logo
Wisconsin Supreme Court race is likely to double spending record

Wisconsin Supreme Court race is likely to double spending record

Yahoo17-03-2025

Spending by candidates and outside groups combined will break records again in this year's Wisconsin Supreme Court race. (Getty Images)
Spending in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race could be two times as high as the record-breaking $51 million spent in the last election for a seat on the state's highest court, and outside spending is dwarfing what the candidates themselves have raised so far this year.
The race, between Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, will determine whether the Court maintains a 4-3 liberal majority that flipped two years ago or reverts to a conservative majority that was in place for more than a decade previously.
'We're watching money just flood from out of state into Wisconsin,' said Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, in a briefing Monday about campaign finance trends with two weeks to go before Election Day April 1. 'It would not be crazy to say that this race could be double what the last Supreme Court race was, especially with the trends and especially with the track that we're on.'
Crawford is ahead in fundraising by the campaigns themselves, raising $7.36 million. Among her donors, 35 have given the maximum Wisconsin allows an individual to donate to a single candidate, $20,000.
Schimel's campaign has raised $4.93 million. There are 47 donors who have given him the maximum allowed under Wisconsin law.
The Court race is officially nonpartisan, but over the last couple of decades candidates have divided along partisan as well as ideological lines. Crawford's campaign has received $3 million from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's Political Action Committee (PAC), and the Wisconsin Republican Party PAC has given $1.68 million to Schimel's campaign.
Independent expenditures, however, have so far favored Schimel over Crawford by roughly 3 to 1. Independent expenditures, which explicitly favor or oppose a candidate, are spent by groups outside the campaigns.
Independent groups supporting Crawford have spent $7.79 million on pro-Crawford or anti-Schimel advertising — as much as her campaign has raised so far. But independent groups' spending on Schimel's behalf is almost three times that: $21.45 million.
With 15 days until Election Day, the independent expenditure total in the 2025 race is more than twice what it was at the same point in the 2023 state Supreme Court contest: $29.24 million compared with $14.4 million.
'Credit' for the trend goes to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case that unleashed corporate and union spending on campaigns and to a 2015 rewrite of state law that brought on 'this wild west of campaign spending here in Wisconsin,' Ramos said.
The data also shows the outsized influence of billionaires on state politics, he said. Among the biggest spenders in the race are groups funded by Elon Musk and Richard Uihlein, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign reports.
The top two biggest-spending independent groups favoring Schimel are linked to billionaire Musk: America PAC, spending $6.53 million so far, and Building America's Future, spending $4.54 million, according to the Democracy Campaign.
Three other pro-Schimel organizations have been funded by Uihlein, owner of the office supplies company Uline: Fair Courts America, Americas PAC IEO, and American Principles Project PAC. Another Uihlein organization, Restoration PAC has also contributed to the American Principles Project PAC, according to the Democracy Campaign.
Launched 30 years ago, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign tracks political spending in the state. The nonpartisan organization also promotes campaign finance reform as well as voting rights and access, along with other pro-democracy policies.
Ramos said voters shouldn't let the immense sums that a few are plowing into the race discourage them from going to the polls or to believe their vote won't matter. 'At the end of the day, money does not vote, people do, and your power and your voice is that vote,' he said.
Early voting starts Tuesday in Wisconsin, and the Democracy Campaign is taking part in campaigns to encourage people to vote early and 'for folks to just continue to be civically engaged,' Ramos added.
The Democracy Campaign also tracks spending on issue ads — advertising that does not include direct messages to vote for or against a candidate, but highlights information that paints candidates in a favorable or unfavorable light.
Issue ad spending is more difficult to track, and donors behind issue ad spending aren't required to be disclosed under Wisconsin law. Total issue ad spending data will probably not be available until the summer, said Molly Carmichael, the Democracy Campaign's communications director.
'Phony issue ads flood our airwaves with disinformation and, somehow, have even less reporting requirements than other forms of spending,' said Ramos. 'It's another part of our unregulated, unruly money in politics problems we're going to need to clean up.'
One set of issue ads in the Court race has come under scrutiny for masquerading as a pro-Crawford campaign while it's funded by a conservative group with ties to Musk.
The Facebook and Instagram ads as well as related text messages 'are labeled as coming from a group called Progress 2028 and are made to look like authentic messages of support' for Crawford, the Associated Press reported March 5. But records for the ads showed they were underwritten by a conservative PAC for which Musk is a major contributor, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The ads describe Crawford as a 'progressive champion,' the AP reported, while they focus 'on hot-button issues' and use language 'that potentially diminishes her standing with moderate or conservative voters.'
Spending in the hotly contested race for the office of state superintendent is just a fraction of the money being spent on the state Supreme Court race. That election will choose the person to head the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI).
Incumbent Jill Underly has raised $139,495 as of Monday, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Kinser, a former charter school leader and school choice lobbyist, has raised more than double that, $316,316.
As with the high court race, the DPI contest is officially nonpartisan, but each candidate has been favored by one particular political party. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has given Underly $56,118 from its PAC. The Republican Party has given Kinser $2,500.
Kinser has also benefited more from independent expenditures, with $40,518 spent to promote her or oppose Underly. Independent spending in favor of Underly or opposing Kinser has been about half as much, $23,177.
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

