After record-breaking spending in April, Wis. Democracy Campaign says voters want reform
After an April election that broke national records for spending, Wisconsin voters are eager to see measures to rein in money in politics, a campaign finance watchdog group leader said Monday.
'It is an environment where billionaires are running the show and everyday people like you and me are here watching,' said Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. 'We will continue to see unprecedented spending unless something changes from our Legislature and our lawmakers.'
The numbers that the organization posted Monday haven't yet pierced the predicted $100 million threshold in the Supreme Court race, but final data won't be compiled until the end of June. The Democracy Campaign focuses on the money actually spent, as distinct from what was raised or what was budgeted, said research director Sam DeForest-Davis.
As of Monday morning, the campaign for Judge Susan Crawford, who won the Court race, spent $22 million compared with the campaign for Judge Brad Schimel, which spent just under $10 million.
While the campaigns spent a combined $32 million, independent groups supporting the campaigns spent a combined $51 million. Schimel was the larger beneficiary of independent spending, with $33.5 million in his favor or opposing Crawford. Independent spending that favored Crawford or opposed Schimel totaled $18 million.
In the race for state superintendent, the two candidates' campaigns — for incumbent Jill Underly, who won, and for her challenger, Brittany Kinser — were just about even in their spending, with $1.3 million for Underly and $1.1 million for Kinser.
Independent spending, however, heavily favored Underly at $1.9 million. Independent spending for Kinser totaled $160,000.
Research director DeForest-Davis said the organization will have a final report in July on spending data, including spending on issue ads that don't include explicit messages to vote for or against a candidate but are slanted to clearly favor one or the other. That information won't be available until the end of June.
Along with the campaign finance data released Monday, the Democracy Campaign released results from an opinion poll of Wisconsin voters on campaign finance.
The survey, of 861 voters conducted from Feb. 11-14, found that 88% of participants were 'very concerned' or 'extremely concerned' about the influence of money in politics.
'I have a hard time thinking of an issue that has this kind of universal feedback across the state,' Ramos said. 'After seeing the gaudy amount of money that was spent in this Supreme Court race, I can only imagine that this number and this percentage are going to increase.'
Nearly as many — more than 85% — said 'no' when asked if individuals or groups should be able to spend 'unlimited amounts of money' to support political campaigns. And 83% said there should be limits on how much campaigns can spend.
Nearly 74% said they would support a ban on campaign spending 'by outside political action committees (PACs) that are not directly affiliated with a candidate's campaign.' About 53% ranked spending by 'dark money PACS who do not have to disclose their donors' as their greatest concern where the influence of money on politics is concerned.
Another question showed that so far publicly financed campaigns haven't gained support from a majority of voters. Almost 47% said they would 'strongly' or 'somewhat' support such a proposal. Just under 30% said they would 'somewhat' or 'strongly' oppose public financing, while 23.5% said they were unsure.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
22 minutes ago
- New York Post
Fired LA fire chief, who was blasted for slow response to deadly wildfires, sues the city
Fired Los Angeles fire chief Kristin Crowley is suing the city for her ouster, claiming Mayor Karen Bass launched a smear campaign against her after the deadly wildfires earlier this year. Crowley, whom Bass gave the axe in February for her allegedly bungled response to the Palisades Fire, accused the mayor of throwing her under the bus, her lawyers announced Wednesday. 'The claim sets out a pattern of dishonesty, scapegoating, and unlawful retaliation that destroyed the career of a 25-year public servant not because of any failure in her duties, but because she told the truth,' her legal team said in a press release. Advertisement 3 Former Los Angeles Fire Dept. Chief Kristin Crowley arrives to appeal for reinstatement as fire chief at city council meeting Tuesday, March 4, 2025, in Los Angeles. AP 3 California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass tour the downtown business district of Pacific Palisades as the Palisades Fire continues to burn on January 8, 2025. Getty Images Mayor Bass had accused Crowley of failing to mobilize around 1,000 spare firefighters after the blaze broke out, as well as failing to file an after-action report. But Crowley says Bass was covering for her own choice to cut the Los Angeles Fire Department budget by $17 million — and punishing Crowley for calling attention to the problem. Advertisement '[Crowley] told City leadership and the public that Mayor Bass' budget cuts and the City's decades of neglect had left the LAFD underfunded, understaffed, and ill-equipped to handle the rising demands of a growing city, especially one at risk of dangerous wildfires,' wrote her attorneys, Genie Harrison and Mia Munro. The suit alleges the Bass administration violated California labor laws and Crowley's First Amendment rights. 3 A firefighter battles the Palisades Fire while it burns homes at Pacific Coast Highway amid a powerful windstorm on January 8, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. Getty Images Advertisement It asks for unspecified damages exceeding $25,000. The suit also flatly denies key accusations Bass leveled at Crowley in February: That she failed to conduct an after-action report, that she failed to deploy 1,000 spare firefighters and 40 spare firetrucks, and that she failed to notify the mayor of dangerous weather conditions.
