For years, billionaire Republican donors Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein have given a lot of money to right-wing causes and Republican politicians. The Washington Post recently reported they rank second only to Elon Musk among the biggest donors in the current election cycle. While they live across the border in Lake Forest, Illinois, they take a special interest in Wisconsin. Yet the millions of dollars in donations they’ve given to the Wisconsin Republican Party look like chump change compared to the massive amount of money they’ve showered on the state since Tom Tiffany announced his run for governor.

The Uihliens upped their contributions to the state party from $20,000 in 2014 to $500,000 in 2017 and more than $1 million in 2018, according to campaign finance data published on the Wisconsin Ethics Commission’s Sunshine website.  Altogether, they gave about $3.6 million to the party between 2016 and 2024. But in 2025 and 2026, as Tiffany launched his campaign for governor, the Uihleins gave exponentially more —  about $34.8 million. 

Thanks to a loophole created under former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, donors can sidestep limits on their contributions to particular candidates by giving unlimited money to political parties, which can then pass the money directly to the candidates. And the Republican Party of Wisconsin has funneled the Uihleins’ money directly to Tiffany. Almost all of the money Tiffany raised in the most recent reporting period came from the Uihleins and one other billionaire, Diane Hendricks.

The Uihleins support a lot of Republican candidates and causes, and would likely have supported the Republican no matter who was running for governor this year. But they have a special relationship with Tiffany. 

Back when he was serving in the Wisconsin state Senate, Tiffany’s district included Manitowish Waters, the small town where the Uihleins opened a resort, restaurant, spa, condominium complex and other businesses, turning the sleepy, lakeside community into a fancy tourist destination. 

Tiffany, who lived 30 miles away in Hazelhurst, was very helpful to the Uihleins when some local residents and environmentalists asked the DNR to study the damage caused by a dam on Rest Lake in Manitowish Waters. The dam kept water levels low in the fall so lakeshore property owners didn’t have to take in their piers and high in the spring, just in time for them to take out their boats. According to the River Alliance of Wisconsin, partially closing the dam’s gates in the spring, “to raise the levels back up in time for boating season” meant ”starving the Manitowish River of water at a time when fish spawn. Downstream river property owners would find mud flats where water had been the day before.”

A 2015 article, “Requiem for a River,” posted by the River Alliance, describes how Tiffany slipped a few sentences into the 2015-17 state budget undercutting regulation of the dam and pronouncing a “death sentence” for the Manitowish River, essentially turning Rest Lake, where the Uihliens owned a condominium complex, into a private lake. 

The tiny provision Tiffany added to the budget (#49 in a long list of last-minute budget tweaks), is titled “Dam Water Level Orders” and specifies that the Legislature must approve changes to a dam in Vilas County. With that deft maneuver, Tiffany killed a years-long effort by citizens to save the Manitowish River and rendered moot an environmental study by the DNR.

“What happened to the Manitowish River is a case study of how far we have fallen in resource conservation,” the River Alliance article concludes. “The Manitowish River now has upstream winners – well-connected and wealthy people who know how to use their influence to get what they want – and downstream losers without the same clout. Tiffany’s bill practically makes the Rest Lake chain a private waterway, in a state that prides itself on managing water in the public interest.”

“My constituents elected me to get results,” Tiffany said by way of explanation, in a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report on his budget maneuver.

Tiffany’s constituents, of course, included the Uihleins.

His intervention in the matter of the Rest Lake dam was no small favor to the most well-connected and wealthy of all the constituents in his northern Wisconsin district. For the Uihleins, the transformation of Manitowish Waters was a special, personal cause.

Elizabeth Uihlein’s intense focus on funding improvements and reshaping even tiny aesthetic details of Manitowish Waters to her liking divided residents, according to a 2015 article in the Journal Sentinel. Some people appreciated the big investment in the community. Others did not like being left out of decisions about public spaces and objected to how their community was forced to conform to one wealthy woman’s tastes. 

Elizabeth Uihlein herself told the Journal Sentinel, “It’s like a little Aspen. It’s beautiful, but it’s dying.” She suggested that local residents should be grateful for her generosity in providing for them, since they would never make it on their own. “The whole thing is dying up there,” she said. “The money had to come from elsewhere.”

