The Wisconsin Department of Justice has reached a $245,000 settlement with a large livestock farm in Juneau County over allegations of manure polluting groundwater.
The post Wisconsin DOJ reaches $245K settlement with CAFO over manure pollution appeared first on WPR.
Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Gov. Tony Evers announced Friday that a Federal Railroad Administration program would provide more than $218 million for the final design and construction of Amtrak's Hiawatha West project.
The post Amtrak extension to Madison on track with $218M in federal funds appeared first on WPR.
As pheasant hunting season begins this weekend, hunters may struggle to bag a bird as Wisconsin wildlife regulators stock fewer pheasants this year due budget constraints.
The post As pheasant hunting begins, Wisconsin DNR stocks fewer birds amid budget woes appeared first on WPR.
Democrats running for Wisconsin's 1st and 3rd congressional districts have outraised Republican incumbents Derrick Van Orden and Bryan Steil according to the latest federal campaign finance reports.
The post Democrats outraise GOP incumbents in Wisconsin’s 3rd and 1st US House Districts appeared first on WPR.
McCoshen & Ross on Wisconsin’s 2026 Midterm Election Outlook Bill McCoshen and Scot Ross on races for governor, the state Legislature and Congress.
The post McCoshen & Ross on Wisconsin’s 2026 midterm election outlook appeared first on WPR.
October means a new month of library picks from our collection of music here at WPR!
The post WPR Music Library picks: Vol. 5 appeared first on WPR.
Some people may think that plants that grow in lakes are weeds that should be removed, but ecologists say native aquatic plants keep lakes healthy. They also prevent invasive species from taking over.
Campaign cash (Getty Images creative)
Mitchell Berman and Rebecca Cooke, the two Democrats running to unseat incumbent Republican Reps. Bryan Steil and Derrick Van Orden in two of the most closely watched congressional races in the country, outraised their opponents in the most recent filing period.
Both Democrats also received more individual and small dollar donations than Steil and Van Orden, who are more reliant on wealthy donors and the aid of GOP-aligned PACs. The latest campaign finance reports show that all four candidates will be funded enough for the final push to Election Day in both hotly contested races.
In the 1st Congressional District, Berman is running closer than expected to Steil. He narrowly outraised Steil between July 23 and Sept. 30.
Still, Steil spent four times as much money during the period and retains a massive cash-on-hand advantage.
Berman raised $897,321, with almost all of that coming from individual donations. He spent $710,725 during the reporting period and finished September with $338,069 in the bank. In the middle of the reporting period, Berman was added to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s list of target races — bringing national infrastructure and support to the campaign.
Steil raised $783,582 during the period, including $215,637 from individuals, $268,500 from PACs and other committees, and $204,908 in transfers. He spent more than $2.9 million and had $4.2 million in the bank at the end of September.
Steil’s fundraising has recently drawn scrutiny, with the Milwaukee Courier reporting on donations he’s received from industry groups shortly before taking votes related to their business interests.
“Southeast Wisconsin is tired of politicians like Bryan Steil who get rich in office while working families pay more for everything,” Berman said in a statement about the finance reports. “Steil stood with Trump on tariffs, health care cuts, and a war that’s driving up prices, while handing billions in tax breaks to data center developers and his billionaire donors who are funding his campaign. No amount of dark money can cover up that record. I’m proud to have a campaign powered by the people of Southeast Wisconsin – not a dime of corporate PAC money – and in Congress, they’re the only ones I’ll answer to.”
In the 3rd Congressional District, Cooke has long been outraising Van Orden, but after a closer than expected Democratic primary election, her cash-on-hand advantage was depleted. For the cycle, she’s raised $12 million compared to Van Orden’s $9.3 million — a feat for a candidate who doesn’t have the fundraising advantage of incumbency.
During the most recent reporting period, Cooke more than doubled Van Orden’s fundraising, bringing in $3.4 million, with $883,128 of that money coming from donations of less than $200. She spent about $4.3 million and ended September with $901,408 in the bank.
Van Orden raised $1.2 million during the period, with $312,312 coming from donations of less than $200. He spent $3.8 million during the period and finished September with $2.1 million in cash and reported debts of $271,170.
