage fatigue in the latter stages of the presidential race.
Schultz argued shorter presidential campaigns could also open the door to renewed interest in the party conventions.
"We have forgotten about the fact that, for so much of American history, we didn't know the presidential nominee until the convention," Schultz noted.
While shorter campaign cycles might resonate with voters, some experts said it will be hard to overhaul the marathon approach to seeking the White House because of the money needed to carry out a successful bid.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email
After Elon Musk, a man once worth $327 billion, spent a quarter billion to elect Donald Trump, he was rewarded with unprecedented powers over the federal government.
Brandon Novick, policy coordinator with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says blatant corruption in the United States is not new. And it's legal, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley versus Valeo ruling in 1976.
"That decision was the root one that said that 'money is speech' and that people can infinitely spend in elections. In Citizen's United, basically the court said based on this, we're saying corporations, not just individuals, can infinitely spend in elections," he explained.
To avoid the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, Novick said the nation's highest court clarified that unlimited spending to influence the outcome of an election is OK, so long as the cash is spent independently and not in coordination with a candidate's official campaign.
Billionaires are not just buying power from Republicans. Novick pointed to Reid Hoffman, who spent some $17 million on the Kamala Harris campaign. When Hoffman called for the Federal Trade Commission's chair Lena Kahn to get the boot, Harris refused to commit to keeping Kahn in her post.
"This issue is bipartisan. The establishments of both parties are not working to solve it. But the current Trump administration is the greatest example of blatant billionaire control bought through bribes in campaign spending," Novik said.
Good-government groups have long argued that in American democracy, one citizen - not one dollar - should equal one vote. Novick said there are only two viable pathways to get money out of politics. The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn previous decisions, which is unlikely since many of today's Justices were involved in Citizen's United.
"The only other way to get past this is a constitutional amendment to overturn their decision and get money out of politics. Because if Congress just passes a law, they'll strike it down," he added.
get more stories like this via email
Political maneuvers continue with the pivotal Wisconsin Supreme Court race less than a week away - the latest coming from the White House. In the weeks leading up to the April 1st election, the state has seen partisan-backed campaigns, swirling misinformation and incentives that border on bribes. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reshape state elections - with changes like proof of citizenship requirements - days before Wisconsin voters take to the polls.
Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs with Stand Up America, says it all reflects the climate stoked by the country's leaders.
"So, it's no surprise that they're trying that playbook again in Wisconsin," he explained. "And what it still comes down to is a really basic question. Do we want a MAGA court in Wisconsin? Do we want a Supreme Court bought and paid for by Elon Musk?"
Groups tied to Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who is overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency, have poured about $17 million into backing candidate Brad Schimel, while Susan Crawford's campaign reports a total $24 million in funding, with notable contributions from billionaire George Soros. Overall spending has surpassed all records for judicial races and is expected to reach $100 million.
Most state elections don't garner mass attention, but Edkins says in the battleground swing state, outcomes have national implications.
"Where Wisconsin goes, so goes the country. What's at stake in Wisconsin are ensuring that we have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028," he added.
The high court has become the referee for some of the most hotly debated election rules, narrowly rejecting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election results. And last year the court reversed gerrymandered maps and restored ballot drop boxes.
Lucy Ripp, communication director with A Better Wisconsin Together, says voters need to cut through the chaos and remember why the election matters.
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court exists to uphold and protect our constitutional rights and freedoms in Wisconsin. And so, it's really important that we pay attention to who we are electing to the court," she said.
Cases about abortion access, the rights of voters with disabilities, noncitizen voting and the legality of drop boxes are just some the high court could see - as well as a lawsuit concerning one of Musk's companies, Tesla.
Disclosure: Stand Up America contributes to our fund for reporting on Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Pol, Civic Engagement, Civil Rights. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Gov. Mark Gordon has just a few days left to make final decisions on bills passed during the Wyoming legislative session.
Both fair election advocates and Gordon himself have called some in the pile "boilerplate." The governor signed bills into law this month to prohibit ranked choice voting -- a system not currently used in the state -- and foreign funding for ballot measures, although one slated for the 2026 ballot will be the first in 30 years.
Marissa Carpio, policy director for the Equality State Policy Center, noted the trend could be the result of new control by the Freedom Caucus in Wyoming's House of Representatives.
"What seems like happened is, boilerplate bills from national groups making their way into Wyoming, with issues that we just do not have," Carpio observed. "Maybe just to send a message to those national groups that Wyoming is a place where you can do that."
Gordon this week vetoed Senate File 196, which would have amended the "Second Amendment Protection Act" to include legal ramifications for police officers who "participate in" the enforcement of federal firearms laws. In his three-page veto letter, Gordon wrote the state "shouldn't need to pass boilerplates created in far-flung states that seek to fix problems we haven't seen in Wyoming."
A bill still awaiting Gordon's pen would change qualifications for voter registration to include a 30-day residency requirement and proof of citizenship, which often means a passport or birth certificate.
Carpio pointed out the bill mirrors the federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE Act.
"Our concerns with that bill were that it would impact women, elderly women without documentation or who might have a different name on some of their papers than other papers," Carpio outlined. "It might open up the door for discriminatory practices."
According to the Center for American Progress, 60% of Wyoming citizens do not have a valid passport, and nearly 140,000 women in the state do not have a birth certificate matching their current legal name.
Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email