Reading Time: 2 minutes

“The state of recruitment and retention in police agencies is in trouble.”

That’s according to a 2024 report from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. And Wisconsin’s police departments aren’t strangers to the staffing shortage.

The total number of law enforcement officers in Wisconsin has dropped for years and now sits at near record lows, The Badger Project has found. As chiefs and sheriffs across the state say they struggle to fill positions in an industry less attractive to people than it once was, small departments are especially struggling.

A bipartisan bill working through the state Legislature aims to alleviate some of the problem.

The proposal would allow small police departments to apply for state grants to help put a recruit through the police academy. The grants would extend after graduation and cover the costs associated with the recruit’s department field training. The bill requires the hire to stay with the department for one year.

“There’s such a need for this,” said Rep. Clinton Anderson, D-Beloit, who introduced the Assembly’s version of the bill in mid-July.

Anderson, who also introduced the bill in 2023, explained that getting it passed this session will be an uphill battle because the state budget did not fund it. Divided government and the rush to pass the budget before the federal government passed its own tax and spending bill were factors, Anderson said.

“I know I care about law enforcement. I know they say they do too,” Anderson said of Republicans.

If the bill were passed now, Anderson said, the GOP-controlled Joint Finance Committee would need to release the funding for it. His goal, since that’s not happening, is to open up the conversation and get a public hearing. Anderson hopes Republicans will take it up later in the session.

“While I am disappointed, the advocacy does not end,” said Rep. Bob Donovan, a Republican from Greenfield who worked with Anderson to introduce the bill. “I am still pursuing this bill to show my colleagues, and the public, the need for this legislation.”

While larger departments frequently sponsor a new hire as they go through the academy and move on to field training, smaller departments often can’t afford to do that, Anderson said. Small departments pull from the few who weren’t sponsored or they may make lateral hires from other departments.

“These struggles are all too real,” wrote Sen. Jesse James, a Republican from Clark County, in an email.

James, a current police officer for the village of Cadott in Chippewa County, introduced the Senate’s version of the bill in June, weeks before Gov. Tony Evers signed the state budget.

“I think it will be a significant challenge getting the bill funded and signed into law this session,” James wrote. “I still strongly believe in the importance of this program and will continue to advocate for it as the session continues. If we can’t get it across the finish line this year, I’ll try again next year.”

Both versions of the bill were assigned to committees the same day they were introduced. Neither has progressed since.

“Even if it takes another five terms,” Anderson said, “I will keep hammering home on this. It’s really important.”

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

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

Bipartisan bill to aid recruiting at small Wisconsin police departments stalls after state budget snub 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.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Elections in Wisconsin are setting new spending records every year, but the U.S. Supreme Court appears set to allow even more money into political races across the country if it rules the way experts expect it to in a pending case.

A case brought to the court by Republican plaintiffs in December seeks to abolish limits on coordinated campaign expenditures – money political parties spend in collaboration with candidates. The court’s June decision to hear a challenge to its decades-old precedent speaks to the conservative majority’s distaste for regulating campaign finance, experts say.

“We know where this thing is going because of how the (Chief Justice John) Roberts’ court has dealt with campaign finance restrictions,” said Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at UW-La Crosse.

The Supreme Court will reconsider its 2001 decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated campaign expenditures are constitutional. The limits apply to shared expenses between party and candidate, such as advertising costs.

Undoing these limits “would open a new, significant way for political parties to spend in direct support of their candidates’ campaigns,” Chergosky said.

In Wisconsin, parties coordinating with U.S. Senate candidates can spend up to about $600,000 in a general election campaign before the limits kick in, according to the Federal Elections Commission. Nationwide, limits vary from $127,200 to $3,946,100 based on the state’s voting age population. For U.S. House nominees in states with more than one representative, which includes Wisconsin, the spending cap is about $63,000.

The Republican plaintiffs – which include the National Republican Congressional Committee, Vice President J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot – filed their case in 2022 and went to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld the spending limits.

The court will likely hear the case in the fall and release a decision in 2026 just as U.S. midterm elections kick into gear, according to a SCOTUSblog analysis. All eight of Wisconsin’s U.S. House members will face reelection, though neither senator will.

The limits the court will review only apply to federal elections for president or Congress, said Brendan Glavin, the research director for OpenSecrets, a Washington-based watchdog that tracks lobbying and campaign finance data. The limits do not apply to state-level candidates.

But “even with the limit, people can still give quite a lot of money to the party, and the party is still allowed to make independent expenditures,” Glavin said. “It’s not like anybody’s being shut down.”

Even if the Supreme Court struck down these limits, federal contribution caps would still apply. This year and next, the federal limits on how much an individual can give to a candidate committee is $3,500 per election. Individuals are also limited to a yearly donation of about $44,000 to a national party committee, according to the FEC.

But the coordinated campaign expenditure limits seal a loophole, Glavin said. The limits prevent donors from circumventing individual contribution caps by donating to a party that can essentially earmark the money for a specific candidate.

“When you take these coordinated limits away, then you’re essentially providing a bit of an end run around the contribution limits for an individual,” said Glavin. However, the Republican challenge “does fit into a broader trend of what we’ve seen over time.”

Campaign finance reform, including limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, were taken up in the 1970s and expanded in 2002, Glavin said. Since then, the reforms have been incrementally rolled back through court decisions like Citizens United v. F.E.C., the 2010 Supreme Court case that paved the way for unlimited political spending organizations called Super PACs.

Reversing the law isn’t likely to affect dark money or Super PAC spending, Glavin said. But you’d likely see more candidates and parties approaching a donor together.

“One ask, one check, that’s an easier way to get the donor,” Glavin said.

Thus, overruling precedent in this case would “tilt the balance of power back in favor of party committees,” Chergosky said. Though partisan loyalty is strong, Chergosky explained, party organizations have seen their influence weaken in light of outside groups like Super PACs.

Though none of Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate seats will be in play next year, Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District is set to be one of the most expensive House races in the 2026 cycle, Chergosky said.

The race will likely be a rematch between Republican incumbent Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Prairie du Chien and Democratic challenger Rebecca Cooke of Eau Claire, both of whom are “exceptional fundraisers,” Chergosky said.

As the number of competitive seats continues to decline, an “enormous amount of money gets funneled into fewer and fewer districts,” Chergosky said. But regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, there won’t be a shortage of money spent in the 3rd District, he said.

Wisconsin law provides an interesting contrast, Chergosky said. Here, state law limits how much individuals can give directly to candidates, but it does not limit the amount individuals can give to parties, nor does it limit how much party committees can give to state-level candidates.

“The comparison to the Wisconsin law is interesting because that has really motivated donors to give to state parties in a way that we just haven’t seen at the national level,” Chergosky said.

The piles of cash that fuel state and national politics has encouraged some Wisconsin legislators to propose resolutions amending the U.S. Constitution.

A Republican-backed proposal calls for an amendment that would also allow states to regulate spending in elections. A Democratic proposal calls for an advisory referendum to appear on Wisconsin ballots; it would ask voters whether they approve of amending the Constitution in order to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

If two-thirds of the state legislatures in the country request it, Congress can convene to consider amending the Constitution. The joint resolutions, if successful, are necessary if Wisconsin wants Congress to convene a constitutional convention. A joint resolution must pass both chambers of the state Legislature; the governor’s signature is not required.

Lawmakers last acted on the Democrats’ proposal in May, and the most recent action on the Republican proposal was in June.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

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

Wisconsin’s cash-flooded elections could get even more expensive 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.