Members of the New Hampshire state House meet during session this May. Both of New Hampshire’s legislative chambers are considered among the most competitive this midterm election cycle, according to a recent analysis by Sabato’s Crystal Ball. (Photo by Molly Rains/New Hampshire Bulletin)
Party control is up for grabs in 15 state legislative chambers across the country as Republicans are increasingly on the defensive this midterm election cycle, a new analysis found.
The nonpartisan newsletter Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics released its final analysis of state legislative races ahead of November. Senior Columnist Louis Jacobson changed projections for 10 chambers — all shifting in favor of Democrats.
“In many states, Democrats are looking forward to a favorable year driven by a reaction to President Donald Trump and his policies,” he wrote.
Of the 15 competitive chambers this cycle, nine are currently controlled by Republicans and three are controlled by Democrats. Both of Alaska’s legislative chambers are controlled by bipartisan coalitions and the Minnesota state House is split evenly.
Jacobson said Democrats may make inroads even in states not considered competitive. In 15 chambers expected to remain in Republican control, for example, he said Democrats could chip away at majorities or break GOP supermajorities — when a party has enough votes to override a veto. Those chambers include the Georgia state Senate, the Indiana state House, the Kansas state House and both chambers in Florida, Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.
In addition to winning control of the U.S. Congress, Democrats are looking to flip hundreds of state legislative seats this November following years of Republican dominance in statehouses. In addition to controlling a majority of governor’s offices, the GOP has held a majority of state legislative seats and chambers since 2010.
This year’s state legislative races are the third most competitive since 2010, according to Ballotpedia. The nonpartisan political encyclopedia measures competitiveness as the extent of choice available to voters: “More open seats, more contested primaries, and more races where both major parties field candidates mean more meaningful decisions on the ballot.”
Voters across 46 states will vote on 6,137 state legislative races next month. Of those races, 4,052 seats — 66% — are contested by both major parties. Ballotpedia found that 1,156 incumbents faced contested primaries this cycle — higher than its 16-year average.
Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
Supporters of Ukraine gather outside the Nebraska State Capitol on Feb. 28, 2026, the fourth anniversary of the country's war with Russia. (Photo by Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
WASHINGTON — More than 100,000 Ukrainians and roughly 2,000 Sudanese immigrants are bracing for the possibility they’ll lose their humanitarian protections by Monday.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has not indicated if he will renew protections for Ukrainians, who first received Temporary Protected Status after Russia invaded their country in 2022, and for Sudanese nationals, who were granted the designation several times, most recently in 2022, because of an ongoing civil war.
The Trump administration has moved to eliminate legal protections for more than 1 million immigrants that have TPS. Of the 17 countries with the designation at the start of the second Trump administration, the only remaining protections are for Ukraine and Sudan, which are set to end on Monday, and Lebanon, which is set to expire Nov. 27.
Mullin is supposed to declare his decision at least 60 days before a TPS designation expires, but he’s made no announcement.
The lack of an announcement would put Ukrainian and Sudanese TPS holders in the same situation as 200,000 Salvadorians, who are still in limbo after DHS did not renew protections set to expire on Sept. 9.
If no decision is made, an automatic six-month extension kicks in. DHS has not confirmed whether the extension is in place, only that Salvadorians have deportation protections and work authorization, for now.
DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment about TPS extension for Ukraine or Sudan.
TPS is granted when a person hails from a country deemed too dangerous to return to because of conflict, natural disaster or another destabilizing event. The Trump administration has sought to wind the program down, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court this summer determined that decisions by the executive branch regarding TPS designations could not be challenged in court.
Immigration advocates say the rationale for providing TPS to Ukrainians has not changed.
“With the war in Ukraine still ongoing and conditions remaining unsafe, the administration should extend TPS for Ukrainians,” Jennie Murray, president and CEO of the advocacy group National Immigration Forum, said in a statement. “Forcing people to return to Ukraine in these circumstances is dangerous and a departure from longstanding U.S. policy.”
