Candidates › WI-06 race › 2025–2026

Brad Smith

D Democratic nominee for U.S. House, WI-06

Has not served in Congress

On the ballot: On the general election ballotNov 3, 2026 · Wisconsin US House 6
The race: Everyone running for WI-06 · Compare Smith with them
Where to vote: Find your polling place (opens in a new tab) · More ways to vote

SummaryAt a glance

Top priorities: Forward ★Together
Flock Cameras, ALPR Tech and Community Privacy Policy
Data Center Development and Community Protection
Good Jobs and Fair Wages
Healthcare
Read all 18 in their words
Money: $322.3K raised, $231K spent, $91.3K cash on hand (through Oct 14, 2026). Where it comes from
Who gives: 33% of individual money from donors at $200 or less · 97% from Wisconsin · largest committee giver INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, $5K
Outside groups: $29 supporting Smith
Backed by: National Education Association · Wisconsin Education Association Council · Wisconsin AFL-CIO and 44 more. As the campaign lists them

Their wordsWhat does Smith say they will do?

18 priorities from bradsmithforcongress.com, in the order they are listed there. Every heading and the text under it is copied exactly, as one passage for each page it is from, and links to that place on the page; hover a source to see which passage it opens.

18 priorities · 11 parts · 112 quoted statements

Heading as listed on bradsmithforcongress.com ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com at this heading)
Automated license plate readers such as Flock cameras are positioned as tools that help law enforcement locate stolen vehicles, investigate serious crimes, and find missing or endangered people. Crucially, these systems also create major privacy concerns by creating detailed records of where all individuals travel, potentially allowing government agencies or individual officers to track people who are not suspected of any crime.
Recent cases across the country, including here in Wisconsin, have exposed egregious abuses of these systems, including law enforcement personnel allegedly using their access to track individuals for personal purposes. These are not abstract privacy concerns. They demonstrate what can happen when enormous amounts of location data are collected and made searchable without adequate legal restrictions, access controls, and independent oversight.
Technology capable of reconstructing a person’s movements must not be deployed without clear public rules, democratic oversight, strict controls on access, and substantial legal consequences for abuse. I also believe the aggregation and warrantless searching of this location data raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns regarding unreasonable government searches.
I support a moratorium on usage of automated license plate reader (ALPR) technology and networks (Flock, Axon, etc) until strong regulatory protections are in place. Protections must put citizens’ privacy first, strictly limit access and retention, prevent the creation of an unrestricted nationwide tracking network, require independent oversight, and give communities a choice in deciding whether this technology should operate in their community.
The regulatory policies I will pursue follow below.
1. Give Communities Control Over Surveillance Technology ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)
Local police departments must not be able to install or substantially expand large surveillance networks without public knowledge and approval.
I support requirements that communities:
- Receive advance public disclosure before automated license plate readers or similar surveillance technologies are purchased or deployed.
- Hold a public hearing explaining what technology is being proposed, what information it collects, how long information will be stored, who can access it, and what agencies can receive the data.
- Require affirmative approval from the elected local governing body before deployment, renewal, or major expansion.
- Allow communities to require a public referendum when residents want the decision made directly by voters.
- Require periodic reconsideration rather than allowing surveillance programs to continue indefinitely without review.
2. Limit Surveillance to Legitimate Law-Enforcement Investigations ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)
License plate databases should never be available for casually searching where someone has been.
I support requiring:
- A legitimate, documented, law-enforcement purpose for every search.
- A case number, incident number, or documented investigative justification tied to every database query.
- Judicial warrants for searches involving significant amounts of historical location information or access to privately operated ALPR networks where appropriate.
- Clear limits on which crimes and investigations justify allowable use of these systems.
- Human review before automated alerts alone are used as the basis for significant law-enforcement action.
3. Protect Innocent People's Location Data ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)
The majority of vehicles captured by these systems belong to people who are not suspected of wrongdoing - regular citizens going about their lives. Their location histories should never be stored indefinitely.
I support:
- Short automatic retention periods for data involving people who are not connected to an investigation, with a goal of approximately seven days wherever operationally practical.
- Longer retention only when information has been properly connected to an active investigation or legal proceeding.
- Preventing local vehicle-location records from automatically entering a nationwide searchable surveillance database.
- Strict restrictions on sharing data with federal agencies, other states, or outside jurisdictions unless there is a legitimate investigation and appropriate documented legal authorization.
- Prohibiting the use of ALPR systems to monitor constitutionally protected political activity, protests, religious activity, reproductive healthcare, or immigration status absent an independent lawful basis for investigation.
- Additional safeguards around sensitive locations such as private residences, schools, healthcare facilities, houses of worship, courts, shelters, and similar locations.
4. Require Independent Auditing and Accountability ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)
Every ALPR system should maintain a permanent audit trail showing:
- Who conducted a search.
- When the search occurred.
- What vehicle or plate was searched.
- The documented justification or associated case number.
- What agencies received or accessed the information.
Agencies using these systems should be subject to regular independent audits rather than relying exclusively on internal police review.