The Uilheins, founders of the packing supply company Uline, are among the richest people in the U.S. They were also some of former Gov. Walker’s biggest donors, a fact that was mentioned in news coverage of the sweetheart deal they got on a swath of lakefront property in Manitowish Waters in 2016. Walker’s DNR gave the Uihleins a stretch of Rest Lake shoreline in exchange for a parcel of state forest land the couple owned in a different part of the state. DNR officials came up with the land swap, the AP reported, after critics objected to the state’s proposal to sell the lakeshore property to Elizabeth Uihlein for more than $100,000 less than its appraised value. 

Long before the deal went through, the Uihleins started making unauthorized improvements on the public land they planned to buy. Some local officials were shocked to discover the extensive paths along the shoreline. Elizabeth Uihlein waved away their concerns. Later, with Walker’s help, she was able to claim the property as her own.

The section of Rest Lake shoreline the Uihleins received from the state gave lake access to their condominium complex. Tiffany’s deft tweak to the state budget ensured that boating conditions remained perfect in the spring, and in the fall the Uihleins and residents of their condo complex never had to go through the hassle of taking in their docks. 

It’s worth asking what kind of return on investment the Uihleins expect to receive from their hyperscale donations to Wisconsin Republicans this year.

“The Uihleins wanted to take over a city. Tom Tiffany gave them their law change,” says Democratic analyst Scot Ross. “A decade later the Uihleins give his campaign $35 million. The dam man wouldn’t have a damn campaign without the Uihleins’ millions.”

In addition to the $34.8 million they funneled to Tiffany through the state party, The Uihleins have also given millions of dollars this cycle to try to elect Republican majorities in the state Legislature. In some cases, they’ve provided almost all of the campaign cash those Republican candidates have raised. 

As the progressive group A Better Wisconsin Together put it in a statement on the politicians who received those donations, “it certainly raises questions about who they’re really looking out for.”

A leading Democratic campaign committee is projecting confidence in U.S. Senate toss-up races four weeks before Election Day, though it has yet to commit resources to the reddest states that have recently entered the Senate map.

Senate Majority PAC, which is run by allies of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, has bought ad time, or has commitments to do so, in nine states, Lauren French, the group’s chief spokesperson told reporters Tuesday. 

Those states — Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas — show Democrats are competing this cycle in typically Republican places. Elections analysts generally say those states are toss-ups or lean Democratic.

The Democratic super PAC’s slate, though, is not as expansive as some of the latest public polls and forecaster ratings show could be in play.

The group is “watching really closely” the races in GOP strongholds of Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi and Kansas, French said. 

At least one of those states, Kansas, could be in play for the first time in decades, according to elections forecaster The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, which moved it into the toss-up category Tuesday.

“Broadly, we are very pleased with the state of the race right now,” French said. “We are invested in nine battleground states and are looking very closely at some of the expansion states that are coming (into) play as we get four weeks from the election and the environment continues to be increasingly rough for Republicans.”

An expanded Senate map is available to Democrats because of President Donald Trump’s unpopularity, especially tied to the Iran war and related high gas prices, French said. Trump’s approval rating is lower than his disapproval rating “in every battleground state,” she added.

North Carolina moves

Opportunities for Republicans appear to be shrinking, with North Carolina moving further toward Democrats. 

Cook shifted the race from lean Democrat to likely Democrat on Tuesday, after the Senate Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC, said last week it was freezing future spending in the state.

French said the Senate Majority PAC also canceled its television and digital spending this week in the race for the seat left open by retiring Republican Thom Tillis. The group has not made decisions on spending in the Tar Heel State beyond this week, she said.

Republicans hold cash edge

While the national political environment favors Democrats, the GOP and its fellow campaign groups maintain a massive cash advantage against Democrats.

Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc., held more than $400 million at the end of August, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission. Senate Majority PAC showed around $57 million on hand in the same report.

Fundraising numbers for official party committees also significantly favor Republicans. 

