Yearly Archives: 2022

Wisconsin Republican statewide candidates and officeholders have spent $20.7 million during the 2022 election cycle. Among statewide officials and candidates, Tim Michels has spent more than any other Republican.

Michels is running for Governor of Wisconsin in 2022. Michels raised $12.0 million and spent $10.6 million between Jan. 1, 2021, and July 25, 2022. According to Wisconsin Ethics Commission reports, Michels spent the most money with the following individual payees and PACs.

Tim Michels’s Top 10 Payees, (1/1/2021 – 7/25/2022)

Of the $10.6 million in reported expenditures, $10.2 million went to these 10 payees:

Total ExpendituresNameType$8,333,487Ad Victory LLCENTITY$1,072,811Imge LLCENTITY$237,653Red Maverick Media LLCENTITY$163,056Something Else Strategies LLCENTITY$122,000Public Opinion Strategies LLCENTITY$97,659Ls Consulting LLCENTITY$76,835Michels CorporationENTITY$62,177Leverage Public StrategiesENTITY$38,196Cls Services IncENTITY$28,096Adp IncENTITY

The data above are based on campaign finance reports that active Wisconsin PACs submitted to the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. Political expenditures that are not controlled by candidates or their campaigns, known as satellite spending, are not included in candidate totals. Federal PACs are not required to report to state agencies. Transparency USA publishes campaign finance data following major reporting deadlines. State or federal law may require filers to submit additional reports.

See updates to Tim Michels’s campaign finance data after the next reports are available.

Report NameReport Due Date2022 Jan Semiannual1/18/20222022 Spring Pre-Primary2/7/20222022 Spring Pre-Election3/28/20222022 Jul Semiannual7/15/20222022 Fall Pre-Primary8/1/20222022 Sept Data9/27/20222022 Fall Pre-General10/31/20222023 Jan Semiannual1/7/2023

This article is a joint publication from Ballotpedia and Transparency USA, who are working together to provide campaign finance information for state-level elections. Learn more about our work here.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s Republican U.S. senator says his opponent has gone from demonizing police to relying on them 13-and-a-half hours-a-day.

Mandela Barnes, the state’s current lieutenant governor and Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, is facing questions after another report about his expensive and almost constant security costs.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported this week that Barnes has racked-up over $600,000 in security costs during his first three years in office. That’s 10-times more expensive than Wisconsin’s last lieutenant governor.

Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson’s campaign says the security comes after years of anti-police rhetoric from Barnes.

“Lt. Gov. Barnes has spent years vilifying the same law enforcement professionals that he leans on at unprecedented levels,” campaign spokesman Alec Zimmerman told The Center Square. “Liberal leaders like Barnes who have supported the defund the police movement are exactly why cops around Wisconsin are leaving the profession and police departments statewide have struggled to recruit more officers.”

Barnes’ campaign has said for months that he does not support the Defund the Police movement. But many of Barnes’ donors and politicians who support him do.

The Washington Free Beacon reported on Barnes’s donors, and his speech last year for a group that created DefundthePolice.org.

But those aren’t Barnes’ only comments about the police.

He seemingly blamed the police for the Jacob Blake shooting in Kenosha in the summer of 2020.

“This was not an accident,” Barnes said during a news conference the day after the shooting. “This wasn’t bad police work. This felt like some sort of vendetta being taken out on a member of our community. The officer’s deadly actions attempted to take a person’s life in broad daylight.”

Barnes also mocked the police during a September 2020 podcast with a writer from The Atlantic.

“What are police officers actually threatened by? What threatens them in actuality?” Barnes asked. “Is it a person who is walking the street who claims to be some sort of militia member with a long-rifle assault-style weapon? Or is it somebody who is unarmed and Black? Who is more frightening to you?”

Barnes has not answered questions about his security costs, or why he needs long periods of protection on weekdays, weekend, holidays, at church, and at campaign events.

“Barnes used 13,971 man hours of State Patrol Protection when the force was already stretched thin. That’s 8,760 hours in a year. Barnes used the equivalent of about 1.6 years worth of 24-coverage,” Johnson’s campaign added. “The State Patrol has 301 officers. Barnes diverted nearly 14,000 man-hours away from other law enforcement duties.”