Communities should also have open access to regular public reports and disclosure showing overall search volume, outside-agency access, data-sharing activity, successful investigative uses, misuse investigations, disciplinary actions, and other information necessary to evaluate whether the system is providing legitimate public-safety value or being misused.
Intentional misuse should carry substantial legal consequences, including disciplinary action, loss of system access, and appropriate civil or criminal penalties when someone knowingly uses government surveillance systems for personal or unlawful purposes.
5. Put Strict Rules on Flock and Other ALPR Vendors ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)
Contracts with Flock or any other ALPR and related surveillance provider should require that:
- The local government entity retains ownership and control of its data.
- Vendors cannot sell location data.
- Vendors cannot independently share or repurpose government-collected data.
- Outside agencies and entities cannot automatically search local databases without authorization.
- Local government agencies have full control over retention periods and information-sharing settings.
- Vendors maintain strong cybersecurity protections and disclose breaches or unauthorized access immediately.
- Contracts allow communities to terminate service and permanently delete collected information with clear evidence of removal.
6. Establish Federal Privacy Standards While Enabling Stronger Local Protections ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)
Congress must establish baseline privacy and privacy protections for automated license plate readers and other location-tracking technologies.
Federal legislation should establish minimum baseline standards for:
- Data retention.
- Search justification.
- Warrants for sensitive historical searches.
- Interstate and federal information sharing.
- Public disclosure.
- Audit requirements.
- Vendor data practices.
- Cybersecurity.
- Protected activities and sensitive locations.
- Penalties for intentional misuse.
These standards would serve as a floor, not a ceiling. States and local communities then have the ability to adopt stronger privacy protections or prohibit the technology entirely as desired for their community.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy
Heading as listed on bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)
The scale and speed of hyperscale data center development in our communities and across the country requires strong protections immediately.
These enormous facilities require extraordinary amounts of electricity and water, and often drive construction of new power plants, transmission lines, and other infrastructure. These impacts create long-term consequences for local ratepayers, taxpayers, communities, and our environment.
We cannot allow massive corporations to push these costs onto Wisconsin families and businesses, receive taxpayer-funded subsidies they do not need, or make decisions behind closed doors that leave our communities carrying the consequences for decades.
Before projects move ahead, communities must have full transparency about electricity and water demands, independent environmental and financial reviews, clear corporate responsibility for infrastructure costs, and a voice in whether these developments move forward.
I support strong, enforceable protections that put Wisconsin residents, our natural resources, and our communities first. That means making corporations pay their own way, protecting ratepayers and taxpayers, demanding transparency, and ensuring local communities retain control over their future.
1. Protect Families and Businesses From Higher Energy Costs ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Families, farms, manufacturers, and small businesses should never be forced to subsidize the extraordinary electricity demands of massive data centers.
If a project creates the need for new transmission lines, generation, or other grid infrastructure, the companies creating that demand must pay for these costs….period.
Federal regulators should establish strong protections against shifting data-center-driven transmission costs onto existing customers. States should do the same for generation, distribution, and other utility costs under their jurisdiction.
When extraordinary corporate demand creates extraordinary infrastructure costs, the financial responsibility should be assigned to those driving the consumption.
2. Protect Ratepayers From Stranded Infrastructure ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Communities and utilities can spend billions of dollars preparing for projected electricity demand that may never materialize. A data center can be announced, delayed, downsized, relocated, or canceled after utilities have already begun investing in infrastructure to serve it, as we saw with the Foxconn debable. Families should never inherit the bill in these scenarios.
Large developments that require substantial infrastructure investment should be required to provide guaranteed financial commitments, including appropriate upfront contributions, minimum demand commitments, credit requirements, bonds, guarantees, or other financial security.
If infrastructure is built around a corporation's promised future demand, that corporation should carry the financial risk if the promise disappears.
3. Require Full Transparency Before Projects Are Approved ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Communities deserve the facts before governments approve projects or commit public resources.
For major data center developments, the public should be able to review the projections for:
- Electricity demand and annual energy consumption.
- Water withdrawals and actual water consumption.
- Water sources and cooling technology.
- New power generation, transmission lines, and other grid upgrades.
- Wastewater and environmental impacts.
- Backup generators and fuel requirements.
- Roads and other public infrastructure.
- Construction and permanent employment.
- Development phases and timelines.
- Public subsidies, tax incentives, and other government support.
- Who is expected to pay for required infrastructure.
Material changes to a project should require updated disclosure. The public should understand the impacts before government grants final approval or commits public resources.
4. Stop NDAs From Keeping Communities in the Dark ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Legitimate trade secrets and cybersecurity information can be protected without allowing corporations to conceal the basic impacts of massive developments.
Non-disclosure agreements should not prevent government officials from informing residents how much electricity or water a project will use, what infrastructure will be required, what taxpayers or ratepayers could be responsible for, what public subsidies are being offered, or what environmental consequences are expected. Private agreements should never override the public's right to understand major commitments being made in its name.
