In a country filled with obvious targets for political critique, the groundbreaking Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case stands out prominently. Its closest competitor may not even come close.
The Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in 2010, which determined that prohibiting political contributions from corporations and unions violates the First Amendment’s free speech rights, continues to ignite debates among the American public. Surveys conducted right after the ruling revealed that 80 percent of respondents disapproved of it, with 65 percent expressing strong opposition. Five years later, 84 percent believed that money exerts “too much” influence on elections in a post-Citizens United era. A 2023 survey indicated that 77 percent still shared that sentiment.
Campaign finance reform may be the only issue that garners substantial agreement among ordinary members of both the Democratic and Republican parties across the nation. Nevertheless, Congress has yet to act on the clear demands of the populace. Recently proposed constitutional amendments in both the Senate and House aimed to nullify Citizens United, but they hardly attracted media attention.
This brings us to one of the most shocking demonstrations of election spending in American history, which unfolded last week in Wisconsin as Susan Crawford, a circuit court judge in Dane County, bested former Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel for a decade-long term on the state’s highest court.
The statistics related to the amount of money expended on a judgeship race during an early spring, off-year election are astonishing:
- No judicial election has ever surpassed $60 million in contributions in U.S. history; this one exceeded $100 million.
- The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that over 100,000 donors from all 50 states contributed to one of the campaigns or state parties.
- A significant portion of the total funds raised came from billionaires, as the Journal Sentinel revealed. Investor and philanthropist George Soros contributed $2 million to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which funneled the funds to the Crawford campaign. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, also a billionaire hotel magnate, contributed $1.5 million.
- The wealthiest individual globally, Elon Musk, together with his political groups, spent over $20 million on the race. Musk’s company, Tesla Inc., is currently involved in a lawsuit against Wisconsin concerning a state law mandating car manufacturers to sell through independent dealerships.
Unlike Pennsylvania, where candidates for state judgeships can be politically affiliated on the ballot, judicial races in Wisconsin are intended to be nonpartisan. This ideal, however, is far from achievable in an era where campaign finance rules heavily favor corporations and the ultra-wealthy, allowing endorsements from current and former presidents and televised attack ads to wield significant influence at the polls.
There was clearly a lot at stake for the citizens of Wisconsin in this election; namely, a one-judge majority on the nine-member Supreme Court that has tackled gerrymandering and abortion rights laws in recent years. However, as state courts may increasingly play critical roles in bolstering democracy during transformative times for the federal government, it is disheartening to witness judicial elections becoming polarized and politicized by influencers who have no vote, voice, or vested interest in the outcomes.
This is why states must advocate for broader campaign finance reform in judicial elections, seeking methods similar to New York City’s public campaign financing policies to incentivize collecting smaller donations from local citizens, thereby reducing dark money and external influence.
Those who occupy the bench in state courts should be accountable to state law and to the people most impacted by it. Yet, when $100 million is involved, one must question whether critical decisions are made in favor of the public or to appease figures like Elon Musk and George Soros.
Originally Published:
