How Much Does it Cost to Run for State Legislature?

Wisconsin candidates are required to submit their next campaign finance reports by Wednesday, July 15th. These will record all their fundraising and spending through June 30th. The gubernatorial candidates fundraising hauls will draw the most attention, but I’m also looking forward to seeing the numbers for Wisconsin’s state legislative candidates.

In November, Wisconsin will elect all 99 state assembly and 17/33 state senate seats. The 2026 elections will be the best chance for Democrats to win legislative majorities since they lost them in 2010. Currently, Republicans hold a 3-seat majority in the upper chamber and a 9-seat majority in the lower.

The simplest path to a majority for Democrats is to hold the seats they’ve already got while winning the handful of Republican-held seats Kamala Harris won in 2024, despite narrowly losing statewide. This would be enough for a two-seat majority in the senate and a 1-seat majority in the assembly.

These are not the only possible battlegrounds. Democrats could cast a wider net and attempt to flip some seats in the assembly that Trump won only narrowly. Republicans could take a swing at the two Democratic-held seats which Trump actually carried in 2024. The July 15th fundraising figures will give us a sense of where the two parties’ strategic priorities lie.

This post lays out some background on how much these campaigns usually raise and spend, both cumulatively and through July 1st. I also calculate a simple measure of money’s influence in these races.

Campaign Spending

In assembly races, the median Democratic campaign spending fluctuates between about $20,000 and $45,000. Median Republican spending is a bit higher–hovering around $50,000 in recent cycles. These statistics are only for elections where both parties fielded a candidate.

State senate races are much more expensive. In 2010, the median Democratic campaign spent $83,000 and the median Republican spent $124,000. Those levels of spending stayed about the same in 2012 and 2014, but in 2016 campaign spending went through the roof. The median Republican campaign spent $334,000 to $433,000 for the median Democrat.

In most years, Republican spending has exceeded Democratic spending for the median candidate. But, since 2020, Democrats have consistently outspent Republicans in the biggest battleground races.

In 2024, the most expensive Assembly race for both parties was District 21, in the southern Milwaukee suburbs. Republican incumbent Jessie Rodriguez spent $1,439,000 en route to defeating the Democratic challenger David Marstellar whose campaign spent $2,526,000.

The Democratic advantage was even larger in the most expensive senate race that year. In the 8th district, Democratic winner Jodi Habush Sinykin outspent Republican Duey Strobel by more than $3 million.

Most campaign spending happens late in the campaign. In Wisconsin, after all, the partisan primary isn’t held until August; although, in many races the ultimate nominee is known long before then for each party.

Here are the historical July 1st fundraising statistics for those campaigns which ultimately did become their party’s nominee to the state legislature. In 2024, the median assembly campaign had still only raised about $10,000 dollars by July 1st and the median senate campaign about $60,000. These are the numbers against which to benchmark the fundraising data released tomorrow.

Fundraising through July 1st by Major Party Nominees
In Races Contested by a Candidate from Both Major Parties
AssemblySenate
campaigns1meanmedianmaxcampaignsmeanmedianmax
2010118$12,735$10,120$59,27322$30,545$31,374$85,204
2012136$11,605$9,926$62,11420$21,567$11,632$79,135
201480$16,531$13,173$98,86828$34,640$21,746$166,214
201686$16,107$10,873$70,17514$55,624$53,220$105,909
2018118$20,280$10,989$424,07726$69,591$49,667$352,529
2020152$15,604$9,932$132,18320$53,263$44,487$187,413
2022140$15,481$6,807$547,97424$36,442$23,095$134,094
2024154$25,345$9,902$638,89322$89,199$59,980$270,159
1 Campaign finance records could not be located for a small number of campaigns, which are ommitted from this analysis

Most Expensive Races

The table below shows the 10 most expensive assembly races since 2010. The top 9 were in 2024 and the 10th was in 2022. Democrats outspent Republicans in each race, by amounts ranging from $138,000 to $2 million. Despite this spending, the Democratic candidate trailed the top-of-the-ticket (either Harris in 2024 or Evers in 2022) in all but 3 districts. Ultimately, Republicans won six of these races, despite being outspent by $9.5 million cumulatively.