5. Require Independent Impact Analysis ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Communities should not have to rely solely on studies and projections produced by the corporation seeking approval.
Major developments should undergo independent analysis of their potential effects on:
- Residential and business utility rates.
- Electricity generation and transmission.
- Grid reliability.
- Water supplies and groundwater.
- Wastewater systems.
- Roads and other public infrastructure.
- Environmental resources.
- Long-term taxpayer and ratepayer exposure.
Developers should pay the reasonable cost of these reviews, while government or independent regulators select or approve the experts. Before billions of dollars and decades of infrastructure commitments are locked in, communities must have an independent factual assessment of what they are being asked to accept.
6. Protect Wisconsin's Water and Environment ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Wisconsin's water is one of our greatest natural resources. It should never be treated as an unlimited resource for industrial development and consumption. Before approval, communities should know where a data center's water will come from, how much will be withdrawn, how much will actually be consumed, how demand could affect municipal systems, groundwater, private wells, rivers, lakes, and watersheds, and who will pay for required infrastructure.
Large withdrawals should receive appropriate hydrological and environmental review before approval. Policy should also drive developers toward water recycling, closed-loop and lower-water cooling systems, greater energy efficiency, clean energy, energy storage, waste-heat recovery, and technologies that reduce demands on the surrounding community and environment.
7. Make Transmission Planning Transparent ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Massive projected increases in electricity demand can influence decisions to build transmission infrastructure costing billions of dollars and spanning multiple states.
Before major transmission projects driven in significant part by projected large-load growth move forward, regulators and the public should know:
- How much projected electricity growth comes from data centers and other very large users.
- Which proposed developments are included in those forecasts.
- How firm or speculative those projects are.
- How much electricity they are expected to require.
- What infrastructure would be needed without that additional demand.
- What infrastructure is being accelerated, enlarged, or built because of it.
- How those costs will be allocated.
The central question should be simple: Would this infrastructure, at this size and at this time, be necessary without the new demand driven by data centers? If not, the customers driving the additional need must carry their share of the cost.
8. Stop Tax Breaks and Corporate Subsidies for Data Centers ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
I oppose providing special tax breaks, subsidies, and financial incentives to attract or support massive data center developments. Many of these projects are backed by some of the wealthiest corporations and investors in the world, with billions of dollars available to finance their operations and expansion. Wisconsin taxpayers should never subsidize their growth.
That includes special tax exemptions, property tax abatements, direct grants, subsidized financing, or publicly funded infrastructure built primarily to serve these private developments. Our public resources should be invested in priorities that directly benefit Wisconsin residents, including schools, healthcare, public infrastructure, and essential community services.
Corporations with billions of dollars at their disposal should pay their own way. Wisconsin taxpayers should never be expected to help finance their expansion.
9. Hold Corporations Accountable for Existing Public Commitments ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Where governments have already provided tax benefits, grants, financing, infrastructure, or other public assistance to data center developments, taxpayers deserve enforceable protections. Those agreements should include measurable commitments involving infrastructure responsibility, employment, energy and water use, environmental performance, transparency, labor standards, and long-term operations.
If companies receive public benefits based on promises they later fail to fulfill, government should have meaningful clawback authority to recover taxpayer funds or financial benefits.
Public commitments must come with enforceable accountability, and taxpayers should never be left paying for corporate promises that go unfulfilled.
10. Protect Workers and Require Honest Job Commitments ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Massive data center developments can involve substantial construction work, but communities also deserve a clear accounting of the long-term employment these projects will actually provide. I support strong labor standards, including prevailing wages where applicable, registered apprenticeships, workplace safety protections, workforce-development partnerships, and domestic sourcing where practical.
Where public infrastructure funding is involved, these standards should be enforceable, and the corporations benefiting from that infrastructure should meet explicit employment and labor commitments. Developers should also be required to disclose realistic permanent employment projections, distinguishing temporary construction jobs from lasting positions.
11. Protect Local Control and Community Voice ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)
Decisions this consequential should not be made behind closed doors or forced onto communities from Washington. The federal government has a responsibility to protect ratepayers, oversee interstate transmission, establish transparency requirements, and attach strong conditions to federal taxpayer support. Federal standards should establish a floor which states can further build upon for local protection.
Wisconsin should retain authority over utility regulation, water resources, state incentives, and matters within state jurisdiction. Local communities should retain authority over zoning, land use, development agreements, infrastructure, and whether a proposed project fits their community.
Congress should reject broad federal preemption that prevents states and communities from establishing stronger protections.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1
Heading as listed on bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