The Republican National Committee and the party’s campaign groups supporting House and Senate candidates outraised their Democratic counterparts by about $100 million through Aug. 31, according to an analysis by nonpartisan elections analyst Ballopedia. 

Republicans have largely aimed to portray Democrats as too far to the left to capably manage Congress.

“Voters have a clear choice this November between Republicans who will fight for them and radical, socialist Democrats who would serve as rubber stamps for Chuck Schumer’s Washington machine,” Bernadette Breslin, a spokeswoman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said in a statement.

Rare pickup opportunities

Still, the Senate Majority PAC’s bullish sentiment broadly matches expert opinion, as forecasters continue to see a strong case for Democrats to pick up Senate seats. Republicans now control the Senate with 53 seats.

The elections handicapper Sabato’s Crystal Ball moved two Senate races in Democrats’ direction Tuesday. 

The group labeled Alaska as leaning toward Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola in her challenge to incumbent Republican Dan Sullivan, and shifted U.S. Sen. Darline Graham’s race in South Carolina from safe Republican to likely Republican. Graham was appointed to the seat when her late brother died, won a Republican primary election and is now seeking a six-year term.

Overall, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, which operates at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, rates 49 seats, including those of incumbents not on the ballot this year, as at least leaning toward the Democrat, with four seen as toss-ups. 

Democrats, who now hold 47 seats, would need to net 51 seats to win a majority because Vice President JD Vance casts tie-breaking votes.

A flip in control of the chamber would significantly slow Trump’s nominees to the federal bench and executive branch posts. 

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Republicans have had the power to place constitutional amendment questions on Wisconsin’s statewide ballots since taking control of the state Legislature in 2011.

To make those amendments, both houses of the state Legislature must pass the proposed change two sessions in a row. Then, a majority of voters must vote “yes” to ratify it.

Republicans have controlled the Legislature since 2011 and have used that power in recent years to pitch changes to the constitution, sometimes putting policies directly to voters that Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has vetoed.

Most votes to advance recent referendums have been along party lines, but occasionally some Democrats voted for them. Republicans in the majority have enough votes to pass them without Democrats, and the governor can’t veto constitutional amendments.

Wisconsin voters have approved seven constitutional amendments since 2020 and rejected two. Three more are on the Nov. 3 ballot.

This Fact Brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau: Ballot Initiative and Referendum in Wisconsin
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wild Wisconsin primary finish propels race for control of Legislature.
• Wisconsin State Legislature: SJR 116 Assembly Votes
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin voters face 3 referendums. Here's how recent votes have gone
• Wisconsin State Legislature: SJR 2 Assembly Votes
• MyVote Wisconsin: What’s On My Ballot

Have Republicans controlled constitutional amendment questions on Wisconsin ballots for the past 15 years? 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.

WASHINGTON — Republicans on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee used a hearing Wednesday to continue voicing opposition to transgender athletes competing in women’s sports, which the top Democrat on the panel called a distraction from cost-of-living issues voters are more concerned about.

Republicans, vying to defend their majority in the House and Senate in the midterm elections less than six weeks away, have pursued a broad anti-trans agenda alongside President Donald Trump’s administration. Republicans on  Wednesday framed the issue as protecting women’s sports. 

“Biological women should not be asked to accommodate men who, for reasons of identity or otherwise, choose to compete in (the) women’s category instead of (the) men’s or co-ed category,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, chair of the Judiciary panel. 

“Women were last to get the vote, to participate in professions, to serve on juries, get credit cards in their own names and so much more,” the Iowa Republican said. “Women should not again be asked to cede their opportunities just to make men comfortable.” 

The GOP-led panel brought in advocates, who spoke out against transgender athletes’ participation in sports that align with their gender identity. 

Dems absent

Democrats on the panel largely sat the hearing out, drawing the ire of GOP members.

In the only statement by a Democrat during the hearing, the panel’s ranking member, Sen. Dick Durbin, used his opening remarks to question his GOP counterparts’ priorities amid Americans’ affordability concerns. 

“If you ask the American people, ‘What are the priority issues you hope Congress will address as soon as possible?’ the issue of this hearing would not be in the top 10, maybe not the top 20,” the Illinois Democrat said. 

