Badger on the stump
As a nonprofit research organization, the Badger Institute is not in the business of campaigning for any politician or political party.
We are, however, in the business of championing ideas that support individual liberty against the encroachment of government.
Here are several such ideas — ones which the Badger Institute has researched extensively — being debated ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial and legislative elections.
Issues
Explained:
Wisconsin was a pioneer in the school choice movement, establishing the country’s first parental choice program in Milwaukee in 1990. More recent expansions have extended the benefit to families across the state, with more than 60,000 students enrolled in Wisconsin’s choice programs statewide.
Allowing lower-income families the opportunity to direct state aid to the school of their choice has produced remarkable results for Wisconsin students. Peer-reviewed research indicates that students with multi-year enrollment in a choice school enjoy significant academic gains when compared with public school counterparts.
Explored:
🔗 Private schools in choice programs prove far more effective with taxpayer money
🔗 Why public school-goers support choice
🔗 Why some feel threatened by Wisconsin’s parental choice programs
🔗 Think of them as ‘make better choices’ schools
On the record:
‣ Tom Tiffany: “We’ve had choice in Wisconsin and it’s worked for thousands of families across the state of Wisconsin. We should continue to have that program.”
‣ David Crowley: “I don’t think the question is whether or not we should have vouchers. The question should be how do we continue to invest in our public schools to make sure that they are the school of choice.”
Explained:
Starting in 2027, federal taxpayers will be able to take a dollar-for-dollar credit against their tax liability for donations they make toward “scholarship granting organizations” that help children with K-12 school costs.
In essence, the tax credit lets individual taxpayers use some of the money they’d otherwise pay to the federal government to instead help children with a wide variety of education-related costs.
Gov. Tony Evers has declined to opt Wisconsin into the program, citing concerns over a disproportionate benefit for private school students. Public school administrators, however, are countering Evers’ alarm with enthusiasm for how community support could spur student success.
Explored:
🔗 Facts to help you decide whether Wisconsin children should be eligible for donor-funded scholarships
🔗 Public school leaders look forward to possible private donations for scholarships
🔗 Wisconsin eventually will opt in to donor bonanza for schools, business leader predicts
On the record:
‣ Tom Tiffany: “I will get this $1,700 scholarship in place so families that are truly in need, that want opportunity, they’re going to be able to get it for their children to get a good education.”
Explained:
Passed in 2011, Act 10 limited most unions in Wisconsin’s state and local government sectors to bargaining over wages. The law also required public-sector unions to regularly seek recertification from workers they purported to bargain for, required them to collect dues rather than having the money taken from employees’ paychecks by government employers, and required public sector employees to contribute toward their health benefits as most private-sector workers do.
The reforms are estimated to have saved Wisconsin taxpayers up to $35 billion since 2012, according to the MacIver Institute.
Explored:
🔗 Economist vindicates Act 10 and common sense
🔗 Act 10 was a godsend for property taxpayers
On the record:
‣ Tom Tiffany: “If Act 10 goes away, you’re going to see [property taxes] go up significantly more than what we saw happen in December.”
‣ David Crowley: “As governor, I will repeal Act 10 in full.”
Explained:
Wisconsin’s right-to-work law was passed in 2015. The statute prohibits employers from automatically requiring that workers pay union dues as a condition of employment. Under right-to-work, workers can still join a union if they so choose.
Twenty-six states including Wisconsin have enacted right-to-work legislation. Michigan repealed its right-to-work law in 2024.
Research shows that states with right-to-work legislation have experienced greater per capita personal income growth than other states.
Explored:
🔗 Right-to-work: Freeloading or just freedom?
🔗 The economic impact of a right-to-work law on Wisconsin
🔗 Unions favor telling to asking with Wisconsin’s right to work
On the record:
‣ Tom Tiffany voted in favor of Wisconsin’s right-to-work law while serving as a state senator in 2015.
‣ David Crowley: “We are repealing the right to work for less and really enshrining workers’ rights into the state Constitution.”
Explained:
The 2022 Wisconsin Clean Energy Plan, coordinated by Gov. Tony Evers’ administration, includes as its first objective, “Putting Wisconsin on a path for all electricity consumed within the state to be 100 percent carbon-free by 2050.”
That path would totally eliminate use of both coal and natural gas, which are currently responsible for 75% of all electricity generated in Wisconsin.
Nuclear currently provides 16% of all electricity generated in the state. Wind and solar produce 5%, and both are by nature intermittent: available when wind blows or sun shines.
Explored:
🔗 Wisconsin needs to crank up electricity supply
🔗 Why support a pro-nuclear resolution?
🔗 The cost of outlawing fossil fuel heat in Wisconsin
🔗 Prairie-chickens and the land-eating solar industry
On the record:
‣ Tom Tiffany: “We should embrace nuclear once again, especially the new nuclear technologies that are out there. … It’s time to put a greater emphasis on nuclear as part of our mix here in Wisconsin.”
‣ David Crowley: “Support the responsible expansion of nuclear energy as part of Wisconsin’s clean energy future — including next-generation and small modular reactor technology — because reliable, carbon-free baseload power is essential to a grid that works for families and businesses.”
Explained:
Beginning in April 1984, vehicle emissions testing was implemented in Wisconsin counties where ozone levels failed to meet standards set by the federal Clean Air Act.
The affected counties were Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and Waukesha. Sheboygan County was added in 1993.