MoneyWho pays for the campaign, and where does it go?

Raised

$322.3K

$322,261

Spent

$231K

$230,958

Cash on hand

$91.3K

$91,303

FEC filings, Jul 1, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 · Official FEC bulk data · committee C00920231

Raised, spent and cash over time by FEC report

72¢ of every dollar raised has been spent across 7 reports ($231K of $322.3K). Cash on hand went from $5.5K on Sep 30, 2025 to $91.3K on Oct 14, 2026.

Raised, spent and cash on hand by FEC report
Report	Raised in the period	Spent in the period	Cash on hand at its close
OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2025 through Sep 30, 2025	$5,762	$290	$5,473
YEAR-END 2025 through Dec 31, 2025	$27,235	$9,340	$23,367
APRIL QUARTERLY 2026 through Mar 31, 2026	$48,315	$18,495	$53,188
JULY QUARTERLY 2026 through Jun 30, 2026	$74,103	$42,980	$84,311
PRE-PRIMARY 2026 through Jul 22, 2026	$10,646	$34,676	$60,280
OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2026 through Sep 30, 2026	$128,999	$44,711	$144,568
PRE-GENERAL 2026 through Oct 14, 2026	$27,201	$80,466	$91,303

Each report’s own period, as filed with the FEC; a report filed again counts once, as its latest copy.

