As the Wisconsin Staten Island race heats up, the battle between incumbent Democrat Tammy Baldwin and her challenger, Republican businessman Eric Hovde, is drawing attention not only for its high stakes but also for the financial controversies surrounding both candidates.

Baldwin, a veteran Democratic politician, is facing a formidable opponent in Hovde, a wealthy businessman who has made headlines for his criticisms of Baldwin’s financial disclosures. Hovde’s campaign argues that Baldwin has potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding her financial dealings with her partner, Maria Brisbane, a Wall Street private wealth management advisor.

Baldwin and Brisbane co-own a $1.3 million penthouse condo in Washington, D.C., yet Baldwin has not listed these joint assets on her financial disclosure reports. This omission is notable given Baldwin’s past advocacy for financial transparency and regulation. In 2015, Baldwin introduced the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act, which sought to address the “revolving door” between Wall Street and government, aiming to prevent conflicts of interest among federal officials. At the time, Baldwin emphasized the need for transparency to avoid cozy relationships between government officials and the financial industry, which she argued could undermine public trust and regulatory integrity.

Despite her previous stance, Baldwin’s current financial practices are under scrutiny. Brisbane, who runs the Brisbane Group, has a history of investing in biotechnology, a sector that Baldwin has been actively involved in as a senator. Baldwin’s role in securing funding for biotech initiatives, including her position as chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which Baldwin’s subcommittee oversees, is a major source of funding for biotech companies. Critics are concerned that Baldwin’s involvement in directing federal funds to this sector could benefit her partner’s business.

Baldwin’s campaign asserts that her financial disclosures are in compliance with legal requirements and that she has consistently supported important research and development initiatives. In a recent press release, Baldwin touted her efforts to secure over $49 million to boost Wisconsin’s biohealth economy, claiming this will spur significant economic development in the state. She has also emphasized her dedication to cancer and Alzheimer’s research, which align with her advocacy for biotechnology.

On the other hand, Hovde’s campaign is capitalizing on Baldwin’s perceived inconsistencies. Hovde, who is currently trailing Baldwin by nearly seven points in polls, has criticized Baldwin for not fully disclosing her financial ties and has accused her of using her office to benefit her partner’s business ventures. Hovde’s campaign spokesman, Ben Voelkel, has called for more scrutiny into Baldwin’s financial dealings, suggesting that the senator’s actions may reflect broader issues with insider influence and special interests in Washington.

Adding to the controversy, Baldwin has faced accusations from Democrats regarding Hovde’s alleged tax evasion. The race has become one of the most expensive congressional contests this year, with Democrats outspending Republicans two to one. The Cook Political Report rates the race as leaning Democrat, indicating Baldwin’s strong position despite the challenges.

As the election approaches, both candidates are facing intense scrutiny. For Baldwin, the focus is on clarifying her financial practices and defending her record of supporting essential research and economic development. For Hovde, the challenge is to leverage his criticisms and capitalize on any potential ethical issues to sway voters.

In the broader context, the Wisconsin Senate race is not just about the candidates’ policies but also about their financial transparency and ethical conduct. As voters head to the polls, the outcome may hinge on which candidate they trust to manage conflicts of interest and prioritize the public good.