On Tuesday, April 3, while most students were away on Spring Break, Annette Ziegler beat out Linda Clifford to become a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice. With 58 percent of the vote, compared to Clifford's 42 percent, it seemed to be a resounding victory.
When Ziegler claimed after the election that her victory proved voters had rejected negative campaigning, many people did a double take.
This particular race saw an exorbitant amount of money—the most in Wisconsin's history for a state Supreme Court race—spent by both candidates and third parties on a slew of negative advertising. This combination of money and negativity is a cause for concern.
As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Ziegler alone spent more than $400,000 of her own money on the race, which is nearly three times her salary as Supreme Court justice. This does not even take into account all the money contributed by private companies and organizations to each candidate's campaign.
When a state Supreme Court case gets this expensive, we must call into question the influence money has over our electoral system. Often times, the candidate with the largest bank account wins the race.
Furthermore, while Ziegler may claim she won because of the lack of negativity in her campaign, the sad reality is that negativity permeated both sides.
When Clifford attacked Ziegler's questionable ethics in numerous cases involving West Bend Savings Bank—where her husband holds a paid director position—Ziegler's campaign responded in kind with advertisements that continually implied Clifford was unqualified for the job. One advertisement would make you think Clifford was a werewolf with its use of a full moon, creepy lettering and sounds of creatures that go bump in the night.
Considering this, Ziegler's claim that she did not run a negative campaign is absurd since both candidates clearly used negative political advertising to point out flaws in the credentials of their opposition.
Finally, now that the election is over, and the question of Ziegler's ethical lapses remains, we feel the investigation should proceed. We have the right to know if Ziegler acted in accordance with the law or not. For the sake of justice, we must know.
