SB 403 would prohibit a political committee, political party or conduit from accepting contributions that are made with a credit card online unless the contributor provides their credit card verification value (CVV) or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. Wisconsin State Capitol (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

Wisconsin lawmakers considered proposals to crack down on political contributions made with credit cards online and to provide additional information on constitutional amendment proposals to voters during a Senate Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs committee meeting Wednesday. The committee also took up a constitutional amendment proposal to forbid the government from shutting down places of worship during a state of emergency. 

New requirements for credit card political donations

Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) said his bill creating new requirements for political donations made with a credit card online will  ensure there is a “good, secure” process in place in Wisconsin. 

“Let’s acknowledge that we need to know that unlawful sources and foreign entities are not infiltrating our campaigns and elections,” Tomczyk said, and that “citizens are funding candidates here in Wisconsin.”

The bill, SB 403, would prohibit a political committee, political party or conduit from accepting contributions that are made with a credit card online unless the contributor provides their credit card verification value (CVV) or code and the billing address associated with the card is located in the United States. 

If a U.S. citizen is living outside the country and wants to make a contribution from a credit card that doesn’t have a U.S. billing address, then the person would need to provide a mailing address used for voter registration. 

“I’m trying to make elections more secure, the donation process more secure,” Tomczyk said. 

The bill comes as Republicans and the Trump administration have targeted ActBlue — a Massachusetts-based platform that processes donations to Democratic campaigns — claiming that the platform facilitates so-called “smurfing,” a form of money laundering where large sums of money are broken down into smaller, less noticeable transactions and could allow for “straw donors” and foreign contributions. Stakeholders, including ActBlue and Democrats, have said that the action by the administration is an attack on the democratic process.

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil, in his position as chair of the U.S. House Committee on House Administration, launched an investigation into ActBlue asking whether it required CVV information from contributors in 2023. 

The company said at the time that while it did not, it has many other measures in place to confirm the permissibility of contributions and prevent fraudulent transactions including a requirement for passport information if a donor provides an address outside the U.S. 

Steil has since proposed federal legislation that would require credit card verification for online donations. 

Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) expressed concerns over how the bill could create barriers for individuals looking to contribute.

“Why are you trying to ban citizens from being able to donate by credit card?” Larson asked. 

“If they’re not voting in the United States, they’re allowed to donate by credit card if they’re providing all the information that the bill outlines. If they don’t have a voting address, it’s kind of odd,” Tomczyk replied. “I’m pretty sure it’d be a pretty small amount of people.”

The authors of the bill also said people could still donate by check and other methods if they didn’t have the necessary information. 

“It sounds like this is just putting up additional hurdles for people who want to donate by credit card and it just seems like, especially for smaller dollar donations, people who aren’t writing a lot of checks,” Larson said. “Most of the people that I know are giving with credit cards because they don’t use checks.”

Larson said the bill could make it harder for people to participate in democracy through political contributions. 

The authors of the bill claimed there have been examples of “smurfing” in Wisconsin, though they provided no specific examples when asked. 

“This is not something that comes up out of the blue. People have been interviewed about contributions that they gave with their credit card that they said they never gave,” Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville) said. 

“You guys sound like Gargamel as much as you’re talking about smurfing,” Larson said at one point, referring to the fictional antagonist in the Smurfs cartoon franchise. “Come up with an example. Give me some proof really if you want the governor to be able to sign it.”

“In testimony, I don’t think I have to show proof. I have to provide information and… get enough support to pass it through,” Tomczyk said. 

Providing information on constitutional amendments

Lawmakers are also proposing a way to ensure Wisconsin voters have information on the potential effects of constitutional amendments. 

SB 205 follows years of the Republican-led Legislature turning to constitutional amendment proposals as a way to make changes to law without going through Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The most recent constitutional amendment that was approved by voters enshrined voter identification requirements in law, and other amendment proposals are circulating this session, including one to restrict the governor’s partial veto power. 

The committee heard from Tomczyk and Rep. Jerry O’Connor (R-Fond Du Lac) on their bill, which seeks to provide information about constitutional amendments to voters ahead of elections. 