Top 10 Most Expensive Wisconsin State Assembly Races from 2010 – 2024
districtElection ResultsCampaign Spending
Legis. DemGov. or Pres DemOver/Under performancetotalDem candidateRep candidateDem minus Rep
20242148.6%52.1%−3.5$3.97M$2.53M$1.44M+$1.09M
20246148.4%51.1%−2.7$3.76M$2.45M$1.31M+$1.14M
20245349.4%52.2%−2.8$2.84M$1.77M$1.07M+$693.82K
20248546.8%49.7%−2.9$2.81M$1.77M$1.04M+$723.94K
20243045.7%47.7%−2.0$2.67M$1.40M$1.27M+$137.94K
20248849.7%50.2%−0.5$2.48M$1.66M$822.58K+$833.93K
20249450.3%48.9%+1.4$2.47M$1.60M$863.14K+$739.80K
20242651.5%51.4%+0.1$2.28M$1.90M$383.60K+$1.51M
20248951.4%51.0%+0.4$2.15M$2.08M$67.21K+$2.01M
20229451.3%51.9%−0.6$1.72M$1.16M$562.72K+$597.30K

Here are the 10 most expensive state senate races since 2010. Democrats had more success in these races than in the most expensive assembly costs, winning 6 of them.

Top 10 Most Expensive Wisconsin State Senate Races from 2010 – 2024
districtElection ResultsCampaign Spending
Legis. DemGov. or Pres DemOver/Under performancetotalDem candidateRep candidateDem minus Rep
2024850.7%51.2%−0.5$7.83M$5.47M$2.37M+$3.10M
20241451.1%50.8%+0.3$4.62M$3.00M$1.63M+$1.37M
20243052.5%51.8%+0.7$4.18M$3.21M$971.77K+$2.23M
20203045.3%45.9%−0.6$2.24M$1.45M$791.34K+$656.22K
2020845.7%49.9%−4.2$2.24M$1.27M$962.65K+$310.87K
20203250.3%53.1%−2.8$2.16M$1.56M$601.70K+$956.01K
20202443.5%43.8%−0.2$1.87M$1.15M$723.62K+$426.90K
20241853.3%54.4%−1.1$1.72M$1.00M$716.25K+$287.74K
20181745.9%50.6%−4.7$1.46M$573.79K$887.45K−$313.66K
20223150.5%50.9%−0.4$1.40M$930.33K$470.54K+$459.79K

How Much Does Campaign Spending Help?

It’s clear that money doesn’t “buy elections” in any crude way. Candidates routinely win after being outspent by their opponent–a fact not limited to the Wisconsin legislature. Donald Trump, for instance, was outspent by $336 million in 2016 and $542 million in 2024, according to calculations by OpenSecrets.

But, measured across hundreds of elections, the money does matter. In a simple measure of this, I regressed the share of total money spent by each campaign against the election’s difference from the top-of-the-ticket. The hypothesis is that in districts where the Democrat accounts for more of the spending, that Democrat will do better relative to the performance of the Democratic candidate for governor or president in that district.

This is, indeed, what we see, but the effect of money is small. In 2024, a 1% increase in the Democratic share of a campaign’s total spending was associated with a 0.04-point improvement in vote share, relative to Kamala Harris.

This small effect size has stayed about the same in recent elections, but it used to be higher. In 2010, a 1% increase in a party’s share of the spending was associated with a three-times larger increase in the vote. Money just doesn’t buy what it used to.

Continue ReadingHow Much Does it Cost to Run for State Legislature?

The Growing Role of Local Governments in Governing Water Resources

With few exceptions, the development and administration of water law (and environmental law more generally) have been the responsibility of either the federal government or the states. In matters related to the control of water pollution, for example, a “cooperative federalism” approach predominates. A federal statute, the Clean Water Act, provides the substance. Yet it is largely administered and enforced by the states, with the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acting mostly in a standard-setting role. By contrast, matters of water quantity and allocation are largely governed by state law. The balance between federal and state power has not been entirely stable over the years.

Increasingly, both the federal and state governments have been unable to effectively and conclusively address some pressing water-related matters. They may be underfunded, understaffed, or politically paralyzed, among other obstacles, or they may simply choose not to regulate. This has created an opportunity for local governments to exert greater control over decisions about water resources. The remainder of this post examines the role of Wisconsin municipalities related to three water-related issues: data centers, the privatization of critical infrastructure, and the rights of nature movement.

Data centers. Data centers are large warehouses containing computer servers, data storage equipment, and related digital infrastructure supporting technologies upon which our society increasingly relies, such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and video streaming. They can be significant economic development engines but have become highly controversial because of their heavy use of water and energy. Recent results from the Marquette Law School poll show that 71 percent of respondents nationally and 69 percent within Wisconsin believe that the costs of data centers outweigh the benefits.

So far, both the federal and Wisconsin governments have declined to step in. The EPA recently announced that it will not seek to regulate data centers. On the contrary, “we want more data centers built,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, and the agency will work with developers to encourage them to do just that. At the state level, Wisconsin legislators notably failed to enact a state law to regulate data centers, despite a dire warning from longtime Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.

That left Wisconsin municipalities to fend for themselves when considering how to deal with data center developers. Municipalities must decide, for example, whether to allow a proposed data center to hook up to a publicly owned water system (and how to control the amount of water the data center uses); how much information to release about a data center’s proposed water use, given that many developers have requested non-disclosure agreements; whether to grant tax incentives to developers in the hope of economic development; and whether to enact moratoria on data center developments. A proposal pending before the Milwaukee City Council would effectively ban data centers of more than 60,000 square feet, restrict water use at smaller data centers, and mandate certain transparency measures. Other Wisconsin municipalities, including Madison, have enacted moratoria on new data center projects.

Ownership and management of critical water infrastructure. Many municipalities own or manage water infrastructure through their operation of water and wastewater treatment systems. Increasing financial pressures have caused some local governments to contract out the management of those systems, or even to sell the systems outright to private operators. The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District has recently been subjected to criticism over the actions of its contractor, Veolia, in operating its wastewater infrastructure. Interestingly, on the energy front, Milwaukee officials have debated the possibility of attempting to take over energy infrastructure currently owned by We Energies within the city limits. The company holds a monopoly on electricity generation in the region.

Rights of Nature movement. Finally, though it’s certainly not front-page news in the same sense as the preceding two issues, in late 2023 Milwaukee County became the first county in Wisconsin, and one of the first nationwide, to pass a “Rights of Nature” (RON) resolution to ensure that “human activities do not interfere with nature and its ability to be healthy, robust, and resilient.” The resolution emphasized the County’s interest in protecting its “waterways and bodies of water.” This represents a relatively mild formation of the RON movement; in other places, it has been crafted to allow natural entities to assert legal rights to counter alleged wrongs committed by governments and private parties. Scholars have expressed doubt about the approach and its viability.

Nevertheless, in late 2025 Wisconsin Republicans were concerned enough to introduce a bill banning “rights of nature” ordinances in Wisconsin, warning that such measures could threaten rights in private property. The bill passed the legislature, but in March 2026, Democratic Governor Tony Evers vetoed the law. His veto message was most interesting. He wrote: “I trust our local governments and the Tribal Nations of Wisconsin to know best how to address environmental concerns within their communities and how to protect the natural resources that are vital to local health, economies and quality of life.” That sounds like a recipe for even more local involvement in water law and environmental law.

Continue ReadingThe Growing Role of Local Governments in Governing Water Resources

How Homebuying is Increasing Racial Diversity Across Milwaukee

It took Milwaukee more than a decade to turn the corner on the mortgage foreclosure crisis. Owner-occupancy didn’t begin increasing until the late 2010s. At that time, homebuyers were to a great degree disproportionately White relative to their overall share of the city’s population. In 2018, about 39% of the adult population was White, but they accounted for 57% of homebuyers. In the years since then, homebuying has increased among Black and Latino residents, bringing the citywide breakdown of homebuyers more in line with the city’s demographics.