“People are concerned about the cost of living, they’re concerned about the ability to pay for the college education of their kids, they’re concerned about their utility bills, they’re concerned about their grocery bills — they want to know what we’re doing about it,” he added. 

Republicans on the panel noted Democrats’ absence.

“Not one member on the other side of the aisle has had the respect for women to come in here and ask questions, to figure out how we get this right, how we stand up for fairness, for safety, for an opportunity for young women across the country,” GOP Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama said at the hearing. “It’s absolutely absurd.”

But Durbin pointed to a similar 2024 hearing that saw NCAA President Charlie Baker tell senators that of the more than half-million total athletes in NCAA schools, he knew of fewer than 10 who were transgender. 

“We can all agree that we want to be fair and safe in women’s athletics, but this vendetta against a small number of people in the trans community affects everyone, including cisgender girls who can be subject to inappropriate gender verification checks,” Durbin said. 

At a press conference after the hearing, GOP Sens. Ashley Moody of Florida, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Darline Graham of South Carolina and Britt, along with several athletes and advocates, continued to blast the inclusion of trans athletes on women’s sports teams. 

“It shouldn’t be complicated,” Moody said. “Men do not belong in women’s sports. Women’s sports exist for a reason, and if we’re going to have women’s sports, we must protect women’s sports.”

Hot topic

The issue has been the subject of intense debate in recent years.

The House passed a bill in January 2025 that would bar trans students’ participation in women’s school sports teams consistent with their gender identity. 

But Senate Democrats blocked an effort in March of that year aimed at imposing such a ban and codifying Trump’s 2025 executive order on the issue. 

The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld state laws banning transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams.

The court’s decision — which has no impact on states without such bans — marked a major setback for transgender rights across the nation. 

Meanwhile, a major bipartisan bill to regulate college athletes’ compensation and establish additional protections for women’s and Olympic sports continues to advance in the Senate.

Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Republicans have made clear that the bill would not preempt state laws regarding the participation of trans athletes in women’s sports.

Republican members of the Senate Agriculture Committee voted Wednesday to advance a farm bill, though Democrats on the committee voted against the package due to continued disagreements on a nutrition section of the bill. 

The committee marked up the bill in August, then recessed after a failed vote as Democrats held out over their proposal for an extension of when some states will have to begin paying for a share of federal nutrition benefits. Republican leadership amended the bill before the August hearing to offer a one-year extension, but Democrats continued to argue for a two-year extension. 

While Republicans hold the majority in the committee, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell’s more than 90-day public hiatus due to a health issue meant the body didn’t have enough votes to pass the farm bill from the committee in August. 

McConnell returned to the Capitol earlier in the week, allowing Republicans in the agriculture committee to advance the bill along party lines. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, said in each of the five farm bills he has worked on, the opposing parties “always seem to come together at the end” to get the bill done.

“Honestly, that’s what ought to be happening here, folks,” Thune said. 

Thune said he didn’t understand why Democrats were choosing to “block vote” against a bipartisan bill that is “principally about production agriculture.” 

The farm bill is typically reauthorized every five years, but the many programs under the bill have operated on various extensions of the 2018 farm bill for the past several years. 

Democratic Sen. John Fetterman from Pennsylvania said the ag sector is “begging” for a new farm bill. 

“We’ve got to find a way to pass this thing because people are coming all the way from my state saying, ‘We can’t keep waiting for this,’” Fetterman said. “We have to deliver for our farmers.” 

The error rate issue

Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act included language that requires states to lower their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payment error rates, which measures a state’s accuracy in determining who is eligible for SNAP and how much they receive. 

The latest SNAP payment error rates show only nine states are below the 6% error rate threshold that allows their SNAP programs to continue to be 100% funded by the federal government. As the law currently stands, all other states will have to pay 5%, 10% or 15% of SNAP benefits costs in their state starting Oct. 2027. 

States with an error rate above 13.34%, however, are eligible for a two-year extension. Democrats sought to extend this extension to all states, especially as some states are seemingly raising their current error rates so they can benefit from the extension. 