Drivers who reside in those counties are required to test their vehicles every other year; vehicles must pass in order for owners to renew their license-plate registrations. Yet for all of the dollars and time spent and inconveniences imposed, it’s nearly impossible to determine if the program meaningfully decreases exhaust emissions that form ozone and damage air quality.
Explored:
🔗 Forty-year-old vehicle emissions program under new scrutiny
🔗 The suspect value of Wisconsin emissions testing
On the record:
‣ Tom Tiffany: “These rules unfairly punish seven counties in SE Wisconsin. As governor, I will secure a waiver from the EPA to end vehicle emissions testing.”
Explained:
Technically known as the Unfair Sales Act, minimum markup was enacted to help stymie the tsunami of small business failures during the Great Depression of 1929 through 1939. It originally called for a mandatory 2% markup on wholesale prices and a 6% markup on retail prices on all merchandise sold in Wisconsin.
The law remains in place today for a select number of goods, such as motor vehicle fuel, tobacco and alcohol. In 1997, the minimum markup on gasoline was raised to 9.18% of the “average posted terminal price,” which many consider a proxy for wholesale costs.
Several legislative attempts to repeal the statute (including one as recently as 2023) have not succeeded in eliminating the law that artificially raises prices for Wisconsinites.
Explored:
🔗 Minimum markup: The price is not right
🔗 It’s long past time to end Wisconsin’s minimum markup law
🔗 Could Wisconsin spend less, live better and be freer?
On the record:
‣ David Crowley: “It is about replacing a Depression-era price floor that does not work with targeted protections against the actual predatory behavior we want to stop. Minnesota just did this. Wisconsin should be next.”
Explained:
The individual income tax is a pillar of most state revenue systems. Wisconsin became the very first state to enact an income tax in 1911 — a “progressive” tax with graduated rates based on personal income.
More than 100 years later, Wisconsinites are still subject to one of the most progressive income taxes in the nation, with a top rate of 7.65% that is second highest in the Midwest and tenth highest across all states.
A competitive top tax rate is important because taxes affect decisions about where people live, work, invest and build businesses. Skilled workers and entrepreneurs are mobile, and states must compete to attract them. A tax system that imposes high marginal rates on additional income makes Wisconsin a less attractive place to earn, invest and expand.
Explored:
🔗 Wisconsin should choose the right side of the income tax divide
🔗 Tax reform options to improve Wisconsin’s competitiveness
🔗 A flat-rate income tax would spur growth and opportunity
🔗 Could Wisconsin eliminate its income tax?
🔗 Minnesota and Illinois losing billions in income as residents flee high taxes
On the record:
‣ Tom Tiffany plans to “reduce taxes in general,” though his most specific statements concern property taxes rather than income taxes.
‣ David Crowley calls for a holistic review of Wisconsin’s entire tax system before considering a tax increase on certain income earners. However, “we absolutely need to tax the ultra-wealthy,” he adds.
Explained:
Data centers represent some of the most significant economic development projects for states and communities to consider.
In Wisconsin, the Vantage data center project in Port Washington and the Microsoft project in Mount Pleasant are responsible for more than $22 billion in total investment — including 7,000 construction jobs, a projected 1,800 permanent jobs, and another 4,200 indirect jobs, according to M7, the economic development arm of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce.
Data center projects are not without their detractors, however. Opponents express concerns over financial and environmental factors, including tax considerations, land and water use, and energy consumption.
Explored:
🔗 Data centers could be a godsend — if communities let them
🔗 Data centers often bring faster connections to world
🔗 Port Washington to be land of opportunity for job-seekers
🔗 Port Washington data center plans put spotlight on Wisconsin power supply
🔗 Claims of data center water use are laughably wrong
🔗 Data center naysayers should consider what the future would have brought to Port Washington
🔗 Data center reassurances don’t stand a chance against ‘Terminator’
🔗 Wisconsin should stop treating data centers worse than other taxpaying industries
On the record:
‣ Tom Tiffany: “There should be no new data centers in Wisconsin without strong standards to protect our ratepayers, farmland, water, local communities, and electric grid.”
Tiffany’s website outlines five standards that inform his position, including giving local communities final say, protecting productive farmland from being converted to energy infrastructure, ensuring energy costs are not passed on Wisconsin utility ratepayers, banning non-disclosure agreements between communities and data center developers, and eliminating Wisconsin’s sales tax exemption on materials used in data center construction.
‣ David Crowley: “If local communities don’t want a data center, they shouldn’t be forced to have a data center. No ifs, ands, or buts.”
Crowley’s website also outlines several standards that inform his broader position, including community approval, land and water protection, a 100 percent renewable energy mandate, ensuring developers cover 100 percent of the costs of infrastructure and grid upgrades, and process transparency by banning non-disclosure agreements. Elsewhere, Crowley said he does not believe Wisconsin should automatically roll back its sales tax exemption on materials used in data center construction.
Mandate for Madison 2026
Over the past 15 years, Wisconsin has made meaningful progress toward greater economic freedom and a public policy environment supportive of growth and opportunity. This progress is real, but it is also incomplete and fragile.
The 2026 Mandate for Madison aims to provide evidence and insight to inform public debate and decision-making at this crucial juncture in the state’s history. Through an expansive and rigorous research program publishing expert analyses across a wide range of policy areas throughout the year, the Mandate will help policymakers, regardless of partisan affiliation, protect the gains of the past 15 years and continue building a prosperous and economically vibrant Wisconsin.
