The Wisconsin Department of Justice and Attorney General Josh Kaul are facing a lawsuit over serious concerns about outside influence in state legal affairs. [emphasis, links added]
At the heart of the controversy is Kaul’s decision to hire a Special Assistant Attorney General (SAAG) whose salary is paid by the Bloomberg-funded State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at New York University Law School.
According to the complaint filed by groups including the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance and Venture Dairy Cooperative, “This case presents the question of whether the Wisconsin Department of Justice is for sale.”
This arrangement is part of a well-documented pattern that has repeatedly faced criticism from legal experts and lawmakers, who warn that privately funded attorneys general blur the lines between public service and private interests and raise questions as to whom the SAAG is truly accountable to – the taxpayers or their billionaire funders.
Dairy Groups Challenge Bloomberg’s Influence
The groups bringing the lawsuit argue that the Wisconsin DOJ’s arrangement with the Bloomberg-backed NYU Center grants the billionaire-funded organization unprecedented influence over the department’s work on agricultural and environmental issues.
This raises alarms within Wisconsin’s critical agricultural and energy sectors, as these legal fellows often work on targeted environmental litigation over the economic priorities of the general public.
Bloomberg-funded SAAGs in other state AG offices, for example, have often led targeted climate lawsuits against energy companies and coordinated directly with activists in the process.
Opposing the appointment of SAAG Karen Heineman, Cindy Leitner, president of the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance explained:
“This agreement between AG Kaul and NYU’s climate center raises serious questions about the influence of special interest groups on state attorneys…
“We must ask: is this attorney working in the public’s best interest, or serving the interests of private funders?” (Emphasis added)
The complaint points out that no other organization has been given this level of access to DOJ decision-making, which ultimately creates an unfair and unbalanced legal landscape in favor of Bloomberg and its affiliates.
Furthermore, plaintiffs emphasize that while Heineman has the full backing and authority of the Wisconsin DOJ, her priorities are guided by Bloomberg’s NYU Center—not by the needs or concerns of Wisconsin’s taxpayers and business community.
Critics of the NYU Center’s broader efforts have repeatedly warned that these state attorney placements are not neutral legal appointments but part of a well-funded strategy to influence state-level litigation and are part of Bloomberg’s attempt to “buy a government.”
Legislative Protections Against Paid, Outside Influences
The lawsuit comes weeks after Wisconsin lawmakers introduced a bill that would prohibit the hiring of attorneys hired by outside groups.
The co-sponsorship memo takes explicit aim at the Bloomberg SAAG arrangement:
“Allowing out-of-state billionaires to instigate or control investigations or prosecutions of Wisconsinites is unacceptable.
“The Attorney General’s duty is to represent and serve the people of Wisconsin, not to accommodate the bidding and agenda of out-of-state billionaire partisan activists who buy their way into our DOJ offices.” (emphasis added)
Similar legislation has been put forth in Minnesota, another state to come under fire over the hiring of Bloomberg SAAGs, as well as nearby Michigan.
In 2019, amidst controversy over the Virginia attorney general’s interest in the SAAG program, the Virginia legislature passed a budget requiring that employees of the state’s DOJ be funded only by the state.
Bottom Line
This lawsuit by Wisconsin dairy groups underscores an alarming trend: progressive billionaires like Bloomberg leverage their financial influence to shape state policy and litigation through backdoor arrangements that bypass voters and elected officials.
The Wisconsin DOJ’s decision to allow a billionaire donor to steer official legal action raises serious concerns about accountability, transparency, and the rule of law.
The core question remains: are state attorneys general truly serving the interests of the people who elected them, or are they doing the bidding of the highest bidder?
Top image via WKOW 27 NEWS/YouTube screencap
Read more at EID Climate
It figures that Bloomberg would have their Greedy little claws into this whole Global Warming/Climate Change Scam