There is never a shortage of money for lefty activists running for the court.
Special interest groups spent more than $3 million as of Monday morning in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.
Groups supporting Dane County Circuit Judge Jill Karofsky have spent nearly $1.9 million. Groups backing incumbent Justice Dan Kelly have spent nearly $1.2 million. The election is next Tuesday, April 7.
Until late last week, groups backing Karofsky had a large spending advantage over groups that were supporting Kelly, but two outfits that support GOP and conservative candidates filed more than $1 million in new spending to support Kelly to close the gap.
Karofsky has backing from Democratic contributors and outside groups and Kelly has support from GOP contributors and groups.
There’s money to be made legislating by judicial fiat. Lefties have known this for quite some time. Our side has been late to the game, as seems to be their custom.
I guess that means Karofsky’s side has more speech!
And as Justice Brandeis once famously remarked (paraphrasing), the answer to bad speech is more speech, not enforced silence!
Jjf,
You should denounce the disgusting liberal outside influences here.
Unless you think George Soros should be interfering with WI elections.
Wasn’t Kelly an attorney on the WisGOP’s case to defend their gerrymandering? The situation where the GOP erased the hard drives to prevent the public to see their true intent?
jjf, so what, they took it to the US Supreme court and they won and your side.
So now, take your ball and go home.
Jjf,
So you support outside election interference with your silence about disgusting non-Wisconsin liberal groups?
Awful. Just awful.
Fixed it for ya.
Thanks Dad
I guess the answer is “yes.”
Again, in case you missed it, I will say it with the big capital letters:YES, AND SO WHAT. YOUR SIDE LOST. GET OVER IT.
There, I hoped this helps you.
Jjf,
So you support outside interference in WI elections?
Kevin, I support the right of partisans from both sides to be hypocritical in their complaints about “outside interference” when the other side has raised more money than they did.
Mar, yes, I’ll remain indignant about what the WisGOP has done and how they did it. Anyone concerned with government transparency should be.
But buttery males and bleached hard drives, whatevs.
>I guess the answer is “yes.”
The answer is YES, and it was proven in the highest court that YES was the correct action. It wasn’t liked by some (dummies like you), but that doesn’t make it wrong.
Just like the stupid ad I’ve seen saying that Dan Kelly is wrong because he was appointed by Walker, and consistently sides with Conservatives.
Duh, that’s not wrong…. that just means the “Conservative side” is the correct side in the majority of cases making it to the SC. But the rabid left “political weaponized take offense at anything conservative” team can’t understand that. Just like jiffy here.
Jjf,
Since you supoirt outside election interference, can you just call the “Russian collusion” hoax by liberals a giant waste of time? And apologize to the nation since you advocate outside interference in elections now?
Then explain to me why “Chinese virus” is racist, but the liberal cult mantra “Russian collusion” is not racist?
I do know this: liberals are giant, evil, hypocrites on this “election interference” stuff, and it disgusts me to no end.
Keep going, Kevin. Tell me all about where you stand on election interference in state and national campaigns. Tell me where the giant, non-evil,non-hypocrites should stand. I want to know what I should believe. Educate me on all the points, large and small.
I’m hearing differing opinions about how election funding should be handled.
On one end we have people who are against the ruling on Citizens United but accept it as a means of creating parity for candidates.
On the other end we have people who support Citizens United but don’t like it used when it advantages the other side.
The result is each side pointing a finger at each other accusing each other of being hypocrites.
So Kevin and JJF, how should elections be funded so it’s fair for each side?
Pat:
Great question, let’s see who responds and how.
My preference: No PACs, donations limited to $1000 per person, no corporate or union donations.
That genie left the bottle long ago never to return. Politics is now an industry unto itself and incredibly lucrative for even those on the periphery of the game. The industry is never going to reform itself in any meaningful manner that interrupts that flow of money. Any reform that might be in the people’s best interests is detrimental to the industry at large regardless of party affiliations.
Thinking that your vote has a bearing on the political industry’s behavior has become somewhat problematic. The genesis of spygate was a misguided attempt by an elite few to covertly implement a mechanism of correction for their belief that voters made a mistake in 2016. Industry insiders of both parties were willing to condone a nearly successful usurpation of the entire voting process as a means of self preservation.
The political industry didn’t find “lock her up” and “drain the swamp” at all amusing. So much so that they were willing to nullify your vote to protect themselves. And we still think they represent us.
Jjf,
I never claimed limits on campaign spending. I believe in Citizens United, unlike you.
You liberals wanted to impeach over “interference”.
Walk your talk. You should br throwing a hisdy fit here over the outside liberal interference in our election.
Hypocrites!!!!
Fairly well-said, Merlin.
Or as Zappa put it, “Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”
“ Hypocrites!!!!”
And, there you have it.
Awful. Just awful.
Much as I like your suggestions, there IS a First Amendment. Hasn’t left the building, friend.