“I’ve heard from countless friends and constituents, even people with college degrees and professional titles, all who tell me that every time they vote on a constitutional amendment the wording on the ballot makes no sense to them,” Tomczyk said. “The legalese, if you will, that is used on the ballot, is of course necessary and should be presented, but for regular everyday residents of Wisconsin, it might as well be in a different language. There has to be a way to explain what these amendments do so that people know what they are voting for.” 

“This is only meant to inform voters better about what they are voting for or against,” Tomczyk said. 

The bill would require a notice to go to voters that would include the date of the referendum, the text of the ballot question, the plain language summary of current law, an explanation in plain language of a proposed constitutional amendment and an explanation in plain language of the effects of a “yes” versus a “no” vote.

O’Connor said the Legislative Reference Bureau, the nonpartisan agency that drafts bills and proposals for the Legislature, would be responsible for writing the information in a black box. 

“The black box we cannot touch as legislators,” O’Connor said. He added that the legislation is “non-partisan, bipartisan and voter focused.” 

While the bill only has Republican cosponsors, it advanced through the Assembly Campaigns and Elections committee unanimously with support from two Democratic lawmakers. The bill is also supported by the League of Women Voters, the ACLU of Wisconsin, Disability Rights Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. 

Places of worship constitutional amendment

The committee also took up Senate Joint Resolution 4, a constitutional amendment proposal that would prohibit the state from ordering the closure of places of worship during a state of emergency. 

This is the Legislature’s second consideration of the proposal, which was first introduced and passed by the Legislature during the 2023-25 session. 

The proposal was introduced in reaction to actions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic when Gov. Tony Evers’ administration declared a state of emergency. 

Evers’ initial “Safer at Home” order in March 2020 explicitly designated religious entities as essential, though it said any gatherings should include fewer than 10 people in a room or confined space at a time and that people needed to adhere to social distancing requirements as much as possible. It also advised and permitted places of worship to have drive-in services. 

Before the constitutional amendment proposal, Evers vetoed a bill in 2021 that would have prohibited local health officers from taking any action to close or forbid gatherings in places of worship to control outbreaks and epidemics of COVID-19. 

Tomczyk noted an incident at Pilgrim Lutheran Church in West Bend where a law enforcement officer showed up to shut down a service after a neighbor called in to report the gathering. According to a Wisconsin Public Radio report, the incident was a misunderstanding and the police department later apologized to the church.

“In America, in Wisconsin, law enforcement stopped the church service because the government decided that a virus was more important than the constitutional rights of Americans. That is unacceptable,” Tomczyk said. “Many people in our great state seek solace in times of difficulty within their church, synagogue, or other plates of worship. It is critical that we continue to protect every individual’s ability to gather and worship at the times when they rely on their faiths the most.” 

Larson asked Tomczyk whether he was open to holding a religious organization liable if people “get sick and die” because they decide to meet against the direction of a public health emergency.

“No,” Tomczyk replied. 

“So… if there is a deadly pandemic, people are dying… and their parishioners die, you are fine with those deaths?” Larson asked. 

“I’m supportive of people’s constitutional right to gather and to worship at the times that they choose and, and if they make that decision, God bless them,” Tomczyk said. 

According to the constitutional amendment draft, voters would be asked whether the state constitution should be “amended to prohibit the state or a political subdivision of the state from ordering the closure of, or forbidding gatherings in, places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including a public health emergency?”

The proposal received a hearing in the Assembly in May, but has not yet been voted on there. 

If the bill passes the Assembly and Senate this session, it would be placed in front of voters during the November elections in 2026 alongside a slate of other high-profile races, including the one for governor.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Bascom Hall, University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Ron Cogswell | used by permission of the photographer)

University of Wisconsin campuses could be limited in their ability to raise tuition under two Republican bills that received a hearing in the Senate Universities and Technical Colleges committee. One would leverage tuition freezes on campuses as a penalty for free speech violations, while the other would aim to help with affordability for students and families by capping tuition increases.

