Rules for Thee, Not for Me: The Left’s Billionaire-Fueled Court Grab in Wisconsin
The Left decries Elon Musk’s donations — while their own out-of-state donors have poured in 400% more
Court race has revealed something the media would rather you ignore: the left’s moral grandstanding comes to a screeching halt the moment power is on the table.
The race between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel is, on the surface, about who will fill a judicial seat. But in practice, it is a proxy war for national control of a key swing state court. And the numbers don’t lie: 77% of Crawford’s campaign donations come from outside the state. That’s not grassroots — that’s astroturf, laid and fertilized by the Democratic donor class from New York to California.
For years, we’ve been told that conservative billionaires were a threat to democracy. That Citizens United corrupted our politics. That the court should be above influence. But when George Soros and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker quietly funnel millions into Susan Crawford’s campaign, the outrage machine suddenly powers down. Apparently, oligarchy is only bad when it wears a red tie.
Compare that to Brad Schimel, whose donations are 85% in-state. Yes, Elon Musk and Richard Uihlein have backed him through independent expenditures. But Schimel’s donor base still reflects the people of Wisconsin. Crawford’s, on the other hand, looks more like a California wine club mailing list.
Let’s break this down:
Susan Crawford:
77% of campaign contributions are from out-of-state donors
Millions from George Soros, J.B. Pritzker, and national liberal PACs
Heavily funded by coastal donors, progressive activist networks, and Hollywood-linked bundlers
Brad Schimel:
85% of campaign contributions come from within Wisconsin
Outside support from Musk and Uihlein comes via independent expenditures, not direct campaign donations
His donor list includes Wisconsin residents, small business owners, and local legal professionals
This is not just hypocrisy. It is strategy. The left has long realized that if it can’t win over the culture of middle America, it can fund campaigns to change the judiciary instead. Wisconsin’s court is not just a legal body. It’s a lever for redistricting, for abortion rulings, for labor law. And Democrats are willing to buy the whole machine if it gives them control of the gears.
Enter Hakeem Jeffries — the Dollar Tree Obama himself — parachuting into Wisconsin to explain why this state’s court must be “enlightened” enough to redraw congressional lines.
He’s not even pretending it’s about impartial justice. To him, Crawford isn’t just a judge — she’s a tool to gerrymander power back into the hands of Democrats. When a national party boss starts meddling in a state judicial race, it's no longer about the law — it's about securing a favorable map. And that should concern every voter, regardless of party.
This isn’t the first time. In North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, national Democrat-aligned groups have pumped tens of millions into judicial races. Not to argue legal merit — but to tilt the bench in their favor. The Wisconsin race is simply the latest, and boldest, example of this court capture strategy.
Imagine, for one second, that the roles were reversed. If 77% of a conservative judge’s donations came from oil tycoons in Texas and crypto billionaires in Florida, every news outlet in America would be on fire. The New York Times would cry "judicial fascism," NPR would run somber interviews about the death of democracy, and late-night hosts would work it into their monologues.
But when Susan Crawford gets showered in out-of-state money, the media calls it a "grassroots movement." This isn’t just bias. It’s contempt. Contempt for the intelligence of voters. Contempt for the principle of self-government. And contempt for anyone who still believes that judges should call balls and strikes, not write the rulebook for one team.
The left talks about threats to democracy. But the greatest threat is not a tweet or a billionaire with an opinion. It is a political movement that believes rules are only legitimate when they serve its interests. It is a party that cries about dark money while building a national pipeline to flood state elections with it. It is a mindset that sees Wisconsin not as a sovereign state with citizens to be served, but as a prize to be won at any cost.
This kind of hypocrisy is nothing new. We saw it with Bernie Sanders, too — the self-proclaimed enemy of big money who built his brand on $27 donations. But behind the curtain, that $27 mythology begins to crumble. Thousands of donors giving the same amount, over and over, from suspicious ZIP codes and bundled entries that look more engineered than organic. Just like Crawford’s donor base, it’s less about democratic support and more about maintaining the illusion of it.
In the end, the people of Wisconsin must decide whether they want a judge who represents them — or one who represents the priorities of coastal elites and international financiers. They should not be fooled by the smooth packaging or the slogans of fairness. They should look at the money, the strategy, and the silence.
Because when the people who cry loudest about money in politics are the ones spending the most of it, what you’re seeing isn’t activism.
It’s ownership.