If Mullin ends TPS for Ukraine, it wouldn’t be the first time Ukrainians have lost humanitarian protections under the second Trump administration.
Last year, the Trump administration moved to end new applicants for a humanitarian program created by the Biden administration that allowed more than 220,000 Ukrainians to enter the U.S.
The State Department has a do-not-travel advisory, its highest advisory level, for Ukraine and Sudan.
Fraught relations between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy further complicate the issue as Monday’s deadline approaches.
Trump has grown frustrated with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and has blamed Ukraine for a spike in oil prices, ignoring the effect of his war in Iran.
On Oct. 9, Trump moved to ease sanctions on Russian diesel exports. Zelenskyy called the decision “a weak decision by strong partners,” according to The Associated Press.
On Oct. 10, Trump told reporters that Ukraine should “get a new leader.”
In an interview with NPR, Zelenskyy said the Trump administration said unless Ukraine stops long-range drone strikes on oil refineries in Russia, it could cut off U.S. intelligence-sharing with Ukraine.
The two leaders have clashed in the past.
In February 2025, during a visit to the White House, the president got into a heated exchange with Zelenskyy, appearing to break with Ukraine and its resistance to Russia’s invasion.
Trump’s relationship with Ukraine was also the center of his first impeachment, after a U.S. House inquiry found the president threatened to withhold military aid unless Ukraine investigated his political opponent at the time, Joe Biden.
The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in an impeachment trial.
There is a bipartisan congressional push to extend protections for Ukrainians at least until the end of 2029.
In a letter to Mullin and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 31 senators urged for Ukrainians to be granted an 18-month extension, the longest renewal for TPS holders.
“The ongoing war has caused a humanitarian crisis and damage to critical civilian infrastructure that has left many with limited or no access to heat, electricity or medical services,” the senators wrote. “Ukrainian nationals cannot safely return at this time, and allowing TPS to terminate on October 19, 2026, would risk sending more than one hundred thousand individuals back to an active war zone.”
The Republicans who signed the letter were Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
The Democratic senators who signed the letter were Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Chris Coons of Delaware, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Tim Kaine of Virginia, Andy Kim of New Jersey, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Patty Murray of Washington, Gary Peters of Michigan, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Jacky Rosen of Nevada, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Adam Schiff of California, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Mark Warner of Virginia, Raphael Warnock of Georgia, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Peter Welch of Vermont, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois.
Independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, who caucuses with Democrats, also signed the letter.
A handful of Democratic senators also urged Mullin to extend TPS protections for Sudanese in an Aug. 17 letter.
“The ongoing armed conflict, catastrophic humanitarian crisis, and widespread human rights abuses make the safe return of Sudanese nationals impossible at this time,” they wrote. “TPS for Sudanese nationals in the United States remains both a humanitarian necessity and a prudent policy to ensure that individuals are not forced to return to conditions that continue to threaten their safety and well-being.”
Those senators were Warner, Kaine, Schiff, Van Hollen, Warnock, Booker, Bennet and Duckworth.
President Donald Trump waves to the crowd after speaking at the Mitchell Center at the University of South Alabama in Mobile, Alabama on Oct. 2, 2026. (Photo by Dan Anderson/Alabama Reflector)
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has a flurry of travel on deck in the final frantic weeks leading up to the end of the midterm elections, in which the GOP is vying to maintain its control of both the U.S. House and Senate.
But that outlook looks increasingly less favorable for Republicans, as analysts say Democrats remain heavily favored to win back the majority in the House, and Senate races continue to shift in the Democratic Party’s favor.
Adding to the trend, the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, an elections forecaster, shifted 11 additional House races in the direction of Democrats on Friday — in congressional districts in Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Ohio and South Carolina.
The political report also currently lists seven Senate toss-up races, including in Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Ohio and Texas.
Those shifts come as the president weathers dismal approval ratings amid the costly war in Iran and its impact on gas prices. As of Oct. 16, the national average price for a gallon of regular gas stood at $4.33, according to AAA. A year ago, that figure stood at about $3.06.
