Rep. Francesca Hong: Legislative Record, Campaign Donors, and Public Bank Proposal
Legislative Voting Record and Key Policy Positions (2021–Present)
Overview: Since assuming office in January 2021, Rep. Francesca Hong (D–Madison) has established a progressive record in the Wisconsin State Assembly. She consistently advocates for working-class interests and social equity across policy areas. Hong co-founded the Legislature’s Asian American Pacific Islander caucus and joined the small Democratic Socialist caucus, signaling her alignment with progressive values. She has sponsored or co-sponsored bills on labor rights, education, economic justice, and civil rights, often in opposition to the GOP-controlled legislature. Below is a breakdown of her positions and legislative actions on key issues:
Labor and Workers’ Rights
Hong is a staunch pro-labor voice. She emphasizes “building working class power” and believes “the system is rigged” against ordinary workers. In 2023 she reintroduced an Economic Justice Bill of Rights resolution (with Rep. Kristina Shelton) that explicitly calls for “a job that provides dignity…and pays a living wage” and “the right to a union…and collective bargaining” as fundamental rights. Hong supports raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing paid family leave. She has opposed GOP measures that she views as undermining unions (Wisconsin’s Act 10 curtailing public-sector bargaining is an example of what she seeks to counter). In line with this, Hong joined colleagues in commemorating labor history and has publicly celebrated unions’ role in securing the eight-hour workday. Her voting record reflects pro-union positions; for instance, she voted against state budgets or bills that did not include prevailing wage protections or sufficient worker funding. Hong has been vocal in committee and on the floor about protecting worker rights and expanding collective bargaining, consistently siding with labor unions on key votes (e.g. opposing right-to-work expansions or restrictions on project labor agreements).
Healthcare and Social Welfare
Rep. Hong advocates for expanding healthcare access and other social safety nets. She has denounced efforts by Republicans to “gut…health care from working people” and has argued that Wisconsinites deserve better coverage. Hong supports accepting federal Medicaid expansion funds (long resisted by Wisconsin GOP) and has backed proposals for universal affordable healthcare. The Economic Justice Bill of Rights resolution she co-authored declares that “affordable, accessible, and comprehensive high-quality health care” is a right. Hong has highlighted real-world impacts of hospital closures and high insurance costs, noting constituents worry about losing care; she has said “health care is very real for folks…we have policies that will make health insurance cheaper”. In the Assembly, Hong voted against the 2023–25 state budget in part because it failed to bolster healthcare and caregiver programs. Beyond healthcare, Hong champions broader welfare policies: she frequently speaks about child care, elder care, and nutrition. She has been “a champion for providing school breakfasts and lunches to all students free of charge”, co-sponsoring bills to establish universal free school meals. Her “Care Economy” platform calls for treating child care and elder care as critical infrastructure – ensuring caregivers are supported and that affordable care is available to all families. Hong’s voting record on social services aligns with this philosophy (e.g. voting to increase child care subsidies, fund public health, and expand food assistance programs).
Financial and Economic Policy
Hong describes herself as dedicated to economic justice and often speaks about a rigged economy that requires bold change. In the legislature she has pushed for policies to empower small businesses and local economies. For example, she helped introduce a bill to create a Wisconsin state public bank to provide affordable loans to local enterprises (detailed in Part 4 below). Hong’s Economic Justice resolution asserts the right to “equitable access to capital, investments, [and] financial institutions” for all citizens – a direct response to the lack of financing available in underserved communities. She has blasted corporate tax breaks and pushed instead for investments in working families. In 2021, Hong voted against a Republican tax cut package that largely benefited the wealthy and instead advocated using surplus funds for COVID-19 economic relief, education, and infrastructure. She supports progressive taxation and closing corporate loopholes to fund public needs (consistent with her calls for redistribution of wealth to the new majority of working people). Hong’s record shows her priority is local, inclusive growth: she favors directing state resources to small farms, startups, cooperatives, and community development rather than multinational corporations. Notably, she emphasizes combating corporate concentration – for instance, criticizing how a handful of meatpacking conglomerates dominate markets at farmers’ expense. This focus underpins her public banking proposal to boost local entrepreneurs and family farms with credit access.
Civil Rights and Social Equity
As the daughter of Korean immigrants, Hong has been a prominent voice on civil rights and inclusion. Early in her term, she authored a law requiring Wisconsin schools to teach Hmong and Asian American history as part of the curriculum. This bipartisan Act (which Hong led as a freshman legislator) aims to combat ignorance and honor the contributions of Asian communities in Wisconsin. Hong also co-founded the Legislative Asian Caucus to elevate issues facing AAPI residents. More broadly, she consistently advocates for communities of color, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized groups. Hong co-authored a 2021 bill to prohibit state and local officials from cooperating with ICE on immigration raids in public buildings without a warrant – a civil liberties measure to protect immigrant families. She has supported reforms to address racial disparities in policing and the justice system. In the Economic Justice Bill of Rights, Hong and colleagues included “freedom from…racial, religious, and gender oppression” and a “fair, restorative, and equitable justice system” as core principles. Hong’s platform explicitly mentions protecting “immigrant communities and LGBTQ+ rights” as a priority. She has spoken out against voter suppression and supported efforts to restore voting rights to formerly incarcerated people, aligning with her commitment to democratic inclusion. On every major civil rights vote – whether it be nondiscrimination protections, voting access, or police accountability – Hong has voted on the side of expanding rights and equality. For example, she voted against bills that restrict discussion of racial equity in schools, and for resolutions honoring Black history and LGBTQ Pride. Hong frames these issues as matters of basic human dignity: “everyone must have their humanity respected and dignity upheld”, she writes in her platform.
Public Safety and Criminal Justice
Hong supports criminal justice reform and demand for accountability in law enforcement. Her platform states that “those supposed to protect us must be held to the highest standard, not the lowest”. She has advocated returning more control of policing policies to local communities (opposing state-level preemption of local police reforms). For instance, when Republican legislators sought to penalize cities like Milwaukee for reallocating police funding, Hong stood firmly for local autonomy, arguing one-size state mandates undermine community trust. She supports initiatives for independent oversight of police misconduct and has backed legislation to ban no-knock warrants and require body cameras. Hong also emphasizes preventative community safety: she often links economic security with public safety, arguing that “if people have their basic needs met, we will see safer communities”. In line with this philosophy, she co-sponsored packages to invest in violence prevention programs, mental health services, and alternatives to incarceration. Hong has criticized the heavy-handed approach of simply increasing criminal penalties; for example, she voted against a set of bills in 2022 that increased incarceration for minor offenses without addressing root causes. Instead, she introduced (with Sen. Chris Larson) a bill to reform Wisconsin’s probation and parole system to be more rehabilitative. The Economic Justice framework she supports calls for a “fair, restorative…justice system” that reduces inequities. Hong has also been vocal in defending the rights of protestors and opposing excessive force (notably speaking out during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests). Overall, her voting record shows alignment with progressive criminal justice goals – favoring rehabilitation, oversight, and community-based solutions over punitive measures.
Housing and Housing Affordability
Hong views affordable housing as part of economic justice. In her Economic Justice resolution, she insists on “safe, affordable housing” as a right for Wisconsin communities. To that end, she has supported tenants’ rights legislation and measures to curb real estate speculation. In the 2023–24 session, Hong co-sponsored Assembly Bill 213 to prohibit hedge funds and private equity firms from mass-purchasing single-family homes in Wisconsin. This bill, which Hong and progressive colleagues introduced, targeted large investors driving up housing costs by buying local homes – reflecting Hong’s priority to keep housing available for families rather than for profit portfolios. She has also backed expanding the state housing tax credit and increasing funding for low-income housing development. Hong fought the GOP’s 2021 proposal to end the eviction moratorium without any tenant assistance, and instead advocated for emergency rental relief and longer notice periods for evictions. In addition, Hong supports strengthening the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) to build more affordable units. Infrastructure is a related focus: Hong has stated that “decent…community infrastructure including safe, affordable housing [and] transportation” is essential to quality of life. She voted in favor of Gov. Tony Evers’ 2021 plan to invest $50+ million in affordable housing initiatives (a plan Republicans largely stripped down). Hong’s consistent stance is pro-tenant and pro-community: she has opposed efforts to preempt local rental regulations and supported allowing cities to enact stronger housing protections. While most of her housing bills have not passed in the Republican-controlled legislature, they clearly outline a legislative agenda centered on housing affordability and anti-monopoly measures in real estate.
Education Policy
Education has been a centerpiece of Hong’s legislative work. As a mother and a public school advocate, she ran on reversing Wisconsin’s decade-long disinvestment in K-12 education. “Wisconsin has defunded public education since 2008 and it is past time we fully fund our public schools,” Hong’s platform declares. In office, she has repeatedly pushed for greater school funding: notably, in 2023 she voted against the biennial state budget and urged fellow Democrats to do the same because it included “no increases in general state aid to Wisconsin’s public schools”. (The final GOP-authored budget provided essentially zero increase in school revenue limits, which Hong called unacceptable.) She has championed the idea of returning Wisconsin to two-thirds state funding of public schools and restoring funding for programs like special education. Hong has also been a vocal opponent of expanding private school voucher programs at the expense of public schools. Beyond funding, Hong’s legislative initiatives include ensuring inclusivity and student well-being. Her successful bill to mandate Asian American history in curricula (mentioned above) is one example of her advocacy for a more inclusive curriculum. She also co-sponsored bills to require teaching the history of the civil rights movement and the Holocaust, underlining her commitment to education that builds understanding. Hong is a strong proponent of universal school meals – she introduced legislation to provide free breakfast and lunch to all K-12 students, arguing that no child can learn hungry (and she frequently cites the success of such programs during the pandemic). Additionally, she backs efforts to improve mental health services in schools and reduce class sizes. Her committee assignments include the Assembly Education Committee (2023–24), where she has used her position to question cuts to university funding and defend academic freedom. In higher education, Hong supports tuition freezes and increasing state support for the University of Wisconsin system. Overall, her record and votes consistently favor strengthening public education, expanding equity (e.g. opposing classroom censorship bills), and supporting educators and students with the resources they need.
Committee Assignments: In the Assembly, Hong has served on committees that align with her policy interests. For the 2021–22 session she was assigned to Labor and Integrated Employment, Small Business Development, Rural Development, Audit, and the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. In 2023–24, her committee posts included Education, State Affairs, Labor and Integrated Employment, and continuing on Joint Audit. These roles have given her a platform to influence labor policy and scrutinize government spending. For example, on the Labor committee Hong has uplifted worker testimony on issues like wage theft and workforce development, and on Joint Audit she has pushed for audits into potentially mismanaged economic development programs.
Campaign Donors by Election Cycle (2020, 2022, 2024)
Rep. Hong’s campaign fundraising has been relatively modest and grassroots-driven, reflecting the scale of a state Assembly race and her Madison-area district’s strong progressive base. Below is a detailed look at her political donors in each election cycle, including top individual contributors, PAC support, and the industries backing her.
Overall Fundraising: Hong was first elected in 2020, winning 88% of the vote in a Democratic district. According to official finance reports, her 2020 campaign raised about $65,700 and spent $57,600. In 2022, as an incumbent running essentially unopposed, she raised roughly $97,500 and spent about $98,000. For 2024, Hong’s Assembly re-election campaign (again facing no serious opposition) raised around $81,600. These totals underscore that Hong’s fundraising relies on many small donors – for example, in 2022 she had over 1,000 individual donors giving an average of ~$63 each. We break down the key contributors below:
2020 Election Cycle – Top Contributors
Hong’s 2020 campaign was fueled largely by individual donors, many from within her Madison community. Small donations under $100 accounted for about 43% of her funds. Notably, 100% of her contributions came from individuals (she reported $0 in self-funding and very minimal PAC money). Her top individual contributors in 2020 were friends, family, and local supporters: for example, Jinkuk and Youngjoo Hong (likely her family members) gave $1,600, and the Kim family of Madison (one a UW Medical School employee, another a bartender) gave $1,250. Other leading donors included local entrepreneurs and activists such as Preston Austin (a Madison tech entrepreneur, $1,000) and Nicole Schmies (an advertising professional, $875). The table below lists Hong’s top ten donors in 2020:
Top 2020 Donors (Individuals) City (Affiliation) Amount
Jinkuk & Youngjoo Hong Madison, WI (UW–Madison) $1,600
Kim Family (multiple members) Madison, WI (Univ. & service industry) $1,250
Preston Austin Madison, WI (Tech entrepreneur) $1,000
Nicole Schmies Madison, WI (Advertising) $875
Katie Belanger Madison, WI (Strategies LLC owner) $750
Murray Kapell Madison, WI (Unemployed/retired) $750
Tami Lax Madison, WI (Restaurant owner) $750
Patrick Sweeney Madison, WI (Hospitality business) $600
Mark Griffin Madison, WI (UW Energy Institute) $536
Art Kohl Riggs Dane, WI (Videographer) $502
Table: Top individual contributors to Hong’s 2020 Assembly campaign.
Hong received only a handful of PAC contributions in 2020, totaling about $6,579 (just 10% of her funds). Major PAC supporters included progressive and labor groups. For instance, the Wisconsin Working Families Party and Voces de la Frontera Action did not contribute directly to her campaign but spent small independent amounts supporting her (approximately $895 and $6,160 respectively in the primary/general). The Madison Teachers Inc. (MTI) Voters PAC and local labor union PACs made modest donations as well (on the order of only a few hundred dollars). Interest-group breakdown: Hong’s donor base in 2020 was heavy on education, service industry, and progressive cause contributors. A Wisconsin Democracy Campaign analysis shows the largest share of her identifiable contributions came from the education sector (~$6,475), hospitality/entertainment ($5,857), and ideological or issue-based donors ($4,849) – alongside many retirees and small business owners. In sum, Hong’s first campaign was powered by many small gifts from educators, restaurateurs, and activists in her district, with virtually no big corporate money.
2022 Election Cycle – Top Contributors
In 2022, Hong ran for re-election and again won overwhelmingly (98% of the vote). Her fundraising that cycle totaled $97.5k, up from 2020, though she still relied on numerous small donors. OpenSecrets data indicate “organization unavailable” contributions of $56,786 – essentially donations from individuals not tied to any major employer or PAC – which accounts for the bulk of her 2022 funds. Hong’s campaign was proudly grassroots, but she did receive support from a few labor and issue PACs. The table below shows the top reported contributors for 2022:
Top 2022 Contributors Type Amount
Individual Donors (unitemized) Various small contributions $56,786
National Association of Realtors PAC Business PAC (Real estate) $1,850
National Education Association (NEA) PAC Union PAC (Education) $1,000
Service Employees International Union PAC Union PAC (Labor) $1,000
American Federation of Gov. Employees PAC Union PAC (Labor) $1,000
Table: Top contributors to Hong’s 2022 campaign, highlighting major PAC donations. Most of Hong’s funds came from individual donors (over $56k), with relatively small amounts from a few organizations.
As shown, labor unions and education groups were among the only large contributors: for example, the National Education Association (the nation’s largest teachers’ union) and SEIU each gave $1,000. The National Association of Realtors PAC contributed $1,850. These figures are relatively low, underscoring that Hong did not draw big-dollar donors – even the top PAC gave under $2k. Hong also received support from Wisconsin-based groups like MTI (Madison teachers) and local labor councils, although those contributions were often a few hundred dollars and thus not individually listed among top totals. Industry-wise, Hong’s 2022 donor profile remained similar to 2020: education was the largest source (about $3,746 from individuals in education fields) and public-sector unions next (~$3,066). She continued to get backing from progressive issue organizations and many small in-district donors. Hong’s fundraising was notable for its high donor count (1,049 contributors in 2022) and low average donation, reflecting broad grassroots support rather than big checks.
