Bill would curb corporate political contributions

Summary#

SB 1156, titled “Contributions by corporations, cooperative associations, labor organizations, and federally recognized American Indian Tribes,” would amend Wisconsin statute 11.1112. The Legislative Reference Bureau says the bill would prohibit those entities from contributing to segregated funds run by political parties or legislative campaign committees; the bill did not become law. The supplied bill text conflicts with that description: it still says those entities may contribute to a segregated fund, up to $12,000 in a calendar year.

  • Under current law, as described in the supplied analysis, the four types of entities may contribute up to $12,000 in total per calendar year to a qualifying segregated fund.
  • Those funds are for purposes other than contributing to candidate committees or making spending for express advocacy (expressly urging a vote for or against a candidate).
  • The analysis describes the bill as removing that contribution option. It does not describe a change to the separate exceptions for independent expenditure committees or referendum committees.
  • Because the bill failed, it made no change to current law.

What it means for you#

  • Corporations, cooperative associations, labor organizations, and federally recognized American Indian Tribes: No contribution rules changed because the bill failed. If the bill had taken effect as described in the analysis, these entities could no longer have contributed to the specified segregated funds.
  • Political parties and legislative campaign committees: No change took effect. If the bill had taken effect as described, they would have lost this source of contributions from those entities.
  • The public: The bill did not directly change voting rights, taxes, public services, or eligibility for a benefit.

Money#

No publicly available information on the bill’s costs is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill text gives no estimate of government spending, savings, or costs to affected organizations.
  • The analysis describes a limit on contributions, not a fee or fine.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied bill text and Legislative Reference Bureau analysis disagree about the central change: the analysis says the bill prohibits contributions to segregated funds, while the printed text retains permission to contribute up to $12,000.
  • The full current statute was not supplied, so the current-law comparison here relies on the supplied analysis.
  • The supplied material does not explain how the bill’s text would be resolved against the analysis if the bill had proceeded.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it would close a channel that currently lets the named entities contribute up to $12,000 a year to political party and legislative campaign committee funds.
  • The funds described in the analysis cannot be used to contribute to candidate committees or make spending for express advocacy. The bill would therefore target contributions to those funds, rather than directly changing those uses.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the bill would remove a contribution option that current law allows, limiting how the named entities can support political party or legislative campaign committee funds.
  • The bill’s supplied text does not clearly match the change described in the analysis. That conflict makes the intended legal effect uncertain from the supplied text alone.