Meanwhile, the most recent Federal Election Commission filings that were due Oct. 15 offer the financial snapshots for campaigns, including in the closely watched Senate race in Maine, where GOP Sen. Susan Collins is defending her seat against Democratic nominee Troy Jackson.
Jackson raised four times as much as Collins since July, though the Democratic nominee now has less cash left than Collins, Maine Morning Star reported.
Trump’s travel has ramped up since Oct. 1. As Election Day on Nov. 3 rapidly approaches, here’s a snapshot of Trump’s travel in the coming days:
Wisconsin’s multibillion-dollar energy infrastructure construction boom isn’t fueling a similar deluge of utility-related campaign spending ahead of the election.
The state’s largest utilities are collectively on track to spend less supporting political candidates this year than in the last two gubernatorial election years.
Utility campaign contributions to Wisconsin’s local, state and federal campaigns — and state-level partisan fundraising groups — reached just under $300,000 by late September, down roughly $50,000 from the same point in 2022.
Neither Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany nor Democratic candidate David Crowley took in any contributions from the utilities’ political action committees (PACs) between January and September.
Utilities could still make last-minute contributions before the election, as they have in years past.
Utilities are dialing back contributions despite the influence the next governor and Legislature will wield over the industry. Next month’s winners will appoint and confirm a new majority to the state commission that regulates utilities and weigh in on legislation that could shape Wisconsin’s energy future for decades.
Some industry observers speculate that the mismatch between utilities’ political spending and the election’s ramifications reflect the mounting public hostility to the data center boom — and, by extension, to the utilities themselves.
“I think utilities are beginning to recognize that their brand is increasingly toxic,” said Jonathan Kim, a Chicago-based researcher for the Energy and Policy Institute, a nonprofit watchdog. As of August, Kim is also the institute’s registered lobbyist in Madison, focusing on residential ratepayer concerns.
If past ties to utilities put a target on a candidate’s back, Kim added, the companies would have good reason to avoid making direct contributions in hotly contested races.
Wisconsin isn’t the only state where utility political spending appears to be softening. In Michigan, for example, the state’s largest investor-owned utilities are on track to spend less supporting political candidates this year than they did in the last three midterm cycles.
The drop in political spending falls short of an all-out retreat in Wisconsin. Utilities have steered nearly all of their contributions toward state legislative contests — and, for the first time in at least a decade, divided their giving almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans. The shift coincides with Democrats’ improved prospects of securing a majority in at least one legislative chamber for the first time since 2010.
Three companies provide electricity for a majority of Wisconsin households: Alliant Energy, owner of Wisconsin Power and Light; WEC Energy Group, the parent company of We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation; and Xcel Energy, owner of Northern States Power Company.
Each company operates separate federal and state political action committees, or PACs. The committees collect voluntary contributions from company executives, employees and shareholders, then distribute those funds to political candidates and organizations chosen by their boards of directors. Candidates can spend donations on their current or future campaigns — or share them with other candidates. They cannot legally spend on personal expenses.
Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission doesn’t explicitly prohibit it, but utility spokespeople told Wisconsin Watch that their companies do not bill ratepayers for political contributions. We Energies said the same to the state’s Public Service Commission in April.
Voters in Michigan will decide in November whether to prohibit utilities from contributing to state political campaigns entirely.
Wisconsin law caps how much a PAC can contribute to a given state-level candidate in a single cycle — up to $2,000 for a Senate campaign, for instance, or $86,000 for a gubernatorial campaign. Federal rules similarly limit PAC contributions to individual candidates. Utilities’ federal PACs can give up to $5,000 to a federal candidate.
Utility employees and executives, meanwhile, can donate via employer-sponsored “conduits.” Alliant, WEC Energy and Xcel each sponsor conduits, as do Madison Gas and Electric and the American Transmission Company, Wisconsin’s largest transmission utility.
Like PACs, conduits serve as pass-throughs for political donations. Unlike PACs, employees choose which candidates receive their donations. The conduit’s sponsor may recommend candidates or races to support, and candidates who receive conduit contributions often also receive PAC donations.
Conduit contributions appear in campaign finance records under the individual donor’s name. Although state law limits how much individuals may contribute to a candidate, the combined donations routed through a utility’s conduit can exceed the amount a utility’s PAC may give in a single cycle.
