How media chose sides in Wisconsin's Supreme Court election: Bias Breakdown

Welcome to Bias Breakdown. I'm your host, Kara Rucker

For months, the Wisconsin Supreme Court election has been in the national spotlight

Depending on what time you're watching this episode, a new justice could already be elected

determining the ideological balance of the state's highest court. The media's coverage of this high-stakes race has centered on two narratives

the money, particularly Elon Musk's financial backing of the conservative candidate, and the power, with the winning justice likely casting the deciding vote on redistricting

possibly impacting Republicans' control of the House. How news outlets amplified the angles that best fit their political leanings

that's the focus of today's bias breakdown. Join Straight Arrow News. See the slant

Avoid the bias. When others skew the facts, we give you the truth down the center

Welcome to Bias Breakdown. First, let's talk about why this race garnered so much national attention and was seen as critical for both Republicans and Democrats, not just in Wisconsin, but nationwide

While Wisconsin Supreme Court seats are nonpartisan, the two candidates up for the open spot had very different judicial philosophies, leading Republicans to back Judge Brad Schimmel, endorsed by President Donald Trump, and Democrats backing Judge Susan Crawford, endorsed by former President Barack Obama

Retiring Justice Ann Walsh Bradley was one of the liberals in the court's 4-3 liberal majority

The winner of Tuesday's election will decide the majority and earn a 10-year term in the court

The bench is expected to take up high-profile cases from congressional redistricting to abortion

elevating this state election to national prominence, with the intent stakes drawing more funding from outside the state than within

Here are some fundraising facts up front before contrasting the media's coverage

Something to remember, there are a few donation pots in play. One, donations made directly to the candidates themselves, which state law caps at $20,000 per donor

There is no cap on how much a person can donate to the state's political parties

and there's no cap on how much political parties can give to candidates

Outside super PACs also have free reign on how they choose to independently spend their money

Let's start with the candidates, which includes direct donations and fundraising from the state's political parties

Overall, Crawford raised more than $22 million, almost double Schimmel's take at $11.6 million

The state's Democratic Party gave more than $10 million to Crawford. The state's Republican Party gave more than $9 million to Schimmel

77% of Crawford's donors came from outside Wisconsin, compared with 15% of Schimmel's

outside support. Crawford had 10 times as many donors as Schimmel, according to the Milwaukee

Journal-Sentinel. These numbers include a $3 million donation from Elon Musk to the state's

GOP and a $2 million donation from liberal financier George Soros, as well as a $1.5 million

donation from Illinois billionaire Governor J Pritzker to the state Democratic Party When you include money spent from super PACs the margins tighten and Elon Musk involvement expands Outside super PACs account for 44 of total ad spending with super PACs on the right

accounting for 57%, more than half of money spent on Schimmel, compared to 31% of the money spent

on Crawford. The America PAC and Building America's Future, linked to Musk, reportedly

spent over $18 million on the race, according to ad impact and campaign finance reports

After including the candidates' donations, the party's donations, and super PAC money

more than $90 million has been spent on the race as of Monday, already making it the most

expensive judicial contest in U.S. history. It's not just the amount of money Musk donated to

Schimmel's race, but also the money he gifted to Wisconsin voters, prompting left-leaning news

outlets to accuse Musk of trying to buy a state Supreme Court justice seat. Musk's America PAC

gifted $100 to Wisconsin registered voters who signed a petition against activist judges

and Musk gave two $1 million checks out Sunday to voters who signed that petition

It led to a legal battle, with the state's attorney general claiming Musk's giveaway violated state election laws

But Musk's attorneys maintained the payments were about the petition, not to advocate for a specific candidate

The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously decided not to take up the case after two lower courts also rejected the lawsuit

Money dominated the news cycle, with a particular focus on Elon Musk's financial involvement

Left-leaning media outlets spotlighted his contributions, framing them as an attempt to buy the election

The headlines we showed you with this narrative came exclusively from left-leaning outlets and were also heard on left networks

Elon Musk holding a town hall in Green Bay, Wisconsin, under fire, accused of trying to buy an election

What we have now really is this question of whether the world's richest man can buy our democracy, can smash the laws, be completely unaccountable

If they can just go in and buy whatever court, whatever office they want, we have an even higher level of crisis in our system of democracy in this country

Media on the right weren't coming to that same conclusion. Instead, some right leaning media made a different argument entirely

not focused on Musk, but focused on a Democratic donor call featuring Crawford making a plea for

donations, as this Supreme Court justice seat could ultimately tip the balance in what party

controls the House of Representatives. The email invite subject line to the Democratic donor call

read time-sensitive chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026. Inside the invitation

winning this race could result in Democrats being able to win two additional U.S. House seats

half the seats needed to win control of the House in 2026. According to a New York Times report

Chance to put two more House seats in play for 2026 read the subject line of an email invitation

to a briefing last week for Democratic donors with Judge Crawford and Ben Wickler, the Wisconsin