As part of ongoing litigation against the Biden administration, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody continues to uncover what she calls “damning evidence” about the consequences stemming from Biden administration policies changing federal immigration laws.

Moody’s chief deputy on July 28 deposed U.S. Border Patrol Chief Raul Ortiz, who testified under oath that the Biden administration purposely reduced U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s detention capacity and changed the removal process of people illegally in the U.S.

While a complete transcript of Ortiz' deposition was made public, part of his testimony is transcribed here.

When asked, “would you agree that the southern border is currently in crisis,” Ortiz replied, “Yes.” When asked, “Would you agree that unprecedented number of aliens are entering the United States right now,” he replied, “Yes.”

When asked, “Are the individuals that are turning themselves in doing so because they believe they are going to be paroled?” He replied, “I would imagine they think they are going to be released, yes.”

“Would you agree the aliens who cite favorable immigration policy as a reason to come to the United States are perceiving what is actually happening in the United States,” he replied, “Yes.”

“When President Biden was elected did the number of aliens trying to illegally enter the United States increase or decrease?” He replied, “Increase.”

“What is currently going on at the border, is it making it less safe for Americans and aliens at the border alike?” He waited a while to respond and answered, “Yes.”

“From your 31 years of experience, has the Border Patrol in a year ever had the number of encounters it’s going to have in 2022?” He replied, “No.”

When asked why it is important to detain and remove individuals who are in-admittable, he replied, “You want to make sure you have consequences.”

“And if you don’t have consequences, what is likely going to happen?” he was asked. He replied, “In my experience we have seen increases [of illegal entry] when there are no consequences.”

When asked if “migrant populations believe there aren’t going to be consequences, more of them will come to the border, is that what you are saying?” He replied, “There’s an assumption that if migrant populations are told that there’s a potential that they may be released that yes, you can see increases.”

Throughout the questioning, Ortiz moved around a lot in his chair, rubbed his forehead and appeared to be uncomfortable, according to an edited video recording of his deposition.

His attorney objected to every single question he was asked before he ever replied.

Of his responses, Moody said, “After the Biden administration denied that they were engaged in catch-and-release, and that they were responsible for the historic surge at our southern border, Florida got the Chief of Border Patrol to admit, under oath, the truth. The Biden administration caused the surge, made the border less safe, and is flagrantly violating the very federal laws they swore to uphold. The Biden administration is putting hard-working border patrol agents in impossible and untenable positions – risking their lives and safety, and I want to thank Chief Ortiz for testifying truthfully at his deposition.”

The deposition was part of a lawsuit filed by the state of Florida against the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies claiming they failed to enforce federal law. For example, one law not being enforced is the Immigration and Nationality Act, according to the lawsuit. It requires federal agents to detain inadmissible foreign nationals who’ve entered the U.S. illegally and repatriate them to the country of their citizenship. Instead, those who would normally be deported are being released into the U.S., according to Customs and Border Patrol data.

During the last full month of the Trump administration, Border Patrol agents released 17 foreign nationals who’d illegally entered the U.S. into the interior instead of deporting them, pending resolution of their cases. But within six months of Biden taking office, federal agents released more than 60,000 illegal foreign nationals into the U.S. in one month.

According to federal documents provided to Florida during the discovery phase of the case, DHS disclosed that there were more than 48,000 foreign nationals illegally in the U.S. who indicated they were traveling to Florida and who failed to check in with ICE.

The federal government has no idea where they are “even though most of them are legally inadmissible,” Moody said.

The lawsuit points to revised DHS policy that directs federal agents to release family units and/or single adults from certain countries into the interior of the U.S. even though they were likely inadmissible and should have been deported according to federal law. After entering the U.S. illegally, federal agents didn’t fully process them or require them to report within a specific time period to an ICE facility for further processing, according to the lawsuit.

Moody’s office filed an amended complaint to its original lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida Pensacola Division on Aug. 12. The case is scheduled to go to trial in January 2023.

A new whistleblower report signed by nine officers across five branches of the military claims the Department of Defense’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate is unlawful.

