Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB1220

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/26
• Refer: 3/19/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to repeal 11.1203 (2) (a) 1.; to consolidate, renumber and amend 11.1203 (2) (a) (intro.) and 2.; to amend 11.1203 (title) and 11.1203 (3) (intro.); to create 11.0101 (20), 11.0101 (20d), 11.0101 (20e), 11.0101 (20f) and 11.1203 (4) of the statutes; Relating to: coordination of mass communications.

Summary

AB1220 would revise Wisconsin campaign finance law governing coordinated political communications. The bill keeps the existing prohibition on coordinated expenditures for express advocacy, but replaces the current coordination definition with a broader standard based on a candidate, candidate’s agent, legislative campaign committee, or political party exercising control over, or engaging in substantial discussions or negotiations about, the content, timing, location, form, intended audience, number, or frequency of the communication. The bill also creates a new category of “mass communication” and extends coordination rules to that category. A mass communication is defined to include mass media messages, mass electronic communications, mass distributions of 500 or more substantially identical pieces, and mass telephoning of 500 or more calls, while excluding bona fide polling. For certain mass communications made within 60 days before an election that expressly advocate for or against a clearly identified candidate, the bill would prohibit coordinated expenditures that violate contribution limits or source restrictions, and it would require reporting of the expenditure and treatment of the amount as a contribution to the candidate’s committee when coordination occurs.

Impact

AB1220 would amend chapter 11 of the Wisconsin statutes by creating new definitions for mass communication, mass distribution, mass electronic communication, and mass telephoning, and by rewriting the coordination provisions in s. 11.1203. It would expand campaign finance regulation beyond express advocacy to cover coordinated mass communications, impose reporting obligations on spenders, and require candidate committees to report certain coordinated expenditures as contributions. The practical effect would be to broaden the set of political communications subject to coordination limits and disclosure requirements for PACs, independent expenditure committees, other persons, and individuals engaged in election-related messaging.

Sentiment

The bill appears to reflect a regulatory and enforcement-oriented approach to campaign finance, with an emphasis on closing perceived loopholes in coordinated political spending. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support in the materials. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not advance into law despite being introduced and referred to committee.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s expansion of what counts as coordinated political activity, especially by replacing a narrower express-advocacy framework with a broader “substantial discussions or negotiations” standard and by applying it to mass communications. Supporters would likely view the bill as a needed anti-circumvention measure to prevent coordinated spending from evading contribution limits and source restrictions. Opponents would likely argue that the definitions are broad enough to chill issue advocacy, increase compliance burdens, and create uncertainty for PACs, independent expenditure groups, political parties, and candidates about when ordinary strategic discussions become regulated coordination.