Alliant, WEC Energy and Xcel’s federal PACs gave roughly $23,500 to Wisconsin’s congressional delegation between January and late July.
U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, facing a competitive race for a district stretching from Janesville to Racine, received $5,000 from Alliant’s PAC in early March — the largest Wisconsin utility contribution to a single candidate this year. Federal campaign finance records show no utility PAC contribution to Steil’s Democratic opponent, Mitchell Berman.
The state’s utilities have largely steered clear of the high-profile race in Wisconsin’s 3rd District, where incumbent Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden and Democratic challenger Rebecca Cooke have tried to link each other to data center interests.
Utility PACs have donated to all eight Wisconsinites in the U.S. House in the last decade. But annual donations have plunged from 2016, when the three utilities’ PACs gave over $94,000 to the Wisconsin delegation, primarily to Paul Ryan, who was House speaker at the time.
U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, the Madison area’s representative in Washington since 2013, hasn’t received a utility contribution since 2018.
Contributions from the state-level utility PACs and their conduits to Wisconsin legislative candidates and legislative fundraising committees totaled roughly $250,000 between January and September.
Much of the decline in utility contributions from 2022 stems from reduced spending by WEC Energy’s PAC and conduit.
Democratic lawmakers have received about 45% of utilities’ year-to-date contributions, compared to just under 20% in 2022.
“We work with both sides,” WEC Energy President Scott Lauber told investors on a July quarterly earnings call. “It’s just a matter of how we make Wisconsin successful.”
Taylor Adams, an Alliant Energy spokesperson, said the utility’s political giving is bipartisan and varies from year to year based on the communities and elected officials within its service territory, not partisan preference. Adams added that his company focuses on policies that support “reliable and cost-effective energy.”
Rep. David Steffen, chair of the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities, is the top individual recipient of utility dollars, campaign finance records show. He has received roughly $13,655 via utility PACs and conduits this year, accounting for roughly a third of his total 2026 fundraising as of September.
Alliant and WEC Energy’s PACs have already given Steffen’s campaign the maximum $1,000 allowed by state statute for an Assembly candidate in a single cycle. Three WEC executives have done the same through their company’s conduit.
The Assembly committee’s ranking Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, received $3,980.
Sen. Melissa Ratcliff of Cottage Grove, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Utilities, Technology and Tourism, received $5,250, including $2,000 from Alliant alone — the maximum state law allows for a Senate candidate. Ratcliff is not up for reelection until 2028.
Assembly Majority Leader Tyler August, R-Walworth, has received $7,500 from utilities and their conduits while Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton, took in $5,560. With longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos set to retire, August is likely among top contenders to become speaker if Republicans keep the majority after Election Day.
August led Assembly’s Republicans through the two consecutive fights over utility-backed “right of first refusal” (ROFR) bills, which would grant Wisconsin’s transmission utilities first dibs on any electrical grid projects within their territory. Ratepayer advocates argue the proposal would risk driving up electricity prices by stifling competition in the transmission market.
Speaking at a June WisPolitics luncheon, Hesselbein blamed Republicans for the bill’s failure last session, casting the policy as a means to shore up Wisconsin-based businesses and union jobs.
Chamber leadership and members of the Senate and Assembly utilities committees received over a quarter of all utility PAC and conduit contributions this year.
That pattern isn’t unusual. Other industry interest groups, including in agriculture, also focus contributions on the committees most relevant to their businesses.
“Election spending from industry and wealthy special interests is about wanting access and sway over policy agendas that could affect their bottom line,” said Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. “It’s no surprise that they assess the landscape and find who might have the most impact.”
Some top recipients are less obvious.
Rep. Tip McGuire, D-Kenosha, has received $4,750 this year — more than many lawmakers on the Assembly utilities committee, despite not serving on it. McGuire is one of four Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee, which drafts the state’s two-year budget.
Other key lawmakers received relatively little this year. Senate utilities committee chair Sen. Julian Bradley, R-New Berlin, received $1,500 from utility PACs and conduits as of late September, and Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer received $1,175.