In August, Republicans on the Senate agriculture committee adjusted the farm bill proposal to include a one-year extension, but Democrats would not vote in favor of the bill.

Farm bill proposal fails in US Senate ag committee over SNAP error rate issue

Ranking member Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said it was her goal to “get this farm bill done, and to get it done by the end of the year,” and noted difficulties facing farmers and ranchers – like global trade disruptions, input costs and “headwinds” from tariffs. 

The Democrat said she was appreciative of Chairman John Boozman’s one-year delay, but said it would still allow certain states to get off “scot-free” while other states need tens of millions of dollars, according to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, to pay for their nutrition programs. 

“We don’t want to have a situation where high-error-rate states get off scot-free while the rest of us pay,” Klobuchar said. “And we have shown our commitment and will continue to do that to improving this bill to get us to a bipartisan product that can be successful on the Senate floor.”

If the version of the bill that advanced Wednesday is passed and signed into law, states would have until October 2028 to lower their error rates before they are required to shoulder part of the costs. 

Thune argued Democrats should be supportive of the bill, because if it doesn’t pass, current law will remain in effect and states will have to start paying for their error rates in 2027.

Thune also noted that the bill included a number of Democrat-led amendments, and bipartisan issues like allowing year-round, nationwide access to E15, a fuel blend with 15% ethanol. 

Several senators sported buttons at the hearing that read “E15 now” and agricultural groups, including National Corn Growers Association, National Farmers Union and the Renewable Fuel Association, thanked the committee for advancing the measure. 

Iowa senators try for amendments to bill

At the August markup of the bill, senators went through the massive piece of legislation title by title with amendments and objections, before voting, unsuccessfully, on the bill as a whole. Boozman did not open the bill up again for amendments Wednesday, though Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, attempted to talk over the roll call vote to argue her amendment should be heard. 

Ernst argued she had filed her amendment prior to the August deadline and held that the final title of the bill was not closed prior to the committee’s recess in August. 

Ernst said her amendment presented a “balanced middle ground approach” to address Proposition 12 – a California law stipulating that certain products, including pork products and bacon, must come from animals who were raised under certain conditions. 

Senate farm bill draft focuses on farm economy, keeps ‘Big Beautiful’ SNAP cuts

Congressional efforts to undo Proposition 12 have been championed by Iowa Republicans and supported by agricultural groups including the National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation. Animal rights, environmental groups and some producer groups, have pushed back against these efforts and celebrated that such language was not included in the Senate’s farm bill. 

Ernst said her amendment would have preserved Prop 12 and other existing laws, while preventing “future mandates from creating an unaffordable patchwork of 50 different production standards for farmers across this country.” 

“This is a serious attempt to find common ground and give our producers certainty going forward,” Ernst said. “Yet, after following the recommended process, again given by your staff, and doing the bipartisan work, we are not even being given an opportunity to bring the solution before the committee for a vote.” 

Boozman said he did not block the amendment from being brought forward during the bill markup in August. 

Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-New Mexico, said that while he might not vote with Ernst, “procedure” in the committee is supposed to “protect the voices of colleagues to raise issues that matter to us in our states.” 

“Because the senator from Iowa was recognized, and then just run over, that does not sound like the rights of those of us that sit on the committee were protected,” Luján said to Boozman. 

Sen. Chuck Grassley supported his Iowa colleague and said he was “hoping” the committee would “get a chance to vote on an amendment very important to Iowa” as the top pork producing state in the nation.

“It’s just stupid that we don’t have a chance to bring Iowa’s interest to this debate on the first farm bill that we’ve had in discussion for now the third year,” Grassley said. 

Grassley said he had also hoped to discuss his own bipartisan amendment, drafted with Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Adam Schiff of California to “finalize” certain rules in the Packers and Stockyards Act. 

Grassley has previously criticized U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins for delaying the implementation of rules, which he said were “put in place to protect” meat producers in the U.S., in particular poultry producers who have invested in infrastructure costs while corporations haven’t “honored fully” their commitments with family farmers. 

“I just want to express my irritation about the whole thing, and just hope that somewhere along the line, at least the Secretary of Agriculture will wake up and draw back her delays of these rules,” Grassley said. 

