for joining us and your expertise.
>> Thank you. >> This year's election for a
seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court is shaping up to be one of
the most expensive ever. Fundraising totals released by
the campaigns of Liberal candidate Susan Crawford and
Conservative candidate Brad Schimel show they are on pace to
exceed the $50 million price tag from 2023, which was the most
expensive state Supreme Court race in American history. Here
and now, senior political reporter Zach Schultz has more
on how all this money will impact the cases. The winner
will hear once they are on the court.
>> Arthouse Preschool. And with Susan Crawford on the bench,
your street could be next. [MUSIC]
>> Brad Schimel is too extreme for the Supreme Court.
>> Just five weeks from Election Day, the Schimel and Crawford
campaigns are filling the airwaves and social media with
millions of dollars in campaign ads. In 2023, the race between
Janet Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly was the most expensive
state Supreme Court race in U.S. History, with candidates and
third party groups spending more than $50 million. It was for an
open seat, and the winner would determine the ideological
control of the court. It's the same setup in 2025, so it should
come as no surprise. We're on pace to break spending records.
>> It's like inflation. It never goes down. It always only seems
to go up and I suspect this race is going to have even more money
spent than in 2023. You know, you can only run so many TV ads
before you've made your point. But this is what you've got to
do. I've got to be competitive. The other side has got to be
competitive. We're both working to have the resources we need to
get our message out. >> The maximum an individual can
donate to a campaign is $20,000. But years ago, Republicans
rewrote campaign laws so individuals could give an
unlimited amount to state parties, which can in turn give
unlimited amounts to campaigns. In the latest fundraising
totals, billionaire donors gave millions to the Republican and
Democratic parties. The Republican Party of Wisconsin
transferred $1.7 million to Schimel campaign, while the
Democratic Party of Wisconsin transferred 3 million to
Crawford's campaign. In 2023, Janet Protasiewicz received a
lot of direct transfers from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin to
help fund her campaign, and in turn, she said that she would
recuse herself from any cases that involved the Democratic
Party of Wisconsin as a party. Would you do the same if you
receive a large, direct contributions from the
Democratic Party of Wisconsin? >> You know, I what I would do
is if a case came before the Supreme Court in which the
Democratic Party was a party is to look at what the facts were
in that case, who the other parties were and what the legal
issues were that at stake, and then make a decision about
recusal based on the specific instances of that case. I think,
you know, I'm a I'm a pretty cautious person as a judge. And
I, I don't prejudge matters like that and would wait to see what
what that case brought and whether I could be fair and
impartial. And if, if it was a situation where I believed I
could not be fair and impartial due to past political support,
financing support from the Democratic Party, I would
certainly recuse. >> How will you approach recusal
when it comes to those who have supported you, donated to you,
endorsed you? >> Well, it's awfully hard for
justice. Protasiewicz to say. She'll recuse on anything that
the Democratic Party is involved in. But then she stayed on the
legislative redistricting maps, and she came. Well, they're not
directly a party. Come on. They were the clear beneficiary of
that decision. I think she was putting form over substance very
much there. But for a judicial official at any level, your
responsibility is if you have a personal stake, you or some
family member has a personal stake in the outcome of this
case, you must recuse. That's unethical not to do so.
Otherwise, just like a juror, when they're asked questions in
the jury box, can you to find out whether they can be on this
case and be fair and impartial? The judge needs to search their
soul and determine, can you decide this case without having
any political baggage, without having your personal history or
biases interfere with your ability to be fair and
impartial? If you cannot do that, then you should recuse.
Legislature. >> One of the biggest cases the
winner could see is a challenge to act ten. The Scott Walker era
law that eliminated most collective bargaining rights for
most public employees. Just recently, Justice Protasiewicz
announced she would not recuse herself from the act ten
challenge, currently heading to the appellate courts, saying her
opposition to the law as a private citizen would not impact
her ability to rule as a justice.
>> However, Conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn announced he
would recuse himself from hearing that case because while
serving as then governor, Walker's chief legal counsel,
Hagedorn helped write that law and later defended it in court.
Crawford served in that exact same position for Governor Jim
Doyle, so she understands Hagedorn's role.
>> So for him, having taken a position already on that exact
provision and trying to defend it in court, I think he made the
right decision to recuse himself. And, you know, if I had
been in exactly that situation as Justice Hagedorn is, I think
I would have made the same decision.
general from 2015 to 2019. >> Act ten was resolved in the
US Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Even
before I was attorney general, I was still in the DA's office
when those issues were decided by those courts. So I've never
had any direct role in anything involving act ten. What I do ask
voters is to ask themselves whether they think that if my
opponent wins, can this court truly be objective? When two
justices sitting on the court, both Justice Protasiewicz and
Justice Dallet, were both caught on video promising if elected
they would strike down act ten and then my opponent represented
the Madison Teachers Association in the lawsuit to strike down
act ten, and she argued that it should be found
unconstitutional. Can she be objective? When she had a former
client that that had her do that work for her? And can those
other two be objective based on those promises? I can ask those
questions. I'm not going to tell anybody how I'm going to rule,
because like I do in every case, I will read the briefs, I will
assess the facts, I will look at the relevant law. I'll read all
the cases, and then I'll assess what the right answer is based
on the law. >> In private practice. You also
were a part of an act ten lawsuit. Would that prevent you
from sitting on any cases regarding act ten in the future?
>> You know, if a case came up, whether it's on act ten or
anything else, that any other topic that I had some role in,
in, in challenging while I was a lawyer, I would give it a very
close look to see what the facts were that were presented in that
new case, who the parties were, and what kind of legal issues
are being raised, and make a determination about whether I
could be fair and impartial. Sitting on that case. That's
what the law requires us to do, and that's what I do in every