Wisconsin's Supreme Court election is now the most expensive judicial race in American history and a new report said ironically, one of the consequences of Supreme Court rulings is a model of reciprocity spending in elections.
Since Elon Musk spent a quarter-billion dollars to elect President Donald Trump, he has been rewarded with unprecedented powers over the federal government. Now, his sights are set on Wisconsin.
Brandon Novick, policy coordinator at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, sees it as corruption, and said it is not new. Novick pointed out it is legal, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo ruling in 1976.
"That decision was the root one that said that 'money is speech' and that people can infinitely spend in elections," Novick explained. "In Citizens United, basically the court said, 'Based on this, we're saying corporations, not just individuals, can infinitely spend in elections.'"
In an attempt to avoid the appearance of "quid pro quo" corruption, Novick noted the nation's highest court clarified unlimited spending to influence election outcomes is OK, so long as the cash is spent independently and not in coordination with a candidate's official campaign.
Billionaires are not just buying power from Republicans. Novick pointed to Reid Hoffman, who spent $17 million to get former Vice President Kamala Harris elected. He observed when Hoffman called for Federal Trade Commission Chair Lena Kahn to get the boot, Harris refused to commit to keeping Kahn in her post.
"This issue is bipartisan. The establishments of both parties are not working to solve it," Novick emphasized. "But the current Trump administration is the greatest example of blatant billionaire control bought through bribes in campaign spending."
Good-government groups have long argued in American democracy, one citizen, not one dollar, should equal one vote. Novick contended there are only two viable pathways to get money out of politics. One is the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn previous decisions, which is unlikely, since many of today's Justices were involved in Citizens United.
"The only other way to get past this is a constitutional amendment to overturn their decision and get money out of politics," Novick added. "Because if Congress just passes a law, they'll strike it down."