Not all utility money reaches lawmakers directly. Utility PACs also contribute to partisan fundraising groups like the Republican Assembly Campaign Committee, which contributes to legislative campaigns.
Partisan committees also receive contributions directly from the utilities, rather than from their PACs. WEC Energy, for instance, gave $14,000 to partisan fundraising groups between January and June.
State law doesn’t cap contributions to party fundraising committees.
“There’s not supposed to be any sort of coordination between donors to the party committee and the campaigns that receive that money,” Kim said, making it difficult to know which candidates ultimately benefit from the utility’s committee contribution.
About 2% of contributions from utility PACs and utility conduits between January and September flowed directly to gubernatorial candidates — including to candidates who lost their primary.
Wisconsin hasn’t held an open gubernatorial election since 2010, muddying comparisons with other recent elections.
Former Republican Gov. Scott Walker collected roughly $269,000 in contributions — not adjusted for inflation — between the launch of his gubernatorial campaign in 2009 and his exit in 2019, including about $86,000 ahead of his 2018 defeat by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.
Evers received about $11,000 in utility contributions during that race. Utilities have since contributed roughly $330,000 to his campaign committee.
Ahead of the 2022 election, utilities contributed more than twice as much to Evers as they did Tim Michels, his Republican opponent.
Some gubernatorial spending in 2018 and 2022 came in late October, just after the candidates turned in their final pre-election fundraising reports.
Utilities haven’t transferred that financial support to Crowley, whom Evers backed during the chaotic final leg of this year’s Democratic primary. Utility PACs have yet to contribute to his or Tiffany’s gubernatorial campaigns.
Tiffany has received roughly $3,600 via WEC and MGE’s conduits while Crowley has drawn none during the campaign.
Still, both accepted utility contributions during previous runs for office.
Tiffany brought in at least $17,000 from utility PACs and through their conduits over a decade of state legislative campaigns, followed by another $11,500 during and after his U.S. House campaign in 2020.
Crowley’s state Assembly campaign committee raised just over $1,600 from utility PACs and conduits — mostly WEC, which serves households in the Milwaukee district he represented. His Milwaukee County executive campaign committee accepted another $9,900 from WEC’s PAC and via its conduit between 2020 and 2024.
Any additional contributions between Oct. 26 and Election Day will appear on the candidates’ next finance report in January.
Both Crowley and Tiffany are picking up the banner of energy affordability, promising to follow through in part via their appointments to the PSC.
“Under David Crowley, the PSC will become a watchdog for taxpayers, ensuring that Wisconsinites’ utility bills stay as low as possible while creating greater transparency in where their tax dollars are going,” Crowley spokesman Philip Schulman wrote in an email. “This includes empowering the PSC to reject rate hikes in favor of cheaper options and publishing a quarterly score card detailing everything from avoided outages to fuel cost savings.”
Tiffany doesn’t shy away from criticizing the current commission, in no small part because of his objections to converting cropland into solar farms. “Day one when I become governor, they will be replaced,” he said at a September town hall in Sauk County, referring to the two acting commissioners — Kristy Nieto and Marcus Hawkins — serving without Senate confirmation.
Utilities share interests with other groups, some of which have poured far more into this year’s governor’s race.
Crowley has received separate $86,000 donations — the PAC cap for a single cycle — from at least four labor groups that often align with utilities on energy infrastructure projects: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 139 PAC, Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council and Wisconsin Pipe Trades Association PAC. Two other construction trades unions contributed smaller sums to Crowley’s campaign; a PAC representing a carpenters’ union gave $82,500 and a PAC representing plumbers and steamfitters gave $25,000.
Those unions represent workers who build or operate power plants and transmission lines. The political director of the Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council sits on the board of Fair Rates for Wisconsin’s Dairyland alongside WEC and Alliant representatives.
Tiffany seized on that support in an attack ad that dubbed his opponent “Data Center David Crowley,” citing the labor groups’ vocal support for developing data centers and associated energy infrastructure.
