In the state of Wisconsin, political warfare has elevated into a catastrophe of malicious televised attacks on opposing candidates. The court's decision to establish unregulated and anonymous issue advocacy has allowed major contributors to make their presence known in elections. This however belittles a candidate's actual presence in politics.
In a competitive election, issue advocacy has a negative effect on candidates. This leaves the candidates out of the political process. Candidates may have their own plans and policies that they wish to promote, but what goes on T.V. is what is publicized. Republican Dale Schultz dramatizes that "Candidates are one election away from being totally irrelevant.".
Another point on the issue of independent spending or issue advocacy is the lack of a vast scope of issues that candidates can focus on. Candidates are limited in the issues they can discuss because of their benefactors" emphasis on certain issues. In any district of Wisconsin where the teacher's union and the manufacturers are advocating their own champion candidate, they tend to focus on taxes and education. These policies are no doubt crucial to America, but they are enlarged so much that the candidates have little to no room for their own ideas and concerns. It can be argued that issue advocacy's positive result is that the public retain a voice in the governmental process. Brady Williamson proposes that "The framers wanted a system in which there were many voices." The inclusion of the public is necessary to an extent, but when their involvement drowns out the focus issues of candidates, it becomes a problem. The candidates turn into pawns; that is they can only go with the flow of public opinion.
Wisconsin is setting itself up for a major deviation from the political process. Its candidates" voices are quelled even further with each coming election as interest groups explore the freedom of issue advocacy to its farthest extent.