Politics is awash in cash from billionaires using super PACs to blast political ads. Experts say a donation limit could have monumental effects in Wisconsin. First, the law must survive court challenges.

By Peter Cameron, THE BADGER PROJECT

A new law in Maine aims to make a big change to the state’s campaign finances, and by extension, political advertising. If applied in swing states like Wisconsin, the law could restrict the substantial influence that super PACs, and their billionaire funders, flex on our politics.

First, Maine’s legislation must survive court challenges.

Super PACs – political action committees that must remain independent from and not coordinate with candidates and campaigns – cannot donate directly to a politician or political party. But they can solicit and spend unlimited amounts of money.

Maine’s legislation, which voters approved in a November referendum with nearly 75% support, caps the amount a person can donate to a super PAC at $5,000. The law has yet to take effect, after a political action committee connected to a Republican lawmaker in the state filed a federal lawsuit in December challenging its constitutionality.

Officials in Maine reportedly have agreed to wait until May 30 to enforce the law.

Unlike Maine, Wisconsin cannot create law by voter-approved ballot referendums.

Still, campaign reform advocates in Wisconsin are keeping an eye on the U.S. District Court case and contend that a Wisconsin measure similar to Maine’s would have a major effect.

“It would very much help rein in individual donors who are buying politicians and buying election results that help their bottom line and make it easier for them to screw over everyone else,” said state Sen. Chris Larson, a Democrat from Milwaukee, who has introduced several bills to strengthen campaign finance reporting in Wisconsin. “It would mean winners of elections are decided more on merit and not on their bank account or their comfort level with allowing billionaires and the ultrawealthy to do whatever they want.”

Many federal and state laws cap donations made directly to political candidates. For example, the most anyone could give a candidate for federal office, like the presidency or Congress, in the 2024 campaign, was $6,600 per individual donor.

But super PACs’ ability to accept unlimited sums allows wealthy donors like Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, the billionaire founders of the shipping supplies company ULINE and part-time Wisconsin residents, to give tens of millions of dollars in every campaign to their favorite super PACs. The money often leads to a flood of negative ads on the airwaves of Wisconsin and other states.

Elon Musk spent an estimated $200 million in the 2024 election supporting Donald Trump and attacking Kamala Harris. Bill Gates gave $50 million to support Harris and attack Trump. And they are far from the only billionaires dumping money into super PACs to try to influence elections.

How we got here

The explosion in campaign spending can be traced to a 1976 Supreme Court ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, when the court ruled that campaign spending is protected free speech. The case that went further, leading to substantial super PAC influence came in 2010, when the high court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruled that groups independent of campaigns – many of which are super PACs – can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money in politics.

In Wisconsin, Republicans loosened campaign finance laws in the state a decade ago. But Democrats and their wealthy donors have taken advantage of the changes in recent elections to dominate fundraising that goes directly to candidates and political parties in the state.

However, many major right-wing donors like the Uihleins prefer to use super PACs to spend their millions, where they have more control over which candidates are supported and opposed, and on the specific messaging and strategy.

So while losing the direct fundraising game, Republicans in Wisconsin and beyond have mostly been winning the independent spending wars waged by super PACs in recent elections.

Democrats also use super PACs heavily, and enforcing caps on these powerful political organizations could have significant downstream effects across the political spectrum, said Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which tracks money in the state’s politics.

“It would create an atmosphere where we can level the playing field for candidates, where super PACs get reined in quite a bit,” Ramos said, “and there’s more of an onus on small-dollar contributions and grassroots support instead of trying to do your dance for the super PAC of your choice to try and get their money.” 

“Candidates wouldn’t be so hot to trot for the wealthiest donors, but would work harder to meet with the people and secure small-dollar grassroots donations,” he added.

To the Supreme Court

Like many liberals, Larson takes issue with the very premise of cases like Buckley and Citizens United.

“We do a great disservice to people’s common sense by pretending that the Supreme Court makes sense in their logic on Citizens United,” Larson said. “Money is not speech.”

To reverse those decisions, the political left would likely need to take control of the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently has a 6-3 conservative majority. With justices serving life terms, that could take a generation.

So campaign finance reformers have focused on making fixes in the current judicial framework. The Supreme Court is likely to rule on the Maine law at some point, which should clarify whether caps on super PACs are constitutional, experts like Harvard legal scholar and political activist Lawrence Lessig say. The law was crafted to survive a legal challenge by following the guidance of the Citizens United ruling, supporters have said.

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.