The upcoming state Supreme Court race between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel has drawn nationwide attention due to its high-profile donors and the sheer amount of money raised for candidates.
Crawford has received numerous donations from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois and billionaire philanthropist George Soros. On the other hand, Schimel has received funding from the Republican Party of Wisconsin and political action committees associated with Elon Musk, America PAC and Building America’s Future PAC, according to AP News.
The race, which will determine a narrow majority in the court, is projected to be the most expensive state Supreme Court race in U.S. history.
Support for Schimel from the state Republican Party reflects a change in approach from the state’s 2023 Supreme Court race. Dan Kelly, the “conservative” candidate in the 2023 race, refused direct funding from the Republican Party, according to WPR. But Schimel recently commented that separating partisan influences from court races is an outdated idea.
Wisconsin law does not require state justices to recuse themselves from cases involving individuals or groups that have helped finance their election campaign, according to WPR. For example, if cases involving Tesla or SpaceX reach the state Supreme Court, Schimel is not required to step away from the case, and he may exhibit bias in favor of the company.
As of now, Schimel denies Musk’s funding would impact his outlook on a potential Tesla court case. He emphasized his donors would be treated equally under the law, according to AP News.
Still, Crawford and supporters have been outspoken about the influence they believe Musk has over the election’s outcome. A recent ad by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin accuses Schimel of being “for sale” and criticizes Musk’s involvement and financial investment in the race.
The advertisement ran independently of Crawford’s campaign, but when asked about the video, she said Musk’s involvement in a state judicial race via millions spent on attack ads is a great cause for concern, according to WPR.
At the same time, billionaire Soros has donated large sums to Crawford’s campaign. Schimel’s supporters claim Soros’ funding is equally or more dangerous than Musk’s support, according to PBS Wisconsin. Schimel claims Soros has a “dangerous” outlook for the U.S. regarding reducing police funding. But Democrats argue this is starkly different from Musk’s investments in Schimel as Soros’ support lies in ideology rather than potential direct business benefits.
This begs the question of whether or not intense funding for candidates in a nonpartisan race is constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of independent spending in campaigns in the 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee, stating financial support was a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. This has paved the way for large “super PACs” and independent donors to become highly influential in the political process.
Even though this funding is considered constitutional, extreme spending on nonpartisan races should not be normalized to this extent. Out-of-state donations and special interest groups shape the narrative of the race in terms of partisan politics. As both sides justify their spending while attacking each others’ donors, debates over whose funding is considered acceptable have overwhelmed candidates’ speeches and media coverage of the race. This takes attention away from issues important to Wisconsin residents.
For instance, the state Supreme Court is expected to decide on cases surrounding congressional district boundaries and reproductive rights, among other pressing issues, according to AP News.
Wisconsinites deserve the opportunity to make their vote based on their ideological alignments with regard to these issues that will have direct impact on communities and individuals throughout the state. These issues involve Wisconsin residents who identify as Independents or apathetic about national politics, and these voters cannot be excluded from state politics just to make room for encroaching billionaires hailing from states on the other side of the country and representing divisive partisan politics.
As partisan influences embrace national political undertones, the money pouring into this race sets a dangerous precedent regarding the support of independent groups in nonpartisan races. At a time where true independence is nearly impossible to attain, it is time to reexamine how much of a stake third-party investors are allowed to have in state elections. Investment from parties that do not have any stake in Wisconsin’s future forces our candidates to focus on national implications while neglecting the state-level implications that many voters resonate with.
As donors dominate the discussion around the upcoming Supreme Court election, voters and candidates must prioritize their state and community. We must not lose sight of the impact that this election will have on issues important to voters — not to billionaires from across the country.