The spatial pattern of recent homebuying is also increasing the city’s racial diversity across most neighborhoods because many homebuyers of all races are purchasing homes in neighborhoods where they are currently a racial minority among homeowners. Black homebuyers are often buying in majority White parts of the northwest side. Latino homebuying is increasing in both White neighborhoods on the far south and southwest sides as well as Black neighborhoods on the north side. And White homebuying is actually increasing across the historically extremely segregated Black near north side.

We first reported on these trends on May 14 for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This post shares additional maps and statistics from that research, while incorporating newly released mortgage data covering 2025.

I use Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for this research, so my data excludes information on the small share of homebuyers who purchase their homes outright.

Here are the stats. In 2018, 4,053 mortgages were originated for Milwaukee homebuyers, by which I mean purchasers who indicated that they would become owner-occupiers. That grew to 5,496 at the peak of the market in 2021. In 2025, 3,568 such mortgages were originated, which was a slight decline from 2024.

Table 1: Mortgages Originated for Owner-Occupiers, by Recipient Race

City of Milwaukee

 totalWhiteBlackLatinoAsianOther/JointNot Available
20184,0532,169630607267155225
20194,1902,071759596287170307
20204,8172,296978709297218319
20215,4962,4051,222791351258469
20224,6491,9331,053769264213417
20233,6511,466821634208188334
20243,6351,361804707235163365
20253,5681,409731678217169364

In 2018, 57% of mortgages were originated for White homebuyers and 32% for Black or Latino buyers. By comparison, the city’s adult population is about 39% White and 53% Black or Latino. The 2025 buyer numbers, while still not representative, come much closer to matching the city’s demographics. Last year, White buyers received 44% of mortgages vs. another 44% for Black or Latino buyers. This was a small decline in representativeness relative to 2024. In that year, 42% of homebuyers were White and 47% Black or Latino.

Relative to the adult population share in the last census, White homebuyers in 2025 were overrepresented by 5 points, Latino buyers by 3 points, and Asian buyers by 2 points. Black buyers were underrepresented by 12 points. This is still a quite bad result, but it’s a big improvement over 2018 when they were underrepresented by 19 points.

Table 2: Mortgages Issued to Owner-Occupiers, Share by Race

City of Milwaukee, among applicants for whom race is known

 WhiteBlackLatinoAsianOther/Joint
201857%16%16%7%4%
201953%20%15%7%4%
202051%22%16%7%5%
202148%24%16%7%5%
202246%25%18%6%5%
202344%25%19%6%6%
202442%25%22%7%5%
202544%23%21%7%5%
Pop. Share139%35%18%5%4%
1Citywide share of the adult population in the 2020 census

Throughout this article, all mortgage percentages are calculated as a share of mortgages where the applicant’s race is known. The share of HMDA records lacking applicant race has grown over time, apparently as a result of some online mortgage providers failing to collect this information. At the tract level in Milwaukee, missing race data is not meaningfully correlated with the Black, White, or Latino population share.

Geography of homebuying

Besides counting the entire population for redistricting purposes, the 2020 census also recorded the ownership or renter status of each household. This data is published at the tract level. I assigned each tract to a Milwaukee aldermanic district and added up the owner-occupiers of each race. Then, I did the same exercise for homebuying mortgage recipients in the following years. Comparing the race of homebuyers in 2020-2025 with the race of existing homeowners in the 2020 census reveals how recent homebuying differs from (or matches) the status quo in each aldermanic district.

Complete statistics are available in the table at the end of this post, but here are a few highlights. Broadly speaking, Black and Latino homebuying has increased on the city’s fringes, where White homebuying has declined. Latino homebuying has also increased across every part of the north side, often by double-digits. White homebuying has declined, as a share of the total, almost everywhere except the near north side.

Black homebuying: growing on the periphery, shrinking in the center

The Black share of homebuyers grew at least a little in 9 districts, most notably in the 5th, on the city’s northwest fringe. Here, 22% of homeowners in 2020 were Black, growing to 28% among recent homebuyers. The 5th district saw more homebuyers during the early 2020s than any other district.

Black purchasing actually declined in some of the districts with the largest Black population share. In the 1st, 73% of homeowners in 2020 were Black, falling to 63% of recent buyers. The adjacent 7th district saw an almost identical pattern, 76% to 65%. In the 15th, Black residents were 71% of homeowners in 2020 vs. 56% of recent buyers.

