Billionaire George Soros is making waves again with a major contribution to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, dropping $1 million in January. The money is part of a broader push by wealthy donors to shape the outcome of the April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. This election could flip the state’s highest court from liberal to conservative, which would have massive implications for future elections and policy battles in Wisconsin. The stakes are high—really high.

The race is a showdown between Susan Crawford, a liberal Dane County Circuit Judge, and Brad Schimel, a conservative Waukesha County Circuit Judge. Whichever one wins will likely determine whether the court stays under liberal control or swings to a conservative majority. For context, the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history. That should tell you just how much is at play here.

The Big Players

As usual, big money is pouring in from all corners. Soros, the far-left financier, isn’t the only one getting involved. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker dropped $500,000 into the Wisconsin race. Other heavy hitters, like Milwaukee philanthropist Lynde Uihlein, contributed nearly half a million dollars. There’s also Gloria Page, the mother of Google co-founder Larry Page, who gave $470,000, and Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn’s co-founder, who kicked in $250,000.

All this money has one goal: to influence the balance of power on Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. With the Democratic Party already transferring millions to Crawford’s campaign, it’s clear they’re determined to keep the court on their side.

Legal Loopholes and Unlimited Party Donations

Here’s where things get interesting. Wisconsin law limits individual donations to Supreme Court candidates to $20,000. But political parties? They can receive as much money as they want. That means Soros and his fellow donors can give unlimited amounts to the party, which then funnels the cash to the candidates they want to support.

Since entering the race, Crawford has raised over $7.7 million, and a large chunk of that has come from the state Democratic Party. In fact, they’ve funneled $3 million into her campaign alone. This influx of cash is a clear sign that this election is about more than just two candidates—it’s about which ideological side controls the court.

The Court’s Importance in Wisconsin’s Political Landscape

Why does all this matter so much? Well, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court is crucial in one of the most politically charged states in the nation. The court has been at the center of several key issues in recent years, including the 2020 presidential election and the redistricting of legislative maps. If the court leans conservative, it could make a significant impact on future elections, policy decisions, and legal rulings in the state.

With so much at stake, it’s no surprise that so much money is being poured into this race. But the question remains: will the people of Wisconsin truly have a say in this election, or will it be determined by the deepest pockets?

Our Take

It’s no secret that money plays a major role in politics today. However, the situation in Wisconsin raises some serious concerns. When wealthy individuals like George Soros can pour millions into a state election, it feels like the voices of ordinary voters are being drowned out. The reality is, when political power is determined by the highest bidder, it undermines the democratic process. We’re seeing more and more of this trend, where billionaires and powerful interests pull the strings behind the scenes, deciding who gets elected and who doesn’t. This is bad news for the average citizen. When the process becomes about money, not ideas, it’s clear that democracy takes a hit.

Soros’ involvement in this race is just the latest example of how outside money influences elections in ways that are hard to ignore. This kind of spending can skew the results, making it feel as if the outcome has already been decided before voters even hit the polls. In the end, it’s a reminder of just how much influence a handful of wealthy individuals can have on the democratic process.