Rollins said in June the rule was a “Biden-era” regulation and that USDA needed additional time to review the rule. 

Boozman said if he opened the bill up for Ernst or Grassley’s amendments, he would have to restart the markup, and “we’re not prepared to do that.”

Sen. John Hoeven, R-North Dakota, reminded his colleagues that there would still be room for amendments to the bill on the Senate floor. 

“Let’s go to the floor, offer up amendments, have robust debate, and get this done for our farmers and ranchers,” Hoeven said. 

Before the House left town Wednesday, members of the House Agriculture Committee heard testimony from producers across the country about increasing demand for “homegrown products” by advancing things like stronger antitrust laws, country of origin labeling and expanded biomanufacturing opportunities. 

In his opening comments, Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pennsylvania, noted that the House had already passed its version of the farm bill, and he looked forward to “the Senate upholding its end of the bargain soon.”

In a statement Wednesday evening, Boozman said advancing the bill from the Senate committee was a “critical step” toward getting results to a “hurting” farm country. 

“While this is clearly welcome progress, we need more of our colleagues’ votes to reflect the urgency of supporting farmers, ranchers, forest landowners and rural communities,” Boozman said.

WASHINGTON — As the November midterms approach, vulnerable U.S. House Republicans voted late Tuesday to require congressional approval for President Donald Trump to continue his war in Iran.

Seven Republicans broke ranks and joined all Democrats to pass a War Powers Resolution sponsored by Rep. Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat. Tuesday’s vote marked the third time since June that the House passed a measure to curb Trump’s military powers in Iran. The war has dragged on for over half a year.

The vote came as diesel prices reached a record high of $6.31 per gallon in the United States, and gas hovered at an average of nearly $4.37 a gallon Wednesday, according to AAA. 

Global oil markets have been rocked since Iranian officials effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz, a major petroleum trade route. The conflict has since expanded, and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels are slowing traffic through another major trade passage, the Bab-al Mandab Strait.

The resolution passed, 220-204, despite Republicans’ narrow majority in the chamber. GOP House members who voted for the Iran War Powers Resolution for the first time included Zach Nunn and Marianette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, and Nancy Mace of South Carolina.

Nunn and Miller-Meeks both face tough reelection bids in Iowa. The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates both races as “toss-ups.”

Mace lost her South Carolina gubernatorial primary bid in June and is not seeking reelection to the House.

‘Open-ended war’

Nunn posted on social media Tuesday that, as a U.S. Air Force veteran who flew missions in the Middle East, he could not support “another open-ended war,” though he still believes the Islamic Republic “must be held accountable for killing Americans, supporting terrorism, threatening the Strait of Hormuz, and pursuing nuclear weapons.” 

Presidents have a 60-day period to pursue military action with congressional approval, but that window has passed, he added.

“Iowa has already paid a devastating price, including two service members killed by an Iranian drone in Kuwait,” Nunn wrote on X late Tuesday night. “Congress owes them, their families, and every American in uniform clear objectives and constitutional oversight. … We can defend Americans, pressure Iran, and pursue peace while ensuring Congress fulfills its constitutional responsibility.” 

Miller-Meeks posted Wednesday morning that with her 24 years served in the Army, she remains skeptical of Trump’s actions in Iran. 

“I said it in March: the mission had to stay focused and limited, because Americans do not want another forever war. I will not vote to keep our soldiers in an open-ended war, with Iowans paying too much at the pump,” Miller-Meeks wrote on X.

“The Iranian regime and its nuclear ambitions have been defanged,” she continued. “The President needs to present a plan to Congress and the American people for how this ends so we can focus on bringing our soldiers home and lowering prices.”

Third House vote

Nunn, Miller-Meeks and Mace joined House Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who have now each voted three times to rein in Trump’s actions in the Iran conflict. Massie voted yes an additional time in April, but the measure failed to pass the House then.

Massie on Tuesday introduced eight articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for his handling of the war in Iran.

