Chicago City Wire

A Wisconsin court has decided to allow a lawsuit against Attorney General Josh Kaul to proceed. The case challenges the use of a Special Assistant Attorney General (SAAG) funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg's program. On August 8, the Calumet County Circuit Court denied Kaul’s request to dismiss the lawsuit filed in February by state dairy groups. The court said that the plaintiffs have a legal interest in contesting what they see as an illegal expenditure of taxpayer funds.

The lawsuit, brought by the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance and Venture Dairy Cooperative, argues that the SAAG's placement allows private interests undue influence over Wisconsin's Department of Justice. Cindy Leitner, president of the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance, expressed concerns about special interest groups affecting state attorneys' decisions. The plaintiffs claim that Karen Heineman, the SAAG in question, is more aligned with the NYU program funding her salary than with Wisconsin residents.

This development comes amid a broader investigation by Congress into Bloomberg’s NYU program. In July, the House Oversight Committee began examining NYU’s State Energy and Environmental Impact Center and Bloomberg Philanthropies for alleged partisan activities involving state attorneys general. Lawmakers are concerned that these initiatives may compromise independent state legal work by aligning it with external donors' agendas.

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul | Official website

In other states, Bloomberg-funded fellows have led climate lawsuits and collaborated with environmental activists, raising questions about whether public offices are being used for private policy goals. Although AG Kaul has not yet pursued a climate lawsuit against oil and gas companies, there is pressure from activists within Wisconsin.

The court's decision means Wisconsin taxpayers might soon learn more about who influences their Department of Justice. With Congress investigating the larger Bloomberg-NYU initiative, this issue extends beyond local concerns to question whether attorneys general serve their constituents or external benefactors.

Information from this article can be found here.