According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 50 former judges, " asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to require judges and justices to step aside when hearing cases involving those who helped bankroll their elections."
This seems to be an idea that on its face is a great idea, but in reality it's face is a under an artificial disingenuous mask.
These jurists want to play the game under rules long ago deemed useless, sort of like setting up a basketball offense geared for two point baskets in a three point era.
No one disagrees about the influence of money in today's campaigns.
What these fine men & women seem to ignore is that the money spent on elections has both a positive and negative effect. If candidate A runs for office against candidate B and wins, the claim is that the money spent on the campaign of candidate A will effect their legal decision for the spender.
But lets say that candidate B wins. Would they not be just as inclined to allow the money spent against them to effect their legal decision as candidate A would have, except in the opposite way.
In the above scenario candidate A rules for the group who spent money for them and candidate B rules against group who spent money against them. The 50 jurists only want candidate A to fall under their new rules. It seems odd to me unless part two of their proposal which allows them to get back on the bench is the real reason for their recommendation.