On Wednesday, February 5, 2025, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that the campaign for Susan Crawford, a liberal candidate for Dane County Judge, lodged a formal complaint with the Wisconsin Ethics Commission. The complaint arises from allegations that her image was digitally altered in a recent television attack advertisement produced by the campaign of her opponent, conservative Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel.
The five-page complaint asserts that Schimel’s campaign may have used artificial intelligence to manipulate Crawford’s photo, a potential breach of a newly enacted state law requiring disclosure in political advertisements that utilize AI technology. Schimel’s campaign, however, has denied the use of AI, clarifying that the photo was simply “edited.”
Crawford and Schimel are set to compete in the upcoming general election for the state Supreme Court on April 1, 2025. The outcome of this election is anticipated to influence the ideological direction of the high court in Wisconsin.
The controversial advertisement, which began airing statewide on February 4, features an altered image of Crawford with her arms crossed, gazing intently at the camera. A voiceover narrates a sexual assault case and its subsequent appeal that dates back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, alleging that Crawford mishandled the case.
Crawford’s campaign contends that the advertisement misrepresents her by using a doctored image originally showing her smiling. Under the new state law, failure to disclose the use of AI in political advertising carries a penalty of up to $1,000.
Derrick Honeyman, a spokesperson for Crawford, urged the Wisconsin Ethics Commission to conduct a thorough investigation into what he described as a “dishonest and manipulated advertisement.” He emphasized that Schimel’s campaign has acknowledged the deceptive nature of the edited image.
Conversely, Jacob Fischer, a spokesperson for Schimel, dismissed the allegations as unfounded. He stated that the campaign altered the photo to portray Crawford as “ashamed,” suggesting that such modifications are acceptable and do not constitute a violation of ethical standards. Fischer characterized the complaint as a “desperate attempt” to divert attention from Crawford’s record regarding the handling of dangerous offenders.
The advertisement claims that Crawford failed to file a timely appeal in a notable sexual assault case from 2001, which purportedly allowed a defendant to avoid incarceration. However, archival reports from the Journal Sentinel indicate that it was actually three other staff members at the state Department of Justice who failed to meet the deadline for the appeal. At that time, Crawford was leading the DOJ’s criminal appeals unit.
In a related incident from August 2001, the victim of the assault criticized the office of then-Attorney General Jim Doyle, a Democrat, for missing the appeal deadline that resulted in the dismissal of the case by the state Supreme Court. The case was subsequently returned to Waukesha County for a retrial.
The state Court of Appeals had overturned the conviction, determining that the defendant’s trial attorney had been ineffective. An assistant attorney general received a reprimand for missing the appeal deadline by just one business day. Ultimately, the defendant accepted a plea deal that allowed him to remain free, sparing the victim the ordeal of a second trial.
In a recent interview, Crawford stated that she had not yet viewed the attack ad but had some recollection of the case in question. She recalled being asked by Attorney General Jim Doyle at the time to investigate the circumstances surrounding the missed deadline. Crawford noted that she undertook an examination of the case and implemented changes to improve the procedures in the future.
Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
