On April 1, 2025, the state of Wisconsin held its nonpartisan 10-year election to replace Supreme Court justice Ann Walsh Bradley, putting the liberal majority of the court at risk. The two candidates, Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel, received large sums of campaign funding, raising questions over the growing relevance of campaign finances in American elections.
While these elections are officially nonpartisan, justices choose stances on current political issues and receive backing from political parties. In this election, Crawford received Democratic funding while Schimel received Republican support. Crawford won the majority at 55% which has resulted in a liberal 4-3 majority in court for Wisconsin.
This election was record-breaking. This race was the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history. Accumulating both in and out-of-state funding, over $107 million went toward campaigning, with $48.8 million backing Crawford and the other $58.2 million toward Schimel.
Rising campaign funding has become a trend in recent elections. The U.S. has been increasing funding for elections over the last few years. In the 2024 Presidential election, Democrats spent $729 million with Republicans at $516 million.
Campaigning is important for the successful function of the U.S. democracy. “A campaign has two primary goals: to be seen and to convince,” explained senior Nadia Meeks. “Travel expenses, ad expenses, posters, merch, everything in a campaign costs money, and those who have the most of it have a higher chance at achieving their goals.”
Voters must be informed about candidates to make intelligent decisions. In order for voters to be exposed to candidates and their stances, money must be spent. Due to these reasons, funds for campaigning are necessary.
However, campaign finance also exposes dangerous ideals and precedents in a democracy.Unlimited regulations of campaign finance mean that a large percentage of funds are coming from unrelated sources. A large portion of the money that went toward this election came from out-of-state. A Schimel-boosting America PAC and Building America’s Future have spent over $4.3 million, with Elon Musk a major contributor to these PACs. George Soros and the ACLU Voter Education Fund spent $1 million to support Crawford as well as other funds from national liberal groups. This means the direct input of citizens from Wisconsin is diminished by those who won’t be directly involved with the consequences that result from the election.
The principle of giving powers to the states was meant to ensure that citizens of that state will be able to influence laws and regulations made for a smaller population. It means that their votes would make a consequential difference.
Significant funding from out-of-state takes away some of this power that belongs to the people of this state.
Furthermore, it opens the door for bribery or similar issues. “However, campaign finance can also be a dangerous territory because candidates may try to use wealth to their advantage to manipulate voters and “buy” votes,” shared senior Clare Tinsman. “Elon Musk’s recent actions attempted to bribe Wisconsin citizens for votes through a lottery-type system of checks, which is illegal, and Wisconsin rightfully ensured his plan did not succeed.”
Elon Musk contributed a significant amount of funding for Schimel. He held a rally of thousands and gave out numerous checks for $1 million to encourage voters to vote conservatively. The issue with this is that instead of informing voters on issues, he used money to try and make a political difference. Buying votes presents a danger to American democracy because it is skewing people’s opinions. The need people have for money should not be mixed in with something as important as politics. This will show the wrongful principle that people with more money will have greater political influence.
Finally, the use of privately funded campaigns shows citizens of the U.S. need money to make a difference. “Campaign finance is a detriment to our democracy because, within this one step of being elected, there is a message sent to everyone who understands what it takes: if you are not rich, you have no power to change the world. People can try to raise money through charities and other sources to campaign efficiently, but it cannot compare equally to a campaign funded by the people who can throw millions of dollars away at a moment’s notice,” further explained Meeks.
“There will always be a disadvantage to people with less money, and in the case of funding, a person must be renowned and well-known to receive money in the first place. Perhaps then two precedents are set instead of one: those without money or fame are unable to change the world or even hold places in power.”
In an ideal society, the candidates most qualified for a position should be the ones who hold it. However, this is never the reality. Candidates need money to maximize their reach to as many potential voters as possible.
Money is necessary for the function of democracy. However, the issues presented by campaign finance should be considered and lead to action or regulation to encourage a more equal society.