The Trump administration maintains War Powers Resolutions are unconstitutional and has dismissed the measures passed in both chambers. Similar War Powers Resolutions to stop Trump’s hostilities in Iran cleared procedural votes in the Senate in May and June. The Senate has voted on such measures 13 times.

Congress overrode a veto from President Richard Nixon to enact the War Powers Resolution statute, at the time aimed at reining in Nixon’s actions in Vietnam.

President Donald Trump and Republicans wrapped up their two-day midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, on Thursday night, urging voters to ensure the party has another two years with unified control of government. 

Speakers, many vying for seats in Congress, insisted Democrats regaining power would be disastrous for the country, some going as far as implying they’d lead to the nation’s downfall. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said the results of the elections “will determine the fate of our Republic and the future for our children and our grandchildren.”

He argued that the GOP maintaining control of both chambers represents the best way to address border security, crime, defense and economic concerns, though he didn’t detail any specific bills he’d try to enact during the next two years. 

Johnson didn’t bring up the war in Iran or rising gas prices during his speech, but did say he doesn’t intend to let Democrats flip the House from red to blue next year. 

“We cannot and will not allow them to take the majority of the Congress,” he said. “We’re not going to do it.”

RFK Jr.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke at length about his family’s history as Democratic leaders and how the party has evolved since the 1960s. 

Standing in front of an electronic backdrop displaying a farm field and the “Make America Healthy Again” slogan, Kennedy’s speech focused predominantly on his experiences and Trump. 

The vast majority of his 25-minute speech didn’t address the campaigns for Congress, with Kennedy only mentioning the fight for control of the House and Senate in two sentences at the end. 

“We need to elect a Republican Congress to keep this momentum going,” he said. “Let’s go out and do that.”

Vice President JD Vance spoke just before Trump arrived on stage.

‘I am on the ballot’

Trump closed out the convention with his second speech in two days, urging Republicans to vote in the midterm elections so the party could make additional changes to immigration and implement nationwide changes to voter identification requirements. 

“On Election Day, Nov. 3, you got to do me a favor, you got to get out and vote,” he said. “And you’re going to pretend I’m on the ballot because, in a way, I am on the ballot.”

He then had everyone in the stadium raise their right hand to recite a pledge to vote that included comments about cheating. He then said anyone who didn’t vote would go to hell. 

Trump didn’t mention specific candidates much during his speech but did recognize Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is seeking the state’s U.S. Senate seat. 

Trump said he didn’t like the way Paxton dresses, talks, or looks, but urged Republicans in the state to vote for him during the general election. 

“I don’t know if he’s going to ever speak to me again, but you know I don’t care as long as he wins,” he said. “I really don’t. I don’t know. I don’t have to speak to him. He’s going to vote the way we would vote, so I don’t have to speak to him. I don’t care. You got to vote for him.” 

After speaking for about 25 minutes, Trump introduced opera singer Christopher Macchio to perform “America the Beautiful” and “All I Ask of You” from “Phantom of the Opera” as balloons fell from the ceiling. 

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Nine out of 446 bills with a Democrat as the first author got a hearing in the Wisconsin Legislature in the 2025-26 session.

The nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau provided statistics that confirmed most of the numbers in a social media post about the fate of bills introduced by Democrats, who are in the minority.

Nine Democratic-led bills got a public hearing, one of the first steps to becoming law. Those included enhancing perimenopause and menopause education, grants for AEDs in child care centers and free state park access for veterans and Gold Star families.

The LRB confirmed that no bills with a Democrat as the first author became law. That doesn’t take into account three laws where the Assembly or Senate version of the text passed, but a Democrat led the companion bill in the other chamber, such as a bipartisan law that expanded the missing child alerts system. 

This Fact Brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau Email Sept. 2, 2026
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Republicans control the Wisconsin statehouse. By how many seats?
• Wisconsin State Legislature Senate Bill 437
• Wisconsin State Legislature Senate Bill 356
• Wisconsin State Legislature Senate Bill 718
• Wisconsin State Legislature Senate Bill 466
• Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Bipartisan Wisconsin law expands to improve state's missing child alerts system

Did fewer than 10 Democrat-authored bills get a hearing in the 2025-26 legislative session? 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.