Janet Protaziewicz- WI Supreme Court Justice Campaign Contributions Ethics Complaint- Amount Alleged In Campaign Violations $12,316,197.13

The Janet for Justice campaign (Janet Protasewicz) allegedly utilized illegal methods to fund their campaign, including using individuals’ names and addresses as money mules. This is an unethical practice known as “Smurfing”. The complaints submitted to the Wisconsin Ethics Commission reveal:

  • Alleged individual false donations totaling $1,477,196.38
  • Alleged campaign violations totaling $12,316,197.13
  • Out-of-state funds account for approximately 57.33% of contributions
  • A staggering 60,051 donations, with 38,169 donors and 239 contributing more than ten times
  • A concerning 55.78% of contributions where occupations were either blank, listed as “not employed
  • Massive data dumps of large donor information over a span of 16 days, totaling 27,256 entries
  • Numerous donations exceeded the legal limit, with a total of $32,452.27 in excess
  • Missing donor information amounting to $26,812, and missing street addresses totaling $160,456
  • The most frequently used individual Smurf in the Janet for Justice Campaign, “Sean,” appears a whopping 75 times
  • Video evidence of donors denying authorization for substantial contributions was recorded in the J4J campaign.

This website contains Ethics complaints accepted by the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. All information has been obtained from the state of Wisconsin and Federal Election public websites. Individual complainants, H.O.T. Government or Election Watch do not take responsibility for any inaccuracy in any information shared on this website. Capital Cash Chronicles is for general informational purposes only. All information on this site or mobile application is provided in good faith, however we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information on this site.

How We Obtained The Information

The data on the enclosed includes: -campaign information from 1/1/2021 to current, -originated from official open sources, -consists of 182,524,799 (~182.5Million) individual contributor transactions bulk downloaded from www.fec.gov in 2-year increments as 2017-2018, 2019-2020, 2021- 2022 and 2023-2024 zip files. The 2023-2024 dataset was downloaded in mid-April 2023 and is as yet continuing to accrue transactions. Our Wisconsin dataset was downloaded from cfis.wi.gov during the first week of September 2023 and consists of 5,687,788 individual contributor transactions of all available types. These datasets were loaded into a website with an SQL database and subsequently sorted, counted, categorized, grouped, aggregated, summarized and cross referenced into various reports and statistics.


Comments

2 responses to “Janet Protaziewicz- WI Supreme Court Justice Campaign Contributions Ethics Complaint- Amount Alleged In Campaign Violations $12,316,197.13”

  1. Edward Perkins Avatar
    Edward Perkins

    WOW. This information and way gathered and presented is compelling.
    HOW do we get this info further vetted, processed in a easy to read & comprehend way and get this into key peoples hands?

    Will you be in need of funds to carry this work forward?
    Do you have good financial and legal people helping you or do you need to bring such people on board H.O.T. to do this added work?

    It appears that 90% of the questionable contributions went into Democrat candidates organizations.

    THANK YOU, for doing all this work and sending it out to me and others who hopefully will support this work needing to be completed.

  2. Cap Wulf Avatar

    If the WEC or whichever responsible organization was able to so quickly determine which signatures and addresses were falsely submitted for the Voss recall, why is it so difficult to figure these smurfing violations out?? Who should be charged with determining the validity of these questionable donations, so many of which do not even meet basic requirements, and why isn’t this being pursued by appropriate authorities??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *