Say Something Real
By Michelle Bryant
Michelle Bryant
In the modern landscape of American democracy, the judicial branch—once considered the impartial arbiter of justice—has increasingly become a battleground for political and financial influence. Nowhere is this more evident than in the current and 2023 Wisconsin elections for the state’s Supreme Court.
As millions of dollars pour into the race, troubling questions about the role of money in judicial elections, the barriers this creates for diverse representation, and the broader consequences for our democracy continue to emerge.
The 2025 judicial battle has shattered spending records, with spending estimates as high as $73 million flowing into the campaign. This is a stark contrast to previous races in the state, where spending was significant but far more modest. For instance, in 2020, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race saw roughly $10 million in combined spending. Even that figure was considered excessive at the time, but today’s totals have quadrupled those numbers, cementing this year’s contest as the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.
By now, you’ve heard the stories, seen the mailers, and commercials, or received a knock on the door, from an under-informed, but well-paid canvasser. The surge in spending is largely fueled by outside groups, political action committees (PACs), and wealthy donors, who see state Supreme Courts as critical battlegrounds for shaping policy on contentious issues like voting rights, abortion, and gerrymandering. Once local and relatively low-profile, now the races carry national implications, one of which includes racial representation on the state’s highest court.
The influx of money comes at a steep cost for candidates from underrepresented communities. People of color, who already face systemic challenges in the legal profession, are disproportionately disadvantaged by the exorbitant cost of running for office. Building a grassroots campaign capable of competing with multimillion-dollar war chests is nearly impossible without access to the same wealthy donor networks that well-connected candidates often enjoy. Or let me say it more candidly, if you are not the preferred candidate of the white majority of donors, as a person of color, you’ll have a difficult time getting elected to the seats.
This lack of financial parity contributes to a judiciary that remains overwhelmingly white and male, failing to reflect the diversity of the populations it serves. For instance, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has historically been dominated by white justices, with limited representation from communities of color.
The root of this unchecked spending lies in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. This landmark ruling allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums on political campaigns, citing free speech protections under the First Amendment. While the decision was originally focused on federal elections, its ripple effects have profoundly impacted state and local races, including judicial contests.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is a microcosm of a broad set of issues, erosion of public trust in the judiciary, partisan ideology, and obscene amounts of money. However, the impact of representation on communities of color cannot be overstated.
As Wisconsin’s race sets a dangerous precedent, it serves as a wake-up call for action. Without meaningful reform, we risk a future where justice is no longer blind but swayed by the interests of the highest bidder.