LA cops finally tackle in anti-ICE rioters — as first Trump-ordered National Guard troops arrive
LA cops finally tackle in anti-ICE rioters — as first Trump-ordered National Guard troops arrive

New York Post

time39 minutes ago

  • New York Post

LA cops finally tackle in anti-ICE rioters — as first Trump-ordered National Guard troops arrive

Cops in Los Angeles have finally intervened in response to escalating anti-ICE riots in the city after being ordered to stand by as protesters pelted federal immigration agents with rocks and tried to block them from carrying out raids to arrest illegal migrants on Saturday. The LAPD and Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies fought running battles with protesters who mobbed downtown LA and the suburb of Paramount, California — ordering the protesters to disperse. Sanctuary laws prevent local cops in LA from assisting the feds with immigration enforcement. But last night, the LAPD declared a downtown protest illegal and pushed to break up the crowd. Meanwhile, the first of 2,000 California National Guard troops called up by President Trump arrived in the city to help restore and maintain order. 7 An anti-ICE protester waves a Mexican flag during violence in Los Angeles on Saturday. REUTERS Outside the city, two people were arrested for assault on a peace officers, one for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail that hit three deputies, LA Sheriff's Department officials confirmed to CBS News Los Angeles late Saturday. LA Mayor Karen Bass has been blamed for helping to foment the riots against ICE. Following raids on Friday, she responded by claiming that the federal agents used tactics that, 'sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of safety in our city.' 7 Local police have finally been deployed in response to the LA riots. AFP via Getty Images 7 The riots were triggered by ICE raids on Friday. REUTERS Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell issued a statement Friday saying, 'I want to make it clear: the LAPD is not involved in civil immigration enforcement.' As a result, Trump mobilized the California National Guard and called for a ban on masks at protests. Secretary of Defense Hegseth also said active duty Marines could be called up. He argued that using US troops for law enforcement would not be a violation of the longstanding Posse Comitatus act because the immigrants being targeted by ICE are foreign invaders. 'The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from our soil; a dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels (aka Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK,' Hegseth wrote in a post on X. 'Under President Trump, violence & destruction against federal agents and federal facilities will NOT be tolerated. It's COMMON SENSE. The Department of Defense is mobilizing the National Guard IMMEDIATELY to support federal law enforcement in Los Angeles. And, if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert,' he added. More than 100 migrants have been arrested by ICE since the raids began on Friday. On Saturday, President Trump announced that the National Guard was being deployed to Los Angeles in response to the large-scale protests that broke out following dozens of arrests on Friday in citywide ICE operations. 7 Stores have been looted in the carnage. AFP via Getty Images 'If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!' President Trump posted on his Truth Social platform yesterday evening. At least 2,000 National Guard troops are to be deployed under the president's Title 10 authority 'for 60 days or at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense,' President Trump's memo stated. 7 Border Patrol officers deployed tear gas on the crowds. AP 7 Fires raged in downtown LA and in Paramount. AP 7 The violence continued late on Saturday. Getty Images Trump signed the order shortly before he attended a UFC fight in New Jersey, where he sat ringside with boxer Mike Tyson. Gov. Gavin Newsom spoke out in the wake of the order, ahead of a reported 40-minute conversation with President Trump. Newsom wrote that the 'federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions. LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment's notice,' in a statement posted on X on Saturday. 'We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need. The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust,' he said.

Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation
Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation

American Military News

timean hour ago

  • American Military News

Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation

The Trump administration has launched a process to try to strip Columbia University of its accreditation over a finding the school had failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students from harassment. On Wednesday, the U.S. Education Department notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Columbia's accreditor, that the school was in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws and accordingly does not meet the commission's standards. The government issued the finding May 22. 'Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal anti-discrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. A rep for the accreditor confirmed it had received the letter that afternoon but declined to comment further. The threat to Columbia's accreditation is a serious one. Most federal funding, including financial aid, hinges on a school being accredited. While it appears that only accreditors could revoke Columbia's status, the accrediting entities themselves have to be recognized by the Education Department. 'Columbia is aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States,' said Columbia spokesperson Virginia Lam Abrams. 'Columbia is deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.' The dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's assault on Columbia came as the New York City-based Ivy League school is negotiating with federal agencies over $400 million in canceled grants and contracts, mainly impacting medical research. The university has made various concessions to the government — including more oversight of Middle Eastern studies and ways of cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests — that have so far proved insufficient to restore the funding. McMahon's statement threatened the federal funding that Columbia receives through student financial aid. In a press release, the Education Department said accreditors must take 'appropriate action' against schools such as Columbia to come into compliance within a specified period. 'Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell Grants,' McMahon said. 'We look forward to the commission keeping the department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia's compliance with accreditation standards.' Columbia goes through the accreditation process about every 10 years and was recently being evaluated by the president of Johns Hopkins University, according to Stand Columbia Society, a group of faculty and alumni — who as of last month said the undertaking was 'going very smoothly.' 'Accreditation was never designed to be political. In fact, one of the things that has made accreditation so successful was how the apolitical and obscure machinery of quality control hummed in the background,' Stand Columbia wrote in a newsletter last month. 'But now, for the first time in a hundred years, that backstage machinery is being pulled into the political spotlight. Where it goes from here is uncertain. What's clear is that accreditation is no longer something most people can afford to ignore.' Columbia became the epicenter of campus protests against Israel's military campaign in Gaza when students pitched an encampment last spring calling on their administrators to divest from the war. The demonstration came to a head when a smaller group of protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, prompting the university to call in the NYPD and make mass arrests. More recently, dozens of students took over Butler Library to protest the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student, and what they see as Columbia's role in his arrest by federal immigration authorities in early March. Pro-Palestinian students and their allies have accused Columbia and the Trump administration of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. ___ © 2025 New York Daily News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Tariffs Explained: How Trump's Ever-Changing Trade Policy Will Affect You
Tariffs Explained: How Trump's Ever-Changing Trade Policy Will Affect You