Democratic chairman Among those who organized the event were aides to Reid Hoffman the billionaire Democratic donor and a robust supporter of Wisconsin Democrats It was this report that conservative networks highlighted

in their coverage leading up to the election. Elon has put money into that race, but Susan

Crawford has also gotten tons of money from outside groups. And she has openly said she

needs to win that seat because she wants to take away two congressional seats by redistricting

from Republicans. So she's doing it for her own political ambitions, not to uphold the law. So

you can argue that Elon has his interests, but so did the Democrats in Wisconsin

The media coverage of this is, oh, well, Elon Musk is pouring all this money. Yeah

he is pouring a lot of money. And it's not as much as Soros and the gang

the billionaires on the left, because they want to take at least those two seats that

could be gerrymandered with the Supreme Court's help and flip the house. That's what the ultimate

goal is, and they hope ultimately impeach Donald Trump. Even rhetoric coming from the candidates

themselves aligned with left and right leaning media respectively. In an interview, Crawford

made the claim Musk was trying to buy himself a justice and Schimmel claiming Crawford appealed

to outside donors in the name of flipping red seats in the House of Representatives

People are really motivated and want to make sure that we protect the Wisconsin Supreme Court

They don't want to see some outsider, some billionaire, come in and try to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which is, you know, what Elon Musk is trying to do

My opponent got caught by the New York Times, of all places, with an email that went out to national billionaire donors that said

come on to a Zoom call and we'll teach you how taking the Wisconsin Supreme Court can change two Republican congressional seats into Democrat congressional seats

Four out of five of her donors don't even live in Wisconsin

Two different areas of emphasis in telling the same Wisconsin election story

Right-leaning media, like the New York Post, covered the lawsuit against Musk's million-dollar giveaways

They largely didn't question any ethical issues raised by the left. Left-leaning media, while the New York Times reported on the Democratic donor's call

they largely didn't question any ethical issues raised by the right. This can be a form of media bias identified by media watchdog group All Sides

The group identifies bias by omission as a type of media bias in which media outlets choose not to cover certain stories, omit information that would support an alternative viewpoint, or omit voices and perspectives on the other side

This type of bias can occur on a small scale, such as a reporter failing to include other perspectives in coverage of an issue

It can also occur on a larger scale, such as news outlets neglecting to cover certain stories that don't support their political ideology

To round out this story, there's another high-profile case, aside from redistricting, the Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to roll on this year

The new justice could potentially decide on an abortion case. Left-leaning news outlets are spotlighting abortion in Wisconsin race headlines

The Associated Press, abortion once more plays a key role in a state political fight

The Guardian, a Wisconsin state Supreme Court race, will test whether abortion can still tip an election

And Politico in Wisconsin an abortion rights test At hand is an abortion ban from 1849 which criminalized intentionally destroying the life of an unborn child with the exception of saving the mother life

And while this is a case the state Supreme Court is weighing whether to revive, Politico points out this case could be settled before the newly elected justice is sworn in

Politico wrote

their own choices about their bodies and health care, while Schimmel previously said the issue

should be left to voters, but also identifies as pro-life. Right-leaning networks haven't

highlighted the issue of abortion in the state, like how left-leaning news outlets have

This matches political ideology. For example, in November's presidential election, 67% of Democrats felt abortion was a major issue, compared to 35% of Republicans

according to Pew Research. In summary, both political sides view this Wisconsin race

as a crucial one. That's why it's the most costly judicial race in history

with money heavily pouring in for both candidates. Elon Musk is the biggest donor

supporting the more conservative candidates, and left-leaning news outlets have been focused in on

his contributions and involvement in the race. Right-leaning news outlets are more focused on

Democratic effort to flip two House seats blue once the Supreme Court rules on redistricting in

the state. Left and right media are telling the story of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race

differently, leaning into their preferred narrative, matching the rhetoric from the left and right's preferred candidate, rather than giving you the facts fairly without a political

agenda behind it, in a high-stakes race that could see national impact. And that's your bias

Breakdown. Thanks so much for watching this week's episode. If you've missed any episodes

remember they're easy to find. All you've got to do is search Bias Breakdown on whatever platform

you listen to podcasts. Thanks so much for those of you who are consistently watching and leaving

comments for us. I saw someone last week leave a comment on YouTube asking how to support Bias

Breakdown. Honestly, if you just subscribe and maybe share the podcast with a friend, we'd

appreciate it. And the way some of these algorithms work, if you like the video, share, or comment

then that typically bumps up the video so others can find us too. There was another comment on last

week's episode about a soundbite that we could have extended, but I cut it short. And that person

was right. When listening to it back, it would have been better if I had played a larger section

of that interview for fuller context. I say that just to say I really am looking and listening to

your feedback, so don't feel like it falls on deaf ears. I just appreciate you listening to

these stories that are sometimes 10 plus minutes, so thank you. And thank you to Ian Kennedy

our video editor, and Allie Caldwell on this week's graphics. Have a great day

and I'll see you next time