With the conclusion of the budget process over the summer and a $250 million investment in the UW system, Democratic and Republican lawmakers have recently turned their attention to potential policy changes that could be made to the higher education system in Wisconsin. Democratic lawmakers announced their own proposals for helping with higher education costs last week.

Implementing financial penalties on UW, technical colleges for free speech violations

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said her bill would enshrine the principle of current University of Wisconsin system policy in law to clarify and protect the First Amendment rights of students, staff and visitors. 

Current UW system policy includes its commitment to freedom of speech and expression along with some accountability measures including conduct and due process mechanisms to address violations. 

A similar bill passed the Assembly in 2023, but failed to receive a vote in the Senate. Earlier versions of the policy were introduced after a controversial survey of UW campuses that found that a majority of students who responded said they were afraid to express views on certain issues in class. The survey had an average response rate of 12.5% across all UW System campuses. 

The latest iteration of the bill was introduced just six days after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, who has become a recurring point of discussion and debate. Lawmakers passed a resolution this week to honor his life.

Nedweski noted that another survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) that found that 35% of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable at least in rare cases. The survey included responses from 423 people. 

“It’s clearly even more chilling in light of the recent political assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk on a college campus. When we accept the false premise that speech is equivalent to violence, we allow violence to replace speech as a means of debate… We’ve seen many of our college campuses devolve into marketplaces of fear of certain viewpoints,” Nedweski said. “While Charlie Kirk’s assassination on the college campus is the most extreme example of this, it is not the first time conservatives on campus have been threatened or intimidated for their views.” 

Nedweski said the bill would help restore trust.

“The breakdown in public trust is real. It will only get worse unless our colleges and universities get serious about restoring intellectual diversity on campus, I believe,” Nedweski said. 

SB 498 would bar UW institutions from restricting speech from a speaker if their conduct “is not unlawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the UW institution or technical college.” It would also restrict enforcement of time, place and manner restrictions on expressive activities in public forum spaces, designating any place a “free speech zone,” charging security fees as a part of a permit application and sanctioning people for discriminatory harassment unless the speech “targets its victim on the basis of a protected class under law, and is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars a student from receiving equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.” 

If an institution is found to violate the provisions by a state or federal court, then it would receive a notice and a person whose expressive rights were violated would be able to bring action against the UW Board of Regents or a technical college board. A plaintiff could be awarded damages of at least $500 for the initial violation plus $50 for each day after the complaint was filed and the violation continues up to $100,000. A plaintiff could also be awarded court costs and reasonable attorney fees. 

Students, employees and campus organizations would have a due process guarantee under the bill. If the due process provisions are violated more than once in a five-year period, a campus would be required to freeze tuition for all students for the following two academic years.

Nedweski said she hadn’t spoken with the UW system about the legislation this session, but she is open to conversations. 

“I’ve expressed it from the start of the session for the UW to come and work with us on this to get to a place where they can be a thumbs up, but I haven’t heard from anyone,” Nedweski said. “They will express some concerns about certain language in the bill and definitions, and I’d like to say today that, of course, the door is still open.”

UW Interim Vice President of University Relations Chris Patton that the system’s concerns with the bills center on the penalties. 

Patton said the penalty of freezing state funding would put the system’s financial health at risk — and potentially compromise the system’s ability to carry out its mission of being a “marketplace of ideas.” 

“Freedom of expression and free speech is not just a constitutional principle. It’s at the very core of what makes our universities thrive,” Patton said. “The First Amendment guarantees this right, and our institutions take seriously our responsibility to uphold it for all students, faculty, staff, visitors and stakeholders at the Universities of Wisconsin. We already have really robust policies and procedures in place.”

Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara (R-Appleton), a coauthor on the bill, urged lawmakers to “please understand” that the bill is “not to punish any of our institutions,” but is to “ensure that they’re following what’s already in the Bill of Rights.”