The biggest change was in the 6th district, which includes parts of Riverwest, Brewers Hill, and Harambee. In the 2020 census, 55% of homeowners were Black but only 23% of buyers have been since.

Latino homebuying: growing almost everywhere

Homebuying by Latinos has grown a great deal in both historically majority Black and White neighborhoods. In the 11th and 13th districts on the far south and southwest sides, the Latino share of recent buyers grew by more than 10 points over their share in the 2020 census.

In the 15th district, on the near north side, Latinos were 6% of homeowners in 2020, growing to 17% among more recent homebuyers. The Latino share of homebuyers increased by 5-10 points across the rest of the north side.

White homebuying: declining on the periphery, growing on the near north side

In the 11th and 13th districts, the White share of recent homebuyers was 25 points lower than in the 2020 census. In the 5th, White residents comprised 67% of homeowners in 2020 but 52% of recent buyers. Likewise, in the 9th, they were 38% of homeowners in 2020 vs. 22% of buyers since then.

Contrast that to the districts on the near north side. In the 6th district, 33% of homeowners in 2020 were White, but that grew to 61% among more recent buyers. In the 15th district, located further west, only 12% of homeowners were White in 2020, growing to 20% of recent buyers.

What do these patterns mean?

Even in this tight housing market, people across Milwaukee are choosing to buy houses here, in neighborhoods spanning the diversity of the city.

That growth is being driven by homebuying activity among Black and Latino Milwaukeeans. In fact, the specific patterns of where people are buying are increasing the racial diversity of the city. This change isn’t huge, but it is real and widespread. Seventy-eight percent of the city’s roughly 200 census tracts saw more diversity among recent homebuyers than they did among homeowners in 2020. To put a specific number on it, in the average tract, the odds of two homebuyers who purchased from 2020 to 2026 being of different races was 9 percentage points higher than among the existing homeowners in 2020.

As we wrote in May, “These patterns of movement could be interpreted in different ways. To some, the demographic changes among homebuyers on the city’s periphery might be evidence of ongoing ‘White flight’ to the suburbs. To others, the nascent movement of White homebuyers into the near north side could be a sign of gentrification. Still others might view these changes as part of the natural ebb and flow of any diverse urban population.

“All of these explanations require various assumptions about the motivations and incentives of individual homebuyers. What we can say empirically is this: Homebuying in the early 2020s increased neighborhood diversity and reduced residential segregation in most of Milwaukee.”

Addendum: Complete Aldermanic Statistics

Table 3: Milwaukee Aldermanic Districts: Mortgage Activity vs. Owner-Occupancy

Home purchase mortgages 2020–2024 compared to 2020 Census owner-occupier race shares

 Owner-Occupiers (2020 Census)Mortgages (2020–2024)Mortgage Share (%)1Diff. from OO Share (pp)2
District3TotalWhiteBlackHispanicAll mortgagesRace available4WhiteBlackHispanicWhiteBlackHispanic
1st5,656187341,4161,303166313-2-1010
2nd5,798255941,7041,546145914-11010
3rd4,52887341,4821,3458335-400
4th2,56381749829027965-101
5th8,951672243,2422,97452288-1565
6th4,010335571,0769696123828-311
7th6,343157631,5431,3931665121-119
8th5,661382551,2101,12527460-1125
9th7,048384542,0091,824224710-1726
10th7,465751372,2182,045651313-1006
11th9,445781142,7512,52354428-25313
12th3,2052327057151422467-12-4
13th9,241701212,3572,13845332-25211
14th9,067801152,4832,23974115-600
15th4,001127167727082056178-1611
1Calculated as a share of mortgages where race of applicant was reported.
2Percentage point difference between mortgage share and 2020 owner-occupier share. Positive (green) = over-represented in mortgages; negative (red) = under-represented.
3Data is aggregated from census tracts corresponding to, but not exactly matching, district boundaries.
4Only mortgages where race of applicant was reported.
Sources: HMDA (2020–2024); U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census)
Continue ReadingHow Homebuying is Increasing Racial Diversity Across Milwaukee
Newer Posts
Older Posts