Newsweek
23 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Amy Coney Barrett Offers Some Advice to Judges
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett offered advice to judges and others in the legal community during an address at the Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference on Monday night. Newsweek reached out to the Supreme Court's public information office for comment via email. Why It Matters Barrett has emerged as a swing vote on the nation's highest court. Although she was appointed by President Donald Trump, she has at times shown a willingness to break from the court's conservative majority. Americans' confidence in the judiciary has fallen in recent years, according to Gallup, which in December 2024 found that only 35 percent of Americans have confidence in the judicial system and courts. The pollster's latest survey on Supreme Court approval yielded similar skepticism from Americans, with only 39 percent approving of the High Court. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Washington on October 21, 2020. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett in Washington on October 21, 2020. Sarah Silbiger-Pool/Getty Images What To Know Barrett addressed hundreds of judges and other legal professionals during a brief address at the conference in Chicago. She urged courts to maintain a sense of "camaraderie and professionalism," Fox News reported. She acknowledged that there are disagreements in the legal field, Bloomberg reported. "Law is a profession that, unlike some others, operates continually under the strain of disagreement," she said, according to Bloomberg. "Doctors cooperate and coordinate to deal with patients. Engineers work together to build a bridge. But litigants and their lawyers are pitted against one another on opposite sides." While this may sound "bleak," it allows attorneys too learn how to argue "without letting it consume relationships," she said. "I'm grateful to the way our bar conducts itself in that regard, because that is what enables the judicial system to work well, that collegiality," she said. During the most recent Supreme Court term, Barrett sided with liberal justices on some issues, including a key deportation case in which she opposed the Trump administration's use of wartime legislation to deport civilians, or a case in which she rejected efforts to freeze foreign aid funding. She has also given the Trump administration wins, including in her ruling on a major birthright citizenship case. What People Are Saying Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in May, per NBC News: "In our judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. And that innovation doesn't work judiciary is not independent. Its job is to, obviously, decide cases but, in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive, and that does require a degree of independence." Gallup, in December 2024: "Few countries and territories have seen larger percentage-point drops in confidence in the judiciary [over a similar four-year span] than the U.S. These include Myanmar [from 2018 to 2022] overlapping the return to military rule in 2021, Venezuela [2012-2016] amid deep economic and political turmoil, and Syria [2009-2013] in the runup to and early years of civil war, and others that have experienced their own kinds of disorder in the past two decades." What Happens Next Supreme Court terms begin on the first Monday of October. This year, it's October 6.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge rules Texas can't put the Ten Commandments in certain school districts' classrooms
Texas cannot require public schools in Houston, Austin and other select districts to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom, a judge said Wednesday in a temporary ruling against the state's new requirement. Texas is the third state where recent laws about putting the Ten Commandments in schools have been blocked by a court. A group of families from the school districts sought a preliminary injunction against the law, which goes into effect on Sept. 1. They say the requirement violates the First Amendment's protections for the separation of church and state and the right to free religious exercise. Texas is the largest state to attempt such a requirement, and U.S. District Judge Fred Biery's ruling from San Antonio is the latest in a widening legal fight that's expected to eventually go before the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Even though the Ten Commandments would not be affirmatively taught, the captive audience of students likely would have questions, which teachers would feel compelled to answer. That is what they do,' Biery, who was named to the bench by President Bill Clinton, wrote in the 55-page ruling that began with quoting the First Amendment and ended with 'Amen.' The ruling prohibits the 11 districts and their affiliates from posting the displays required under the state law. The law is being challenged by a group of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families, including clergy, who have children in the public schools. Although Friday's ruling marked a major win for civil liberties groups, the legal battle is likely far from over. A broader lawsuit that names three Dallas-area districts as well as the state education agency and commissioner is pending in federal court. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he planned to appeal the ruling, calling it 'flawed.' 'The Ten Commandments are a cornerstone of our moral and legal heritage, and their presence in classrooms serves as a reminder of the values that guide responsible citizenship,' the Republican said in a statement, echoing sentiments from religious groups and conservatives who support the law. Texas has a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds and won a 2005 Supreme Court case that upheld the monument. The families were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. 'Today's ruling is a major win that protects the constitutional right to religious freedom for Texas families of all backgrounds,' Tommy Buser-Clancy, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement. 'The court affirmed what we have long said: Public schools are for educating, not evangelizing.' A federal appeals court has blocked a similar law in Louisiana, and a judge in Arkansas told four districts they cannot put up the posters, although other districts in the state said they're not putting them up either. In Louisiana — the first state that mandated the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms — a panel of three appellate judges in June ruled that the law was the daily Crossword