The report was sent to Congress urging an investigation into what it called illegal and fraudulent activity by the DOD. The memorandum was published by Liberty Council, a nonprofit legal group that in January maintained there was no legal COVID-19 vaccine available despite the U.S. Food and Drug Administration saying there was.

The officers alleged in the Aug. 15 memorandum that the DOD has unlawfully administered emergency use authorized (EUA) products as if they were fully licensed FDA-approved products. Military regulations state service members have a legal right to refuse EUA products.

Although the FDA issued approval for Pfizer’s Comirnaty vaccine in August 2021, none of the FDA-approved vaccines were available. FDA documents dated November 2021 stated: “In the U.S., there are no licensed vaccines or antiviral drugs for the prevention of COVID-19.”

Furthermore, the FDA said the EUA-authorized Pfizer vaccines were “legally distinct” from the FDA-approved Comirnaty vaccines that were unavailable for service members in the U.S.

“The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness,” the FDA said.

The National Institutes of Health confirmed no fully approved products were available in an announcement posted in September 2021.

Despite only having EUA products available, service members who did not want to receive a COVID-19 vaccine said the DOD still illegally mandated them to be vaccinated.

“The DoD cannot claim ignorance with regard to the legal differences between an EUA product and a licensed product that purports to be medically interchangeable but has not become statutorily interchangeable,” the officers wrote in the whistleblower report.

There are several pending legal cases against military vaccine mandates in which federal judges have granted preliminary injunctions for service members who do not wish to be vaccinated.

The ability to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine due to religious objections has been predominantly denied to service members. Of the 24,818 religious exemption requests received, only four were granted. Four thousand one hundred forty-six medical exemptions were granted. Military regulations state service members have a right to refuse vaccination on religious grounds or for medical reasons, including natural immunity from previous infection.

The report said that through legal battles over the past year, the DOD has pivoted to state that Pfizer EUA vaccines were compliant with Biologics License Application (BLA) requirements. The officers say the EUA products are not compliant with BLA requirements because they don’t match the BLA-approved product label.

Concerns have been raised over the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. A lawyer representing another whistleblower alleged the prevalence of multiple medical conditions has skyrocketed since the COVID-19 vaccines were introduced, including a 2,181% increase in hypertension, a 1,048% increase in nervous system diseases, and more.

“The military is hemorrhaging outstanding military men and women of conscience, who are attempting to defend the rule of law at great personal cost. The DoD has unlawfully discharged thousands of service members for exercising their legal right to decline emergency use products. Ensuring timely DoD adherence to U.S. law requires Congressional action. As the oversight authority, you have the ability to investigate the HHS Secretary’s recurring declarations of emergency, as well as potential crimes associated with unlawful administration of EUA products and biologic product labeling fraud. Failure to take swift action will cause continued, irreversible harm to the basic human rights of American citizens while further damaging our national security,” the whistleblower report said.

After announcing executive action to unilaterally and retroactively wipe away $300 billion in federal student debt, President Joe Biden looked over his shoulder to answer a question: Was this debt forgiveness fair to those who had sacrificed and saved to pay their way through college? Biden deflected.

“Is it fair to people who, in fact, do not own multibillion dollar businesses,” he replied. “Some of these guys want to give them all tax breaks,” he said, seemingly referring to unrelated Republican tax proposals. “Is that fair?” he asked the reporter. “What do you think?”

Then, the president left. The fundamental question of fairness, however, remains as millions of Americans now search the Department of Education’s website for guidance to see if they qualify for loan forgiveness. Or if they would have qualified had they not repaid their loans earlier.

According to the plan, the White House will cancel $10,000 in federal student debt loans for any individual making less than $125,000 a year and $20,000 for those with Pell grants. Republicans quickly complained that the debt amnesty was “a slap in the face to working Americans.” For many working in Washington, D.C., however, it was a sigh of relief.

Student debt forgiveness is personal for the Biden administration. About one in five of the White House aides required to file a financial disclosure, as Bloomberg News previously noted, reported owing student debt. Collectively, those 30 senior White House staffers owe as much as $4.7 million. Those personal finances are not unusual in the nation’s capital.

