Unveiling Hidden Funding in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Contest

A foreign-backed organization significantly influenced the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, raising serious questions about the future balance of power.

Key Takeaways

Susan Crawford won a pivotal seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, backed by national Democrats.
A foreign-backed dark money organization influenced the race with a $1 million donation.
The election was the most expensive court race on record in the U.S.
Turnout was extraordinarily high for a spring election in an off-year.
The result provides momentum for Democrats, opposing efforts by Trump and Musk.

Susan Crawford’s Victory Marks A Turning Point

Susan Crawford secured her place on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a victory heavily influenced by national Democrats and significant financial contributions. This pivotal position in Wisconsin’s judiciary now holds the potential to sway decisions on crucial issues such as abortion and election laws. The foreign contributions, particularly the $1 million from the Sixteen Thirty Fund funneled through the A Better Wisconsin Together Political Fund, have raised concerns over transparency in U.S. elections.

Crawford’s campaign focused on opposing Musk, who heavily funded her conservative rival, Judge Brad Schimel, with $25 million. The considerable spending from both sides made it the most expensive court race in U.S. history. This flood of money has prompted several states to consider measures to curb international financial influence in American politics. Voter turnout soared to record levels for an off-year spring election, highlighting the electorate’s awareness and concern over these high-stakes issues.

The Impact of Foreign Financial Influence

The Sixteen Thirty Fund, noted for its backing of radical left causes, injected a staggering $1 million into Crawford’s campaign. As the race drew to a close, Crawford’s victory underscored the potential for foreign-backed monies to affect the ideological direction of state judiciaries. Americans for Public Trust decried this as a prime example of foreign influence eroding the democratic process, calling for tighter regulations to prevent similar future occurrences.

“Today, Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections, and our Supreme Court,” she said in her victory speech on Tuesday night. “Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”

All the media wants to talk about is @elonmusk but ignore 77% of Susan Crawford’s $$$ comes from out-of-state donors compared to only 15% of Brad Schimel’s donations. The left loves to accuse conservatives of things they do. Schimel’s only promise is to uphold the Constitution! pic.twitter.com/oWe1PGgNEE

— Scott Walker (@ScottWalker) March 31, 2025

This pivotal election was also framed as a broader referendum on federal issues, notably Musk’s perceived overreach. Crawford’s victory, by a margin of about nine points with the most votes counted, boosts Democratic efforts in opposing Musk’s and Trump’s policy directions. Her emphasis on preserving democracy and fair elections struck a chord with voters concerned about the influence of wealth and foreign backing in local governance.

A Landmark Election with Broader Implications

Crawford’s victory sets a precedent in the fight against dark money and foreign influence in state elections. This pivotal moment signifies the electorate’s stand against unseen and foreign-affiliated influences in the judicial realm, as well as a rejection of a political climate influenced by significant individual backers. As Crawford takes her seat on the court, the ideological balance of Wisconsin’s highest court may lean more progressive.

As Crawford embarks on her new role, she will likely face significant cases, while her victory serves as a testament to the power of grassroots action against overwhelming financial odds. The awareness generated by this historic race might pave the way for legislative action on campaign financing, as voters push for transparency and accountability in their democratic processes.