CNET

time4 hours ago

  • CNET

Tariffs Explained: How Trump's Ever-Changing Trade Policy Will Affect You

As Donald Trump's wide-ranging taxes on imports face scrutiny in court, rates on steel and aluminum have been doubled. James Martin/CNET President Donald Trump's second-term economic plan can be summed up in one word: tariffs. When his barrage of import taxes went into overdrive a month ago, markets trembled and business leaders sounded alarms about the economic damage they would cause. After weeks of uncertainty and clashes with major companies, Trump's tariffs hit their biggest roadblock yet in court before being reinstated ahead of a final ruling, allowing him to double the rate on imported steel and aluminum this week. Late Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs, effectively nullifying the tariffs, after concluding that Congress has the sole authority to issue tariffs and decide other foreign trade matters, and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 -- which Trump has used to justify his ability to impose them -- doesn't grant the president "unlimited" authority on tariffs. The next day, an appeals court allowed the tariffs to go back into effect for the time being, while the administration calls for the Supreme Court to overturn the trade court ruling altogether. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:06 Loaded : 100.00% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:06 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs However things shake out in the end, the initial ruling certainly came as a relief to many, given the chaos and uncertainty that Trump's tariffs how caused thus far. For his part, Trump has recently lashed out against companies -- like Apple and Walmart -- that have reacted to the tariffs or discussed their impacts in ways he dislikes. Apple has been working to move manufacturing for the US market from China to relatively less-tariffed India, to which Trump has threatened them with a 25% penalty rate if they don't bring manufacturing to the US instead. Experts have predicted that a US-made iPhone, for example, would cost consumers about $3,500. During a recent earnings call, Walmart warned that prices would rise on things like toys, tech and food at some point in the summer, which prompted Trump to demand the chain eat the costs themselves, another unlikely scenario. Amid all this noise, you might still be wondering: What exactly are tariffs and what will they mean for me? The short answer: Expect to pay more for at least some goods and services. For the long answer, keep reading, and for more, check out CNET's price tracker for 11 popular and tariff-vulnerable products. What are tariffs? Put simply, a tariff is a tax on the cost of importing or exporting goods by a particular country. So, for example, a "60% tariff" on Chinese imports would be a 60% tax on the price of importing, say, computer components from China. Trump has been fixated on imports as the centerpiece of his economic plans, often claiming that the money collected from taxes on imported goods would help finance other parts of his agenda. The US imports $3 trillion of goods from other countries annually. The president has also, more recently, shown a particular fixation on trade deficits, claiming that the US having a trade deficit with any country means that country is ripping the US off. This is a flawed understanding of the matter, as a lot of economists have said, deficits are often a simple case of resource realities: Wealthy nations like the US buy specific things from nations that have them, while those nations might in turn not be wealthy enough to buy much of anything from the US. While Trump deployed tariffs in his first term, notably against China, he ramped up his plans more significantly for the 2024 campaign, promising 60% tariffs against China and a universal 20% tariff on all imports into the US. Now, tariffs against China are more than double that amount and a universal tariff on all exports is a reality. "Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented," Trump said at a campaign stop in Michigan last year. At one point, he called himself "Tariff Man" in a post on Truth Social. Who pays the cost of tariffs? Trump repeatedly claimed, before and immediately after returning to the White House, that the country of origin for an imported good pays the cost of the tariffs and that Americans would not see any price increases from them. However, as economists and fact-checkers stressed, this is not the case. The companies importing the tariffed goods -- American companies or organizations in this case -- pay the higher costs. To compensate, companies can raise their prices or absorb the additional costs themselves. So, who ends up paying the price for tariffs? In the end, usually you, the consumer. For instance, a universal tariff on goods from Canada would increase Canadian lumber prices, which would have the knock-on effect of making construction and home renovations more expensive for US consumers. While it is possible for a company to absorb the costs of tariffs without increasing prices, this is not at all likely, at least for now. Speaking with CNET, Ryan Reith, vice president of International Data's worldwide mobile device tracking programs, explained that price hikes from tariffs, especially on technology and hardware, are inevitable in the short term. He