Comparing the Corporate Interests of the Two Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidates
Judge Chris Taylor and Judge Maria Lazar
The judicial philosophies of Chris Taylor and Maria Lazar present a clear contrast in how they approach corporate accountability, campaign finance, and the influence of special interests on the court.
Chris Taylor: A Progressive Advocate for Accountability
Taylor views the court as a critical check on corporate power and legislative overreach.
Judicial Philosophy: She promotes a "people-centered" approach, arguing that the court should protect individual rights against powerful entities. She has explicitly criticized a past "right-wing majority" for acting as a "rubber stamp" for special interests.
Recusal Rules: Taylor actively supports public hearings to reform recusal rules, aiming to address the appearance of bias when judges hear cases involving their major campaign donors.
Campaign Finance: She is a vocal critic of Citizens United, stating that it allows wealthy interests to have a "supersized voice" that erodes democratic fairness.
Maria Lazar: A Conservative Originalist Focused on Impartiality
Lazar emphasizes a philosophy of judicial restraint, arguing that the court's role is not to challenge corporate or legislative policy but to interpret the law as written.
Judicial Philosophy: As an originalist and textualist, Lazar believes justice must be "blind" to the identity of litigants. She argues that judges must not consider the "financial heft" of any party and should maintain a "level playing field" by adhering strictly to the statute.
Recusal Rules: Lazar follows a "strict" interpretation of existing state and U.S. Supreme Court rules. She determines recusal on a case-by-case basis, focusing on whether there is an objective or subjective appearance of impropriety.
Corporate Record: Opponents point to her work at the Department of Justice—where she defended Act 10 (which limited union rights)—and recent appellate rulings, such as a decision that weakened the state's toxic spills law, as evidence of a pro-corporate lean. Lazar maintains these were simply matters of following the law as written.
Return to Main Page