Sen. Chis Larson (D-Milwaukee), the top Democrat on the committee, expressed concern about the aims of the legislation, whether free speech was a top concern that was widespread on campuses and whether the bill could bolster harmful language. 

“I appreciate you guys coming up here to embrace DEI for Republican viewpoints, which this seems to be what this bill is all about — making sure that Republican viewpoints are more represented and encouraged and being inclusive to that,” Larson said. 

“You can call it DEI for conservatism, but there’s nothing in the bill that addresses anything specific to conservatives, liberals, Republicans, Democrats,” Nedweski replied. “It’s free speech protections for everyone.”

Larson noted that he represents the UW-Milwaukee campus and often speaks with students about their concerns and free speech is typically low on the list. He said he hears concerns about affordability and safety more frequently. 

“Other concerns include safety, especially for students who are LGBTQ, students who are of a different race than Caucasian, of their safety on campus, of being targeted with hate crimes,” Larson said. 

Larson also brought up a recent Politico article, which exposed racist messages sent into a group chat of Young Republicans, to ask whether lawmakers thought their bill could encourage that type of speech. 

Larson said he wasn’t concerned with self-censorship that discouraged people from “saying these racist, homophobic, xenophobic, glorification of rape things out in the public, because that is something that in a free and open society should have consequences associated with it.”

“We do not have the exemption for hate speech in our laws and in the First Amendment. It does not exempt hate speech,” Larson said. “It seems to me that this [bill] would pave the way to be able to say, yes, that would be something that is not only allowed on campus, but encouraged.” 

Nedweski said she was not concerned that the bill would “further unhinge people.” 

“We’re all concerned about the political temperature that has risen so high in this country,” Nedweski said. “I don’t have concerns this bill is going to push anybody overboard. The intent is to protect people whether I agree with what their ideas… are or not. I have no association with the group that you’re talking about. I don’t agree with the things that they said. It’s unfortunate that that happened.”

Capping tuition increases

Under SB 399, the UW Board of Regents would be prohibited from increasing undergraduate tuition by more than the consumer price index increase in a given year. 

The bill, coauthored by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), was introduced this year after the UW system adopted its third consecutive tuition increase in July. The increases were a maximum of 5% for each campus and were implemented after the recent state budget did not reach the requests the system said would be needed to avoid a hike. 

“With the continued rising prices in almost every area of the economy, some increase in resident tuition is to be expected but we must set common sense guardrails so that any price increases are reasonable, ensuring the UW system remains a cost-effective option for Wisconsin families,” Jacque said. 

Jacque said the recent hike “might be the impetus for the timing this session” but he has seen it as a “reasonable policy” for a while, noting that versions of the bill have been proposed in previous years.

Murphy said he thought the legislation would make it so that lawmakers don’t “have to always be looking” at tuition.

“It’s just up and down and up and down and up and down,” Murphy said. The bill, he added, would help provide a semblance of predictability down the line. “If you have a youngster in the K-12 system and you’re looking at what college is going to cost in the future, you could probably have a good idea of where it is going to go.”

Larson said he found it “noble” what the Republican lawmakers were trying to accomplish with the bill, but asked about why there wasn’t any state contribution included in the bill.

He noted that the portion of state funding that makes up the UW system’s budget has been decreasing over many years. 

“It’s like the cost of groceries,” Larson said, comparing it to “shrinkflation,” a form of inflation where the price of a product stays the same but the size or quantity of a product is reduced. “We’re gonna freeze the cost of a loaf of bread, and then year after year, you’re going to get one slice less, one slice less, one slice less. It will still be the same cost, but you’re getting less. I worry… if you freeze it, we’re going to be getting the equivalent of one slice less every single year in terms of what the deliverable is from the University.” 

Murphy noted that the legislation would just cap increases, not freeze tuition. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

UW-Milwaukee offers its own tuition promise program which covers up to four years of tuition and segregated fees for students from families earning less than $62,000 per year. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Democratic lawmakers are proposing a package of higher education bills to help address affordability for students by investing in a statewide tuition promise program and to support faculty and staff members by reversing Walker-era collective bargaining and tenure policies. 

Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire), the ranking member on the Assembly Colleges and Universities committee, said Democratic lawmakers are looking for ways to ensure Wisconsin’s higher education system is strong and accessible to “anybody who has the talent and the work ethic to want to pursue something.” 

“That’s part of our American dream, is that no matter where you start out in life, you’ve got an opportunity to do better and to gain knowledge and training,” Emerson said. 

Emerson said Democratic lawmakers hope the bills can kickstart discussions about policy changes that could be made. She noted that Republican lawmakers have often stripped proposals from the budget, saying that policy should be passed through individual bills outside of the budget process.

“We’re putting some of these bills back out now and saying, let’s have the policy discussion,” Emerson said. “If you’re not willing to have that during the budget, let’s have the discussion now.” 

Emerson said the first pair of bills that lawmakers unveiled at a press conference last week seek to specifically help with the affordability of higher education. 

“A lot of us heard loud and clear last election that pocketbook issues are really what are leading people right now,” Emerson said, adding that it’s part of the reason she supported the recent state budget. “But it wasn’t a perfect budget, and so we thought, how can we make this a little bit better?”

One bill, coauthored by Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) and Rep. Brienne Brown (D-Whitewater), would implement a statewide “tuition promise” program, allowing first-time, in-state students from households with an adjusted gross income of $71,000 or less to have their tuition covered at any UW school, other than UW-Madison. Under the bill, the state would dedicate nearly $40 million towards the program. 

The program would function as “last-dollar, gap funding” meaning it would fill in the rest of the tuition costs after all federal and state grants and scholarships are calculated.

According to The Hechinger Report , as of 2024, 37 states offered a statewide promise program. 

UW-Madison already offers “Bucky’s Tuition Promise,” which launched in 2018 and is funded with private gifts and other institutional resources, not state tax dollars. The program guarantees four years of tuition and segregated fees for any incoming freshman from Wisconsin whose family’s annual household adjusted gross income is $65,000 or less. 

Recent studies have found the tuition promise program increased enrollment among accepted students at UW-Madison and increased retention rates. 

UW-Milwaukee also offers its own program which covers up to four years of tuition and segregated fees for students from families earning less than $62,000 per year. 

The UW system also has a version of the program that recently relaunched in 2025 after the system secured private funding. The Wisconsin Tuition Promise first launched in 2023, but was ended in 2024 after Republican lawmakers declined to fund the program. 

Another bill by Dassler-Alfheim and Rep. Angela Stroud (D-Ashland) would invest $10 million in the UW system for student retention and talent development efforts. 

At the press conference last week, Dassler-Alfheim said the bills are essential for supporting the state’s workforce.  

“If our workforce is the engine that runs our economy, then our Universities of Wisconsin and Wisconsin Technical Colleges are the gasoline that power that engine as our baby boomers retire in droves. We have workforce shortages in every category. We have all struggled to schedule a doctor’s appointment, a plumber, an accountant, or even a cleaning at the dentist,” Dassler-Alfheim said. “The purpose of these two bills is to help qualified students access the higher education needed to advance themselves and to fulfill the promise to Wisconsin employers to develop the workforce necessary to maintain and grow Wisconsin’s economy.”

Democratic lawmakers also circulated bill drafts meant to help support staff and faculty at UW system campuses. 

One would again allow most UW system employees, faculty and academic staff to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and conditions of employment. UW employees were stripped of that ability under the Walker-era law Act 10. 

Another bill would reverse changes made in the 2015 state budget that eliminated language in state statute that protected tenure. Lawmakers said in 2015 that the changes were necessary to give the UW system flexibility to deal with budget cuts, though faculty members said then that the changes were an attack on tenure. 

Emerson said it is getting harder to recruit people to work at the universities in the state and that some of the changes could help. 

“If we’re making these big changes about how universities are dealt with, staff and faculty need to have a seat at the table for having these conversations and having a seat at the table in meaningful ways where their concerns are addressed too,” Emerson said. 