“IBEW certainly supports responsible data center development,” the IBEW state conference vice chair, John Jacobs, wrote in an email. “We also support renewable energy and countless projects that support family supporting jobs, great healthcare, great retirement benefits and a path to the middle class. All priorities of David Crowley – and that’s why we support him.”
Those labor groups had not contributed to Tiffany’s campaign through September. But Robert Marchant, the Wisconsin Data Center Coalition’s sole lobbyist, donated $5,000 in early June. Alliant, WEC and Xcel are founding members of the coalition.
Utilities’ spending this year leaves them far behind Wisconsin’s top political donors. Diane Hendricks, for example, has already given exponentially more than utilities in 2026 — all to the Wisconsin Republican Party, which has transferred most to Tiffany’s gubernatorial campaign.
But the companies’ political goals don’t match those of explicitly partisan spenders like Hendricks.
“They just want to be able to wield sufficient political power to get the things that they need,” Kim said. “They’re not going to spend dumb money.”
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Despite high stakes for energy future, Wisconsin’s utilities scale back campaign spending — so far is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Wisconsin’s statewide economic development agency has signed at least five nondisclosure agreements with developers of artificial intelligence data centers, adding a previously unknown level of secrecy to the billion-dollar projects.
The Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., a quasi-government state agency, signed one of the NDAs nearly two years before a proposed data center in Menomonie was announced to the public and six months before the city signed its own NDA.
Wisconsin Watch previously revealed that at least five communities signed local NDAs, keeping the public in the dark about data center proposals for months.
The newly released state agency NDAs show that in some cases, the proposals were hidden from view even longer. Also, three of the NDAs signed by the state agency are for projects proposed in communities that didn’t have a local secrecy pact.
The agreements, provided to Wisconsin Watch under the state public records law, show the gap in time between when the WEDC NDAs were signed and when the data center proposals were publicly announced:
WEDC replied to an interview request with a statement saying “the agency is committed to transparency and compliance with Wisconsin’s public records laws and has long been recognized for its strong commitment to reporting.”
“Wisconsin law recognizes that certain information related to pending economic development projects may need to remain confidential to protect their competitive nature,” the agency said. “NDAs are one tool used to facilitate the exchange of business information while companies evaluate potential investments, expansions, or relocations in Wisconsin. These agreements help Wisconsin compete for economic opportunities while remaining consistent with applicable public records laws.”
Told about WEDC’s use of NDAs, state Rep. Clint Moses, R-Menomonie, said he would add the state agency to legislation banning data center NDAs that he plans to introduce in January, after a new governor and Legislature take office.
His original bill, introduced in January but given no hearings, would have applied only to local governments.
“I would assume they wouldn’t like it,” Moses said of the WEDC. “I know certain groups … kind of frown on any time you start banning NDAs. But these data centers are such a big issue, and there’s so much unknown about them still, that we need to be doing something.
“I think regardless who the governor is and who has control of the Legislature, I think it’s popular,” Moses added. “I think it will get support, regardless.”
WEDC is the state’s lead economic development agency. It aims to attract new businesses to the state by allocating tax credits, awarding grants and loans and authorizing local governments to issue bonds.
The state law that created WEDC in 2011 says agency records are open to the public — except for “pending grants, loans, or economic development projects that, in the opinion of the corporation, must remain confidential to protect the competitive nature of the grant, loan, or project.”
That means proposed data centers costing billions of dollars and covering hundreds of acres could be quietly explored long before local residents are informed.
“It just seems like really bad practice,” said Port Washington Ald. Michael Beaster, who opposed his community’s data center and made public records requests about it before being elected in April. “A state agency is not accountable to the local government.”
Wisconsin Watch sought to obtain all NDAs signed by WEDC for hyperscale data center proposals. However, the agency was unable to produce all NDAs in its records in response to a general public records request for them.
The agency initially provided NDAs for three data centers that it certified for a state sales tax exemption and are under construction — Microsoft’s in Mount Pleasant, Meta’s in Beaver Dam and OpenAI/Oracle/Vantage’s in Port Washington.
