On March 17, 2026, Democratic State Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) and Rep. Brienne Brown (D-Whitewater) introduced a three-bill legislative package in Wisconsin aimed at “support[ing] local journalism.”
The bills include:
- A new state tax credit for Wisconsin residents who subscribe to local newspapers.
- Creation of a Civic Information Consortium that would award grant funding to local journalism and media projects across the state.
- A Journalism Fellowship Program housed at the University of Wisconsin to train beginning journalists.
The sponsors’ stated goal is to reverse the decline of local newsrooms, prevent “news deserts” in rural and suburban areas, and protect “robust, independent journalism” that holds local government accountable. They cite national statistics showing that nearly 40% of local newspapers have closed and that more than 75% of newspaper jobs have disappeared since 2005. Rep. Brown, a former journalist, framed the package as a direct response to media consolidation that began in the 1990s dot-com era, when corporations bought up papers and replaced on-the-ground reporting with “recycled content and social media noise.”
These proposals are simply bailouts because they use taxpayer dollars (through tax credits or direct grants) to prop up an industry whose traditional business model has been collapsing for decades. The core argument is that government should not subsidize failing private businesses—especially media outlets—rather than let market forces (digital subscriptions, new revenue models, or consolidation) sort out winners and losers. Awarding grant funding to ‘local journalism’ would simply create a system of picking winners and losers based on the coverage that is being provided. Tax-credit or grant schemes repeatedly get called out for directing money to legacy brands rather than innovation or new reporters. Furthermore, an industry being propped up by the government would be expected to play nice with its benefactor. Putting journalists on the public payroll is one of the worst subsidies a state could adopt. There are reasonable concerns that grants labeled “local news” can slide into funding advocacy or partisan coverage while receiving state money.
This bill package would have the state government stepping in to pay for subscriptions, newsroom operations, and journalist training that consumers and advertisers are no longer willing to fund at previous levels. Because the beneficiaries are overwhelmingly traditional/local news outlets (often left-leaning), it is viewed as both corporate welfare and a potential threat to any remaining journalistic independence—subsidized outlets may feel pressure to provide positive coverage with the politicians writing the checks. Or worse yet, this is Brown and Sprietzer’s way of thanking the leftist media for all of its years of favorable coverage. Regardless of the motive, government funding equals government influence.
This is not the first time these bills have been pushed by legislators on the left. Badger Institute covered these bills when they were introduced last session.
