Brad Schimel Slams Leftist Susan Crawford Over Soros, Pritzker Money
The Schimel-Crawford Clash: A Case Study in Political Fundraising and Rhetorical Warfare Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel's 2018 attack on liberal activist Susan Crawford, accusing her of being funded by billionaire philanthropists George Soros and JB Pritzker, ignited a fierce debate about political influence and campaign finance.
Crawford, a vocal critic of Schimel's policies, had received funding from groups associated with these prominent donors.
Schimel's public condemnation framed the issue as one of outside influence corrupting state-level politics.
Schimel's attack, while highlighting the undeniable reality of large-scale political donations, ultimately employed a simplistic and misleading narrative.
It strategically blurred the lines between legitimate advocacy and undue influence, failing to address the complex interplay of money, ideology, and democratic participation in modern politics.
Schimel's statement directly linked Crawford's activism to Soros and Pritzker, implying their funding amounted to manipulation.
While Crawford did receive funding from organizations supported by these billionaires, the claim lacks nuance.
Many progressive causes rely on wealthy benefactors.
The Open Society Foundations (Soros) and the Pritzker family foundation support a vast range of progressive initiatives, including election reform, criminal justice reform, and environmental protection.
To equate this funding with buying Crawford's political stance ignores the complex realities of funding progressive activism.
Schimel's rhetoric tapped into a prevalent public skepticism towards wealthy donors and the potential for corruption.
This aligns with research on the impact of money in politics (e.
g.
, Gilens & Page, 2014), which suggests that affluent interests disproportionately influence policy outcomes.
However, simply naming donors as the enemy simplifies a complex issue.
It overlooks the role of grassroots movements, volunteer activism, and the legitimate need for organizations to secure funding to advocate for policy changes.
Critics argue Schimel's statement served primarily as a rhetorical tactic to discredit Crawford and deflect criticism of his own policies.
This is consistent with the strategy of attack dog politics employed by many politicians to divert attention from controversial issues.
Crawford and her supporters contend that Schimel's attack was a smear campaign designed to intimidate her and silence dissent.
They highlight the importance of independent advocacy groups and the role of philanthropy in supporting progressive causes.
Conversely, Schimel’s supporters argue that transparency in political funding is crucial and that the sheer scale of Soros and Pritzker's donations warrants scrutiny.
Their concern rests on the potential for these donations to unduly sway public policy.
This debate reflects the ongoing tension between the right to free speech and assembly, protected by the First Amendment, and concerns about the influence of money in politics.
Research on campaign finance consistently demonstrates a correlation between money and political outcomes (Jacobson, 2015).
However, establishing direct causation is difficult.
The impact of large donations varies depending on various factors, including the specific policy area, the competitive landscape of the election, and the overall political climate.
The debate surrounding the influence of super PACs and dark money further complicates the picture (Hersh, 2016).
Further research is needed to accurately measure the influence of these factors on specific policy outcomes.
Schimel's attack on Crawford exemplifies the complexities of campaign finance and political discourse.
While raising legitimate concerns about the influence of wealthy donors, his simplistic narrative fails to engage with the nuances of the issue.
By focusing solely on the source of funding, he neglected the substance of Crawford’s advocacy and the broader questions of democratic participation and the role of non-profit organizations in a healthy democracy.
This case highlights the need for a more nuanced public conversation about campaign finance reform, moving beyond simplistic narratives to develop solutions that protect free speech while mitigating the potential for undue influence by wealthy interests.
This requires a transparent and robust system of campaign finance disclosure and comprehensive regulations that address both the supply and the demand side of money in politics.
Perspectives on Politics12 Jacobson, G.
C.
(2015).
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Dark money: The hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right*.
Knopf.