Emerson noted that in recent years Republican lawmakers have pushed through proposals and deals that triggered pushback from faculty members. 

The most recent budget deal negotiated between lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers included new work load requirements for UW faculty, mandating that they teach a minimum of 24 credits per academic year, or four 3-credit courses, starting in Sept. 2026. The requirement has garnered concerned reactions from faculty, some of who have said it could be difficult to balance teaching and research demands.

In 2023, Republican lawmakers negotiated with UW leaders to secure concessions on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in exchange for staff pay raises and money for buildings. The deal garnered a lot of pushback from staff and students at the time.

“You know, the workload requirements that came through the budget, or the DEI deal that happened last session, none of those would have happened if we had collective bargaining in place,” Emerson said. “Those are two things that when you have people who don’t work in an industry trying to put working parameters around that industry, it falls flat.”

Bills likely won’t advance in Republican Legislature

The Democratic proposals will face a difficult road in the Republican-led Legislature. Emerson said the likelihood for a public hearing on the Democratic bills is “slim to none.”

However, Emerson said Democratic lawmakers plan to take the ideas to people in the state other ways. She and some of her Democratic colleagues will be on the UW-Stevens Point campus this week to start a tour of campuses around the state. 

Emerson said the purpose is to have as many conversations with staff, faculty and students as possible. 

“If we’re not going to have a hearing in Madison on it, we are ready to take this around to other campuses and other parts of the state and have the conversation on the college campuses,” Emerson said. “I want to hear what matters to the students. I want to hear what, you know, the career people need their students to have to get jobs. I want to hear from the business people in these communities.”

Emerson said part of the goal is to also start laying the foundation for if Democrats win more legislative power in 2026. 

“It’s always good when you’re making policy about something that you’re talking to the people that this is going to impact, so this is what we’re really hoping to do — work out all the kinks, and dust everything off, and, hopefully, have a little bit more governing power coming up in the next session, and be able to really hit the ground running with some of these bills,” Emerson said.

Emerson said Democratic lawmakers’ approach is focused on figuring out how the state can make higher education available for “anybody no matter their zip code, no matter their income level,” and she expressed skepticism the Republican bills will do that. 

“A lot of the bills that I see coming from my Republican colleagues about higher education tend to either be punitive — one person said one thing on one campus, therefore we have to make sure nobody ever says that again and getting into these free speech pieces — or they’re doing things in a way that tells me that they haven’t been on a college campus for a really long time,” Emerson said.

The Senate Universities and Technical Colleges Committee is scheduled to have a public hearing on eight Republican-authored higher education-related bills Wednesday. 

One bill, coauthored by Sen. Andre Jacque (R-New Franken) and Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Hortonville), would place caps on annual tuition hikes. It was proposed in reaction to the 5% tuition increase that was approved after the recent state budget was completed. The increase was the third annual hike in a row. UW President Jay Rothman and UW regents had said the tuition increases would be necessary if the system didn’t secure enough funding from the state. 

In a memo about the bill, the Republican lawmakers said the Legislature needed to “implement a common sense law placing controls on these types of skyrocketing tuition increases” and that a cap on tuition increases would provide families with “the predictability required to budget for college expenses into the future.” Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) has also argued that the bill is about “protecting affordability.” 

Under the bill, the UW Board of Regents would be prohibited from increasing undergraduate tuition by more than the consumer price index increase in a given year.

Emerson said she didn’t think the bill would have the intended effect of helping students and families afford school. She noted some of the effects seen during the decade-long tuition freeze implemented under the Walker administration. 

UW leaders said at the time that the freeze was unsustainable as it limited campuses ability to maintain its program and course offerings and wages for staff and faculty. 

“Students couldn’t get the classes that they needed… so people would sometimes have to go for an extra year to get all of the classes that they needed to complete their degree. It ended up costing people more because they had to stay in longer to get the one last requirement that they needed for their degree,” Emerson said. “It’s a good messaging point to say we’re gonna not increase [tuition] by a certain amount, but I don’t think that that has the end result that they’re thinking it does.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE