Time for some shit you need to know.
Starting things off, Mandela Barnes proposes blocking use of AI to boost consumer prices.
Democratic candidate for Governor Mandela Barnes is proposing to seek measures, if elected, to bar companies from using artificial intelligence to drive up prices or limit access to services for consumers.
The former Lieutenant Governor's proposal includes measures to ban companies like Instacart and Walmart from using AI to implement dynamic pricing, prevent health insurers from using the technology to deny insurance claims, and fine companies like Meta for enabling e-commerce scammers according to a proposal shared by his campaign.
The proposal read billionaires and greedy corporations are using AI to rip off Wisconsin families.
Insurers are using AI to deny health care claims and raise premiums.
Large grocers like Walmart are setting different prices for the same goods based on your internet history.
How would he implement such rules?
Well, that's still unclear.
A campaign spokesman said Barnes would work with the legislature to pass the AI regulations, which would be enforced by the State Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection in cooperation with the State Department of Justice.
I hate dynamic pricing.
Yes.
I would especially hate it on my groceries, so that makes sense.
I also think too many people are getting denied for health care claims, just like if you're trying to get a job.
people never see your healthcare claim.
It's fed into a computer and there we go.
So I love these kinds of plans.
I'm always skeptical.
Democratic gubernatorial candidates start rolling out more plans as we get closer and closer to a primary actual election.
I love that they're actually thinking about the fairness and the economics of it all, trying to make it better for all Wisconsinites, right?
They really are starting to lay out plans that is all about the fairness and making sure that corporations are not taking advantage of people right here in Wisconsin.
So I am excited to see more from all of them as the primary season progresses.
Yes,
I will say too, the one thing that I've been impressed about before we get to this next story is the fact that no matter who you're supporting in this primary season on the Democratic side, if you are supporting any of them or you're still trying to make up your mind, they are doing the real work and they are getting out.
Every single one of them is doing work all across the state going into communities talking with real voters.
So I can appreciate that as well.
Yay for politicking well.
Anyway, we do have more stuff you need to know.
Officials with the village of Hobart.
That is a area
just west of Green Bay, have filed an appeal of a judge's decision against the village in its ongoing dispute with the Oneida Nation.
The action is the latest in the more than 20 year feud between the village and the tribal nation.
Nearly the entire non-tribal village of Hobart lies within Oneida Reservation Boundaries.
As the tribal nation buys land in the village, it's moving to transfer it to a federal trust, meaning that it can't be taxed nor policed by the village, which
is a common designation for more than the 500 federally recognized tribal nations within the United States.
This latest case, though, centers on 21 parcels that totals about 500 acres.
It was about to be moved into a federal trust for the benefit of the Oneida Nation by the U.S.
Department of Interior.
The move was challenged, though, in court by the village back in 2023.
In a December 2, 2025,
ruling the U.S.
District Judge William C. Greysbach for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Green Bay said he sympathized with Hobart's concerns, but only Congress could change the situation.
So the appeal process could take several more months.
Growing up in South Dakota, a good
good chunk of the state is reservation for the Sioux nation.
And so these were the types of battles that I saw all the time.
And it was so funny because of the tribal boundaries, just what we're saying here about policing and basically being sovereign nation, there was only so much that the other communities could do.
And they literally would get to a line and be like, hey, we can't cross.
There's nothing we can do here unless you invite us in.
And so I've seen these types of
arguments a lot in my life over the last few years.
All right, this is the big story.
Law enforcement officers who protected the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021 sued the Trump administration yesterday to block implementation of a newly created $1.8 billion fund for allies of President Trump, who they say were unfairly investigated by previous administrations.
Hold on while I cry one big tear for the insurrections.
The lawsuit was brought in federal court by Harry Dunn, a former member of the US Capitol Police, and Daniel Hodges, a current member of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department.
The lawsuit claims that the new fund runs afoul of the US Constitution and federal law.
Now, the men say the fund will potentially be used to pay individuals who participated in the attack and finance various paramilitary organizations in the country if allowed to make...
allowed to begin making payments.
The fund will directly finance the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened plaintiffs' lives that day and continue to do so, according to lawyers for Dun and Hodges.
That was part of their 29-page suit.
It went on to say, militias like the Proud Boys will use money from the fund to arm and equip themselves.
The fund will grant their past acts of violence legal imprimatur, the lawsuit claims.
Wow.
Yeah, it needs now How far will it go?
We don't know We know that if it if it were to make its way up to the Supreme Court Who knows how it would play out because of past things but just
On a very basic level and I know we've said this before but sometimes we just have to keep hammering something on a very basic common-sense level Paying these criminals is itself criminal, right?
This is not this these are not people who these are not reparations being paid to African-Americans or Native Americans or another oppressed people These are people who were taken to court for good reason
If you go in and you defile the desk of the speaker or someone in the Senate or you're carrying a Confederate flag through the rotunda after you broke a window, you're trying to break down the doors of the Senate chamber.
You don't deserve reparations.
You deserve jail time.
You didn't deserve to be pardoned.
You didn't deserve your weak sauce defenses.
None of that.
So I'm glad this lawsuit has been filed.
Because here's the thing though, right?
I mean, there is a lot of what aboutism that happens in this country.
And you know, you go all the way back to the Black Lives Batters protest after we watched George Floyd be killed.
And there were so many people across this country who were appalled by those people protesting.
And yes, there were times it got violent, right?
There were times in some cities, Minneapolis is a great case of that.
It did get violent, but then there were people who were appalled by that, but then there were people who thought that these were just tourists and that what they did that day was okay.
So think about the precedent that this is sending.
If you were not okay with the protests of George Floyd, but you're okay with the protesters or the insurrectionists from January 6th, and now you're okay with using taxpayer money to pay these off, think about what happens when there's another president in office.
is this the precedent that we're going to set?
Because if you're not okay with one, you shouldn't be okay with the other.
And if we're going to set that type of precedent, we're gonna say, it's okay to attack police officers, but please don't scream about defunding the police.
These are all things that you have to think about in your argument when we're talking about this, right?
Because one thing is not like the other, and you can't say one is okay, but the other is okay.
That's not how this works.
the black lives matter.
Yeah.
Does everybody's lives matter?
That's not the point.
So back to this lawsuit, they're saying that this this decision to set up this slush fund
violated federal rulemaking laws, and that law is the Administrative Procedure Act, and that allows individuals to challenge some government decision-making.
The lawyers for Don and Hodges say the officials violated it by not following a different provision of federal law that says the government can only settle lawsuits after the Attorney General agrees that such payment, quote, is in the interest of the United States, and they are arguing that it is not.
I would support their argument.
This payment
is extortion from the administration, in my opinion, to make sure I'll drop this lawsuit against my own government, but you still gotta pay me.
And it is, come on.
If you don't think this is, a majority of this is going to he and his cronies and not, you know, Johnny Yahoo, who was screaming and yelling on January 6th, you haven't been paying attention.