Mount Pleasant and Port Washington replied to previous public records requests from Wisconsin Watch saying they did not sign NDAs for their data centers. The Beaver Dam Area Development Corp., a quasi-government group, signed an NDA for the Beaver Dam data center.
Wisconsin Watch then followed up with a request for any NDAs that WEDC signed with at least 16 companies that Wisconsin Watch identified as making data center proposals in the state. That prompted WEDC to provide its Menomonie and DeForest NDAs.
No data center NDAs were turned up by public records requests Wisconsin Watch made to the state’s nine regional economic development agencies.
Six of the regional agencies said the public records law doesn’t apply to them. But three of those six, plus three others, said they had no such NDAs.
The NDAs helped pave the way for multibillion-dollar developments, but also public backlash.
Microsoft’s plans have grown to $20 billion worth of data centers in Mount Pleasant, south of Milwaukee in Racine County. The OpenAI/Oracle/Vantage project is worth $15 billion in Port Washington, north of Milwaukee in Ozaukee County. Meta’s data center investment is $1 billion in Beaver Dam, 40 miles north of Madison in Dodge County.
Data centers have also been worth billions of dollars to Wisconsin businesses that serve them. Earlier this year, just three Wisconsin companies had already done more than $1 billion in data center business, Wisconsin Watch reported.
“Non-disclosure agreements are an essential part of doing business in a competitive economic development climate,” the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce said in a statement to Wisconsin Watch. “Companies considering major investments don’t evaluate locations singularly. They compare us with communities across the country, and they expect legitimate trade secrets and proprietary business information to remain confidential while making those decisions. If we make it harder to protect that information, we put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage and risk losing that investment altogether. That means a loss of jobs, tax base and economic momentum. To our knowledge, not a single state prohibits its economic development arm from utilizing NDAs.”
Another measure of data centers’ impact is the sales tax exemption, part of the 2023-25 state budget. It means that generally, data centers certified by the WEDC, including the three facilities under construction, don’t have to pay sales taxes on construction materials, computer servers and other equipment. The exemption is estimated to be worth more than $2 billion and has been targeted by Democrats and Republicans for modification or elimination.
The $1.6 billion data center proposal in Menomonie in western Wisconsin, where $25 million in land has already been purchased, was paused in September 2025 after local opposition mounted. The city is still drafting zoning regulations. The city signed an NDA in February 2024, six months after the WEDC secrecy agreement.
QTS had planned to spend $12 billion on a data center in the Madison suburb of DeForest. The village, which said it did not sign an NDA, reached a wide-ranging community benefits agreement with QTS, but village officials dropped the plan over local opposition. Wisconsin Watch obtained records showing village officials were in talks with QTS around the same time WEDC signed a nondisclosure agreement and months before village officials initially told the public they were aware of the project.
At least two Wisconsin communities have restricted data center NDAs. The Columbia County Board prohibited its members from signing data center NDAs. The Beloit Town Board barred town board employees from signing them without board approval.
Both candidates for governor in the Nov. 3 election, Democrat David Crowley and Republican Tom Tiffany, have expressed support for banning data center NDAs.
Data center proposals that are pending include one for a former paper mill in Wisconsin Rapids, north of Madison, where a decisive city council vote could come this month. The city said it did not sign an NDA.
In Kenosha, which signed an NDA in May 2024, residents are seeking a data center moratorium as the city considers a data center plan from Microsoft. The technology giant terminated the local NDA in June 2026.
That stemmed from Microsoft’s announcement three months earlier that it would no longer sign data center NDAs with local governments and would seek to terminate the ones it had signed, calling it an effort to build trust.
The announcement didn’t mention state-level NDAs. A Microsoft spokesperson declined to comment on state NDAs.
“We continue to hear these data centers and tech companies talking about wanting to be a good neighbor,” said Beaver Dam data center opponent Maily Kocinski. “This is not something a good neighbor does.”
Disclosure: The OpenAI Foundation recently awarded a grant to Wisconsin Watch but has no control over its editorial decisions. We will update our funding page to reflect the grant. A list of donors and funders through 2025, as well as our donation acceptance policies, can be found here.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.
Use of NDAs for Wisconsin data centers wider than previously known is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
Login