2024 Election Cycle – Top Contributors
Hong was last re-elected in November 2024 (unopposed in the general election). Her Assembly campaign fundraising for that cycle was in line with prior races: Ballotpedia reports about $81,632 raised and $78,624 spent in 2024. Detailed contributor data for 2024 show a continuation of her funding base trends. A significant portion came from individual supporters in Madison, often in small-dollar increments. Hong also saw support from labor and progressive PACs consistent with her track record. For instance, the Madison Teachers Inc. (MTI) Voters PAC – affiliated with the local teachers’ union – was reported as one of the larger PAC donors in 2023–24, contributing to her campaign (labor unions collectively were a key source). Similarly, Democratic and progressive groups that align with her platform (such as the state Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood Advocates, etc.) provided some financial backing. Though precise rankings of 2024 donors are not readily published, it’s clear Hong did not suddenly attract corporate money; her donors remained community-focused. Public reports indicate that through the end of 2024, Hong’s campaign committee (Friends of Francesca Hong) had raised roughly $86,900 for that cycle. Contributors included local small-business owners, university employees, and activists who have consistently backed her. Hong’s fundraising approach for 2024 also likely benefited from her rising profile as she launched a campaign for governor in late 2025 – some supporters may have given with an eye on her broader ambitions. Importantly, Hong’s clean-money image holds: even by 2024, she avoided taking donations from large corporations or industries contrary to her policy agenda. The finance/real estate industry remained a negligible source of funds (aside from individual realtors or cooperative developers sympathetic to her housing stance), and no big pharmaceutical or insurance contributions appear in her filings given her advocacy for healthcare reform. In summary, across 2020, 2022, and 2024, Rep. Hong’s donor list has been dominated by individuals (neighbors, friends, and small donors) and union or issue-based PACs, with virtually no contributions from major corporate PACs. This aligns with her positioning as a progressive outsider focused on people-powered politics.
Alignment of Hong’s Platform with Founding Fathers’ Ideals
Rep. Hong’s policy positions, speeches, and especially her public banking proposal often invoke themes that resonate with core ideals of the U.S. Founding Fathers – such as democratic governance, liberty, economic self-determination, wariness of concentrated power, and the prudent use of public credit. Below is a critical assessment of how Hong’s vision connects to those foundational principles:
Democratic Governance: Hong consistently emphasizes government “that works for” ordinary people. This reflects the Founders’ ideal of a representative democracy responsive to its citizens. Just as figures like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine championed participatory governance, Hong seeks to “bring working class people together to foster a government that works for them”. Her coalition-building approach – “meeting folks where they are” and valuing the voices of diverse citizens – echoes the democratic ethos of the Revolutionary era. She is essentially arguing for governance by the many rather than the few, a sentiment the Founders enshrined in the Constitution and in principles like consent of the governed.
Liberty: Hong often frames her agenda in terms of fundamental American freedoms. In reintroducing the Economic Justice Bill of Rights, she explicitly invoked “the American promise of a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” quoting those famous words from the Declaration of Independence. This shows Hong grounding her modern policy aims (economic security, healthcare, etc.) in the Founders’ concept of liberty – not only freedom from tyrannical government, but freedom to live with dignity and opportunity. Moreover, Hong’s defense of civil liberties (for immigrants, voters, marginalized groups) aligns with the liberty interests the Founders articulated, albeit expanded to “everyone’s human dignity” regardless of background. Her fight to ensure individuals can “live free from fear of…oppression” is a direct modern reflection of the liberty the Founding Fathers championed in breaking from monarchy.
Economic Self-Determination: A key theme in Hong’s platform is empowering people to shape their own economic destiny – for example, family farmers and small businesses gaining independence from monopolistic corporations. This ethos is reminiscent of Jeffersonian ideals of an agrarian republic of self-sufficient citizens. In fact, Thomas Jefferson feared that financial monopolies and distant elites could cripple the yeoman farmer’s independence; he warned that a central bank or concentrated finance might favor “financiers and merchants…over plantation owners and family farmers”. Hong’s policies respond to that exact concern: her proposals (like a state bank and anti-monopoly measures) strive to put economic power back in local hands, ensuring Wisconsinites – not outside corporations – control their fate. This is in harmony with the Founders’ emphasis on self-determination. Hong’s call for “equitable access to capital” means each citizen can pursue prosperity without being beholden to powerful banks or corporations, an idea very much in spirit with early American distrust of economic dependency (e.g. the Revolutionary rejection of mercantile monopolies).
Resistance to Concentrated Power: Hong frequently rails against “oligarchy” and concentrated corporate power, echoing a revolutionary wariness of tyranny in any form. The Founding Fathers fought centralized authority – originally the British Crown – and later many were cautious of concentrated economic power as well. Hong’s efforts to break up modern monopolies (whether in meatpacking, tech, or housing) and her alignment with figures like Bernie Sanders on the “Fight Oligarchy” message mirror this foundational principle. For instance, her Tailgate-flation plan highlights that four national meatpackers control 85% of beef packing – she views this as an unjust concentration hurting farmers and consumers. By proposing public interventions to spur competition and decentralize power, Hong is channeling an American tradition of distrust in monopolies (from the Boston Tea Party’s protest of the East India Company’s monopoly, to Jefferson’s opposition to Hamilton’s bank on grounds it could become a “financial monopoly”). In short, Hong’s critiques of today’s plutocracy and her push to redistribute power to the people strongly resonate with the Founders’ revolutionary stance against concentrated authority.
Public Credit and Banking: Hong’s signature economic proposal – a Wisconsin state public bank – reflects principles that date back to the founding of the Republic. Alexander Hamilton, as Treasury Secretary, argued for a national bank to “provide a safe place to keep public funds, offer credit to spur commerce, and act as the government’s fiscal agent”. He believed harnessing public credit was vital for the new nation’s prosperity. Hong’s public banking idea similarly seeks to leverage government credit for the public good: by pooling state funds to finance local development, she is essentially following Hamilton’s logic at a state level. At the same time, Hong’s vision incorporates the cautionary perspective of Jefferson and Madison, who worried that a centralized bank could favor elites. Hong’s proposed public bank is explicitly intended to combat elite control – it would “allow family farms, bakeries, meat processors, and butchers to access affordable capital”, rather than concentrating financial power in Wall Street or big banks. This approach aligns with founding ideals by using public credit to promote general welfare (a constitutional principle) while ensuring that credit is broadly accessible (preventing the sort of financial monopoly Jefferson feared). In essence, Hong’s public bank bridges founding philosophies: it takes Hamilton’s concept of a public bank as a tool of economic independence and steers it toward Jeffersonian ends of empowering the common farmer and worker. By proposing a public bank accountable to Wisconsin’s people, Hong also hearkens to the Founders’ commitment to public accountability in institutions. The U.S. Founders debated fiercely over a national bank’s constitutionality and role; Hong’s plan revives that spirit of debate, grounded in the principle that finance should serve liberty and the public interest.
In summary, Rep. Hong’s policy agenda – from working-class empowerment and universal programs to public banking – is deeply rooted in American foundational values. She frequently connects her vision to “the American Promise” of life and liberty for all, and she frames her reforms as a continuation of struggles against unchecked power that date to the nation’s founding. While the specific policies are modern and progressive, the ideals behind them – democracy, liberty, equality of opportunity, and checks on concentrated power – closely mirror those championed by the Founding Fathers.