estimated that the full amount imposed on imports by Trump's tariffs would be passed on to consumers, which he called the "cost pass-through." Any potential efforts for companies to absorb the new costs themselves would come in the future, once they have a better understanding of the tariffs, if at all. Which Trump tariffs have gone into effect? Following Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements on April 2, the following tariffs are in effect: A 50% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, doubled from 25% as of June 4. A 30% tariff on all Chinese imports until Aug. 10 while negotiations continue. China being a major focus of Trump's trade agenda, this rate has been notably higher than others and has steadily increased as Beijing returned fire with tariffs of its own, peaking at 145%, which it could return to down the line if a deal is not reached. 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico not covered under the 2018 USMCA trade agreement brokered during Trump's first term. The deal covers roughly half of all imports from Canada and about a third of those from Mexico, so the rest are subject to the new tariffs. Energy imports not covered by USMCA only will be taxed at 10%. A 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts. A sweeping overall 10% tariff on all imported goods. For certain countries that Trump said were more responsible for the US trade deficit, Trump imposed what he called "reciprocal" tariffs that exceed the 10% level: 20% for the 27 nations that make up the European Union, 26% for India, 24% for Japan and so on. These were meant to take effect on April 9 but were delayed by 90 days as a result of historic stock market volatility, which makes the new effective date July 8. Trump's claim that these reciprocal tariffs are based on high tariffs imposed against the US by the targeted countries has drawn intense pushback from experts and economists, who have argued that some of these numbers are false or potentially inflated. For example, the above chart claims a 39% tariff from the EU, despite its average tariff for US goods being around 3%. Some of the tariffs are against places that are not countries but tiny territories of other nations. The Heard and McDonald Islands, for example, are uninhabited. We'll dig into the confusion around these calculations below. Notably, that minimum 10% tariff will not be on top of those steel, aluminum and auto tariffs. Canada and Mexico were also spared from the 10% minimum additional tariff imposed on all countries the US trades with. On April 11, the administration said smartphones, laptops and other consumer electronics, along with flat panel displays, memory chips and semiconductors, were exempt from reciprocal tariffs. But it wasn't clear whether that would remain the case or whether such products might face different fees later. How were the Trump reciprocal tariffs calculated? The numbers released by the Trump administration for its barrage of "reciprocal" tariffs led to widespread confusion among experts. Trump's own claim that these new rates were derived by halving the tariffs already imposed against the US by certain countries was widely disputed, with critics noting that some of the numbers listed for certain countries were much higher than the actual rates and some countries had tariff rates listed despite not specifically having tariffs against the US at all. In a post to X that spread fast across social media, finance journalist James Surowiecki said that the new reciprocal rates appeared to have been reached by taking the trade deficit the US has with each country and dividing it by the amount the country exports to the US. This, he explained, consistently produced the reciprocal tariff percentages revealed by the White House across the board. "What extraordinary nonsense this is," Surowiecki wrote about the finding. The White House later attempted to debunk this idea, releasing what it claimed was the real formula, though it was quickly determined that this formula was arguably just a more complex version of the one Surowiecki deduced. What will the Trump tariffs do to prices? In short: Prices are almost certainly going up, if not now, then eventually. That is, if the products even make it to US shelves at all, as some tariffs will simply be too high for companies to bother dealing with. While the effects of a lot of tariffs might not be felt straight away, some potential real-world examples have already emerged. Microsoft has increased prices across the board for its Xbox gaming brand, with its flagship Xbox Series X console jumping 20% from $500 to $600. Elsewhere, Kent International, one of the main suppliers of bicycles to Walmart, announced that it would be stopping imports from China, which account for 90% of its stock. Speaking about Trump's tariff plans just before they were announced, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that they would generate $6 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Given that tariffs are most often paid by consumers, CNN characterized this as potentially "the largest tax hike in US history." New estimates from the Yale Budget Lab, cited by Axios, predict that Trump's new tariffs will cause a 2.3% increase in inflation throughout 2025. This translates to about a $3,800 increase in expenses for the average American household. Reith, the IDC analyst, told