Where the money came from $322,261 reported receipts

Itemized (over $200)Donors who have given more than $200 this cycle, so the FEC itemizes (names) them.$200,79162%

Largest donors

Bradley Smith14 contributions, latest May 27, 2026 · CANDIDATE · KINETIC PURSUIT · MEQUON, WI$11,279
Susan BemisOne contribution on Mar 30, 2026 · NOT EMPLOYED · ELKHART LAKE, WI$3,500
Deborah PatelOne contribution on Jun 12, 2026 · NOT EMPLOYED · MILWAUKEE, WI$3,500
Payal Chawda11 contributions, latest Jul 1, 2026 · PSYCHOTHERAPIST · FIRST RESPONDERS PSYCH SERVICES · MILWAUKEE, WI$3,450
Gwen Armbrust4 contributions, latest Jun 29, 2026 · NOT EMPLOYED · MEQUON, WI$3,310
Daniel ArmbrustOne contribution on Jun 17, 2026 · CEO · GMI SOLUTIONS · MEQUON, WI$3,000
Mary Lang Sollinger3 contributions, latest May 28, 2026 · NOT EMPLOYED · NONE · MADISON, WI$3,000
Justin Duhatschek8 contributions, latest Jul 5, 2026 · SCRUM MASTER · GP · OSHKOSH, WI$2,684

EndorsementsWho does Smith’s campaign say backs them?

47 endorsers listed on Brad Smith’s own campaign site: 26 officials, 9 unions, 7 organizations, 5 people.

This is the campaign's claim, checked by an editor against its page; the endorsers have not confirmed it to us. Each name opens the campaign’s page with that name highlighted.

Officials 26

Sentator Tammy Baldwin
U.S. Senator
“Brad Smith is a remarkable leader who has dedicated his life to serving his country and his community, through his military service, his career in business, and his commitment to making Wisconsin a better place. I am proud to endorse Brad and look forward to working with him in Washington, D.C. as he continues that service on behalf of the people of Wisconsin’s 6th Congressional District. Brad understands that we need to make health care more accessible, expand educational and training opportunities for people of every background and career path, and give young people a real opportunity to achieve the American Dream.”
Congresswoman Gwen Moore
U.S. Representative, District 4
“Brad Smith knows what service means. He served our country in uniform, built his career here in Wisconsin, and is stepping forward again because he believes government should serve working people, not the powerful and well-connected. Brad has the backbone to stand up for what's right and the judgment to listen when people disagree. I'm proud to endorse him and look forward to welcoming another strong Wisconsin voice to Congress.”
WI Sen. Melissa Ratcliff
WI Senator, District 18
“As a working mom and proven leader, I’ve fought to make sure every Wisconsinite is treated with dignity and has the freedom to make their own decisions. Brad Smith shares those values. He’s ready to deliver real results for our families and communities”
Jodi Habush Sinykin
WI Senator, District 8
“Brad Smith understands that protecting Wisconsin means protecting our water, our energy grid, and the communities that depend on them. He'll stand up to special interests and fight for sustainable, responsible growth that puts Wisconsin families first.” "Brad Smith understands that protecting Wisconsin means protecting our water, our energy grid, and the communities that depend on them," said Habush Sinykin. "He'll stand up to special interests and fight for sustainable, responsible growth that puts Wisconsin families first." "Jodi has spent her career standing up for Wisconsin communities and protecting the resources that make our state special," Smith said. "She understands that economic growth and environmental stewardship are not competing priorities. They're both essential to building a stronger future for Wisconsin families. I'm honored to have her support.”
WI Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim
WI Senator, District 18
“My experience in local government, the State Senate, and as a small business owner has shown me that effective leadership requires listening, accountability, and practical results. Brad brings those qualities as a veteran, small business leader, and father. I'm proud to endorse Brad Smith for Congress.”
WI Rep. Maureen McCarville
WI Representative, District 42
“Brad Smith’s commitment to service didn’t end when he hung up the uniform. He continues to fight for Wisconsin families, especially our veterans and military families who deserve better access to benefits and stronger advocacy in Congress. I’m proud to support leaders who put service before self and that’s exactly what Brad does.”
WI Rep. Andrew Hysell
WI Representative, District 48
“Brad Smith is the best candidate to defeat Glenn Grothman. Grothman enthusiastically supported Trump's illegal tariff taxes and was silent about his $1.8B slush fund. In direct contrast, Brad Smith knows that serving in Congress means representing the rights and values of people here in Wisconsin, not special interests. That's why Brad has my full support.”
WI Rep. Karen DeSanto
WI Representative, District 40
“In my work supporting kids and families across Wisconsin, I’ve seen what’s possible when communities come together to invest in the next generation. Brad Smith shares that commitment to opportunity, service, and collaboration. I’m proud to endorse Brad for Congress because he understands that together we can build stronger communities and move Wisconsin forward together.”