There is more outstanding student debt in Washington than in any other city in the country. The average debtor in D.C., according to a 2021 breakdown by the small business analyst, AdvisorSmith, owes $54,982 in unpaid student loans. This includes many political staffers at the Department of Education, senior advisors as well as junior aides who moved to that agency from the Biden campaign.

Analysis of financial disclosures by the conservative-leaning American Accountability Foundation found that the political staff at the agency that oversees the student loan program stand to benefit. The outstanding student loan debt balance among 41 education staffers evaluated could amount to between $2.8 and $6.5 million. According to the AAF estimate obtained by RealClearPolitics, the president may have wiped away as much as $512,646 of their debt.

More than 45 million Americans owe $1.6 trillion in federal student debt, a balance that the New York Times reports dwarfs what they owe in car loans, credit cards, and other consumer debt. The White House insists that the administration’s plan will target low- to middle-income borrowers in particular, with 90% of relief going to earners who make less than $75,000 a year. As many as 43 million people can benefit, according to an administration infographic, and 20 million people “can have their loans fully cancelled.”

It is precisely the kind of relief, Biden said, that the country needs post-pandemic. “All of this means people can start finally to climb out from under that mountain of debt,” the president said. “To finally think about buying a home or starting a family or starting a business. And by the way, when this happens the whole economy is better off.”

Mitch McConnell called it “student loan socialism.” The Republican Senate minority leader accused the president of delivering “a slap in the face to every family who sacrificed to save for college, every graduate who paid their debt, and every American who chose a certain career path or volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces in order to avoid taking on debt. This policy is astonishingly unfair.”

Tom Jones echoed that criticism. The founder of AAF pointed to the “windfall” that political employees at the Education Department were set to receive, calling it “shameful” evidence of “the gap between the people and the ruling class in Washington, D.C.” Press spokesmen for the department did not respond to RCP requests for comment.

Susan Rice dismissed gripes about fairness as “inaccurate” and part of a “double standard.” The director of the White House domestic policy council, previously a visiting fellow at Harvard, an institution with an untaxed $53 billion endowment, told reporters that “Republicans didn't complain when certain small businesses during the pandemic got extraordinary financial relief without having to pay back those loans.” The forgiven federal loans in question, from student loans and from the pandemic, were part of the same principle.

Rice said it “is fantastic” that some individuals were able to repay their loans already, but “that doesn’t mean that because some people were able to do so, nobody should help those that weren’t. By that logic, we wouldn’t help anybody in this country.”

Democrats repeatedly met Republican criticism with the same rebuttal: What about the GOP tax cut? But criticism wasn’t just coming from the right. Jason Furman, the chairman of Barack Obama’s White House Council of Economic Advisors, accused Biden of “recklessly” pouring “gasoline on the inflationary fire that is already burning.”

“Doing it while going well beyond one campaign promise ($10K of student loan relief) and breaking another (all proposals paid for) is even worse,” Furman tweeted.

The White House was eager to highlight the sympathetic cases on Wednesday, the “typical nurse” who brings home $77,000 a year and the “typical construction worker” who makes $38,000. “But then why design a policy that would provide up to $40,000 to a married couple making $249,000,” Furman asked.

When RealClearPolitics asked Bharat Ramamurti if forgiving a portion of the federal debt owed by law school and business school graduates was really building from “the bottom-up and middle-out,” the deputy director of the president’s National Economic Council replied, “Yeah, it is.”

“As we've made clear, nobody in the top 5% of incomes is going to get a single dollar under this proposal,” he said, adding that the administration had “good data” that high earners “near the top of the income cutoff are much more likely to be experiencing distress after repayment starts.”

Ramamurti again compared Democrat debt amnesty to the Republican tax cut. “It is basically the reverse,” he told RCP, where “15% of the benefits went to people making under $75,000 a year, and 85% went to people making over $75,000 a year.”

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona insisted that the aim of Biden’s executive action was to provide pandemic relief. “Speaking to the fairness question,” he told Fox News, student debt relief was no different than pandemic small business loans. “It's about making sure we're taking care of Americans and investing in our economy and in our people.”

“But the people that already paid their student loans, they don't get anything out of this deal,” asked Peter Doocy.