CNET that Chinese-based tech companies, like PC makers Acer, Asus and Lenovo, have "100% exposure" to these import taxes as they currently stand, with products like phones and computers the most likely to take a hit. He also said that the companies best positioned to weather the tariff impacts are those that have moved some of their operations out of China to places like India, Thailand and Vietnam, singling out the likes of Apple, Dell and HP. Samsung, based in South Korea, is also likely to avoid the full force of Trump's tariffs. In an effort to minimize its tariff vulnerability, Apple has begun to move the production of goods for the US market from China to India. Will tariffs impact prices immediately? In the short term -- the first days or weeks after a tariff takes effect -- maybe not. There are still a lot of products in the US imported pre-tariffs and on store shelves, meaning the businesses don't need a price hike to recoup import taxes. Once new products need to be brought in from overseas, that's when you'll see prices start to climb because of tariffs or you'll see them become unavailable. That uncertainty has made consumers anxious. CNET's survey revealed that about 38% of shoppers feel pressured to make certain purchases before tariffs make them more expensive. About 10% say they have already made certain purchases in hopes of getting them in before the price hikes, while 27% said they have delayed purchases for products that cost more than $500. Generally, this worry is the most acute concerning smartphones, laptops and home appliances. Mark Cuban, the billionaire businessman and Trump critic, voiced concerns about when to buy certain things in a post on Bluesky just after Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements. In it, he suggested that consumers might want to stock up on certain items before tariff inflation hits. "It's not a bad idea to go to the local Walmart or big box retailer and buy lots of consumables now," Cuban wrote. "From toothpaste to soap, anything you can find storage space for, buy before they have to replenish inventory. Even if it's made in the USA, they will jack up the price and blame it on tariffs." CNET's Money team recommends that before you make any purchase, especially of a high-ticket item, be sure that the expenditure fits within your budget and your spending plans in the first place. Buying something you can't afford now because it might be less affordable later can be burdensome, to say the least. What is the goal of the White House tariff plan? The typical goal behind tariffs is to discourage consumers and businesses from buying the tariffed, foreign-sourced goods and encourage them to buy domestically produced goods instead. When implemented in the right way, tariffs are generally seen as a useful way to protect domestic industries. One of the stated intentions for Trump's tariffs is along those lines: to restore American manufacturing and production. However, the White House also claims to be having negotiations with numerous countries looking for tariffs exemptions and some officials have also floated the idea that the tariffs will help finance Trump's tax cuts. You don't have to think about those goals for too long before you realize that they're contradictory: If manufacturing moves to the US or if a bunch of countries are exempt from tariffs then tariffs aren't actually being collected and can't be used to finance anything. This and many other points have led a lot of economists to allege that Trump's plans are misguided. In terms of returning -- or "reshoring" -- manufacturing in the US, tariffs are a better tool for protecting industries that already exist because importers can fall back on them right away. Building up the factories and plants needed for this in the US could take years, leaving Americans to suffer under higher prices in the interim. That problem is worsened by the fact that the materials needed to build those factories will also be tariffed, making the costs of "reshoring" production in the US too heavy for companies to stomach. These issues, and the general instability of American economic policies under Trump, are part of why experts warn that Trump's tariffs could have the opposite effect: keeping manufacturing out of the US and leaving consumers stuck with inflated prices. Any factories that do get built in the US because of tariffs also have a high chance of being automated, canceling out a lot of job creation potential. To give you one real-world example of this: When warning customers of future price hikes, toy maker Mattel also noted that it had no plans to move manufacturing to the US. Trump has reportedly been fixated on the notion that Apple's iPhone -- the most popular smartphone in the US market -- can be manufactured entirely in the US. This has been broadly dismissed by experts, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above, but also because an American-made iPhone could cost upward of $3,500. One report from 404 Media dubbed the idea "a pure fantasy." The overall sophistication and breadth of China's manufacturing sector has also been cited, with CEO Tim Cook stating in 2017 that the US lacks the number of tooling engineers to make its products. For more, see how tariffs might raise the prices of Apple products and find some expert tips for saving money.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store