Unions 9

Organizations 7

National Education Association
“I am deeply honored to earn WEAC and NEA’s endorsement,” said Smith. “This endorsement reflects our shared commitment to strengthening public education, supporting educators, and ensuring every student has the opportunity to succeed. Educators are at the heart of our communities, and I will continue fighting for the resources and respect they deserve.”
Wisconsin Education Association Council
Sierra Club
National Organization for Women
Take BAC Congress
Our Wisconsin Revolution
Moms Demand Action

People 5

Martha Laning
Former Chair, Democratic Party of Wisconsin
“Brad Smith really cares about us. He isn’t getting into this race to be aligned with the parties; he just wants to do what is right for Wisconsinites”
Aaron Wojciechowski
Former 6th Congressional District Candidate, 2026
Joey Marschall
Former 6th Congressional District Candidate, 2026
Mike Heidenreich
Former 6th Congressional District Candidate, 2026
Matt Beat
Political Educator

Top donor states
Name		Amount
Wisconsin home319 contributions · 97%		$106,793
Kentucky2 contributions · 1.4%		$1,500
California1 contribution · 0.7%		$750
Minnesota7 contributions · 0.5%		$561
Illinois1 contribution · 0.5%		$500
Wyoming1 contribution · 0.2%		$250
New Mexico1 contribution · <0.1%		$100
Connecticut3 contributions · <0.1%		$93

Top donor states

Name

Amount

Wisconsin home319 contributions · 97%

$106,793

Kentucky2 contributions · 1.4%

$1,500

California1 contribution · 0.7%

$750

Minnesota7 contributions · 0.5%

$561

Illinois1 contribution · 0.5%

$500

Wyoming1 contribution · 0.2%

$250

New Mexico1 contribution · <0.1%

$100

Connecticut3 contributions · <0.1%

$93

Donors’ employers
Employer as filed		Amount
Not employedWritten instead of an employer · 130 contributions · 38% of ranked		$40,272
RetiredWritten instead of an employer · 52 contributions · 17% of ranked		$17,657
Self-employedWritten instead of an employer · 10 contributions · 7.4% of ranked		$7,796
Kinetic Pursuit10 contributions · 5.7% of ranked		$6,033
First Responders Psych Services8 contributions · 3.1% of ranked		$3,300
GMI Solutions1 contribution · 2.8% of ranked		$3,000
GP8 contributions · 2.5% of ranked		$2,684
Tapco4 contributions · 1.8% of ranked		$1,859

Donors’ employers

Employer as filed

Amount

Not employedWritten instead of an employer · 130 contributions · 38% of ranked

$40,272

RetiredWritten instead of an employer · 52 contributions · 17% of ranked

$17,657

Self-employedWritten instead of an employer · 10 contributions · 7.4% of ranked

$7,796

Kinetic Pursuit10 contributions · 5.7% of ranked

$6,033

First Responders Psych Services8 contributions · 3.1% of ranked

$3,300

GMI Solutions1 contribution · 2.8% of ranked

$3,000

GP8 contributions · 2.5% of ranked

$2,684

Tapco4 contributions · 1.8% of ranked

$1,859

Name		Amount
Wells Print & Digital Services3 payments · 38% of all spending		$87,038
Miller, Margaret8 payments · 7.7% of all spending		$17,848
Union Copy Centers, Inc.9 payments · 6.7% of all spending		$15,465
Vici Media LLC1 payment · 2.3% of all spending		$5,250
Integrated Solutions: Political8 payments · 2.2% of all spending		$5,024
Democratic Party of Wisconsin Federal1 payment · 2% of all spending		$4,677
ActBlue34 payments · 1.7% of all spending		$3,865
Civic Media1 payment · 1.7% of all spending		$3,850

Occupation as filed		Amount
Not employedWritten instead of an occupation · 133 contributions · 39% of ranked		$43,272
RetiredWritten instead of an occupation · 51 contributions · 15% of ranked		$16,657
Candidate14 contributions · 10% of ranked		$11,279
Psychotherapist8 contributions · 3% of ranked		$3,300
Owner3 contributions · 2.9% of ranked		$3,227
CEO1 contribution · 2.7% of ranked		$3,000
Scrum Master8 contributions · 2.4% of ranked		$2,684
Field Services4 contributions · 1.7% of ranked		$1,859

Brad Smith

SummaryAt a glance

Their wordsWhat does Smith say they will do?

1Priority 1: Forward ★Together 11 parts

1.1Priority 1.1: Family-Supporting Jobs 1 statement

1.2Priority 1.2: Affordable, Usable Healthcare as a Right 1 statement

1.3Priority 1.3: Education & Skills for Every Path 1 statement

1.4Priority 1.4: Protect Our Water & Energy Future 1 statement

1.5Priority 1.5: Stand with Workers & Skilled Trades 1 statement

1.6Priority 1.6: Safe and Sensible Gun Policies to Protect Our Communities 1 statement

1.7Priority 1.7: Keep Family Farms Strong 1 statement

1.8Priority 1.8: Protect Women’s Medical Rights 1 statement

1.9Priority 1.9: Protect LGBTQ+ Rights 1 statement

1.10Priority 1.10: Sustainable & Clean Energy for Our Future 1 statement

1.11Priority 1.11: A House That Represents the People 1 statement

2Priority 2: Flock Cameras, ALPR Tech and Community Privacy Policy 19 statements

1. Give Communities Control Over Surveillance Technology ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)

2. Limit Surveillance to Legitimate Law-Enforcement Investigations ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)

3. Protect Innocent People's Location Data ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)

4. Require Independent Auditing and Accountability ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)

5. Put Strict Rules on Flock and Other ALPR Vendors ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)

6. Establish Federal Privacy Standards While Enabling Stronger Local Protections ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy at this heading)

3Priority 3: Data Center Development and Community Protection 36 statements

1. Protect Families and Businesses From Higher Energy Costs ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

2. Protect Ratepayers From Stranded Infrastructure ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

3. Require Full Transparency Before Projects Are Approved ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

4. Stop NDAs From Keeping Communities in the Dark ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

5. Require Independent Impact Analysis ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

6. Protect Wisconsin's Water and Environment ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

7. Make Transmission Planning Transparent ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

8. Stop Tax Breaks and Corporate Subsidies for Data Centers ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

9. Hold Corporations Accountable for Existing Public Commitments ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

10. Protect Workers and Require Honest Job Commitments ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

11. Protect Local Control and Community Voice ↗ (opens bradsmithforcongress.com/flock-alpr-policy-1 at this heading)

4Priority 4: Good Jobs and Fair Wages 3 statements

5Priority 5: Healthcare 3 statements

6Priority 6: Education and Training for Every Path 3 statements

7Priority 7: AI and Data Centers 2 statements

8Priority 8: Flock/ALPR, Privacy, and Government Surveillance 4 statements

9Priority 9: Sustainability, Conservation, and Clean Energy 4 statements

10Priority 10: Housing 3 statements

11Priority 11: Workers and Unions 3 statements

12Priority 12: Family Farms and Rural Communities 3 statements

MoneyWho pays for the campaign, and where does it go?

Raised, spent and cash over time by FEC report

Where the money came from $322,261 reported receipts

Largest donors

EndorsementsWho does Smith’s campaign say backs them?

Officials 26

Unions 9

Organizations 7

People 5

BallotWhen is Smith on the ballot?

AboutWhere does this page come from?

Earlier cycles

Federal records

Campaign pages read 4 pages

Committees that gave

Where the donors live $110,597 placed by state

Home state and away

Top states

Donors’ employers as filed

Outside spending $29 about Smith

What the payments were for $178,130 itemized

Filed as

Paid to

Filed as

Paid to

Filed as

Paid to

Filed as

Paid to

Filed as

Paid to

Filed as

Paid to

Filed as

Paid to

Filed as

Paid to