Case for a Wisconsin Public Bank (Hong’s Proposal)
One of Francesca Hong’s hallmark proposals is to establish a Wisconsin state public bank. She argues this public bank would bolster the state’s economy by keeping resources local and providing affordable credit to Wisconsin communities – an idea inspired by the century-old Bank of North Dakota model. Below is a summary of how Hong’s proposed public bank would work, the legislative steps taken, who would benefit, and how it compares to North Dakota’s public bank in structure, outcomes, and safeguards:
How it Would Work: Hong’s vision is for a state-owned, state-run financial institution – tentatively called the Public Bank of Wisconsin – that would accept and deploy state funds for public benefit. In April 2024, Hong and two colleagues (Rep. Darrin Madison and Rep. Sue Conley) introduced Assembly Bill 1220, a bill to create this public bank. The legislation specifies forming a public banking authority that “organizes as a state-chartered bank supervised by the Division of Banking in the Department of Financial Institutions”. Notably, the bank would “generally accept deposits only of public moneys from the state”. In practical terms, this means Wisconsin’s tax revenues and state funds (that currently are deposited in private banks or short-term investments) would instead be deposited in the public bank. The bank could then leverage those deposits to extend loans and financing within Wisconsin. Hong has outlined that the bank’s mission would be to provide low-interest loans and credit lines to sectors that struggle under conventional banking: small farms, cooperative businesses, student loans, affordable housing projects, local governments, and so on. For example, under Hong’s “tailgate-flation” plan, the public bank would help “family farms, bakeries, meat processors, and butchers access affordable capital so they can sustainably grow their business” – increasing local food supply and lowering costs for consumers. The bank would not operate like a regular retail bank for consumers’ checking accounts; rather, it would partner with community banks and credit unions, act as a wholesale lender and backer, and fill gaps in lending for public-good projects.
Legislative Status: While AB 1220 was introduced late in the 2023–24 session (largely to spark discussion ahead of the 2025 session), it marks Wisconsin’s first serious legislative effort to create a state bank. The bill makes an appropriation to capitalize the bank (initial startup funding) and lays out governance structures. It garnered support from progressives in the Legislature, and Hong has made building public and political support for the bank a focal point of her platform going into her 2026 gubernatorial run. The intent is to have the bill ready for consideration in the next session, armed with grassroots backing. Hong has been campaigning across the state touting the benefits of a public bank, effectively making the case directly to voters even as official legislative movement awaits a more favorable political climate. In short, enabling legislation is on the table (cosponsored in the Senate by Sen. Chris Larson), but the public bank will require either a change in legislative control or substantial bipartisan buy-in to become law.
Who Would Benefit: The proposed public bank is pitched as a win-win for many stakeholders except perhaps big out-of-state banks. Small businesses and farms are front-and-center beneficiaries – they would gain a reliable source of low-cost loans. Hong argues that by financing local entrepreneurs and farmers, the public bank would “promote more competition locally, driving down [consumer] prices” and reducing Wisconsin’s dependence on national supply chains. Students and families could benefit if the bank offers student loan refinancing or college loans at lower rates (North Dakota’s bank has a longstanding student loan program, which Wisconsin could emulate). Municipalities and counties could borrow from the state bank for infrastructure projects (roads, schools, clean water systems) at interest rates below what private bond markets charge, saving local taxpayers money. Hong has noted that public banking could help fund affordable housing and renewable energy projects that traditional banks might overlook – benefiting communities through development and jobs. Additionally, Wisconsin’s Native nations and rural areas might see more investment; a public bank, not driven purely by profit, could intentionally lend to underserved regions for projects like broadband expansion or clinics. Importantly, the general public stands to gain from the bank’s success as well: any profits the public bank earns would belong to the state. In North Dakota, the state bank has regularly funneled earnings into the state treasury or special programs. Hong points to this model to say that instead of state deposits generating profits for Wall Street banks, a Wisconsin bank’s profits would “be returned to the public or reinvested locally”. Indeed, if successful, the bank’s earnings could boost Wisconsin’s general fund, potentially offsetting taxes or funding public schools (North Dakota, for instance, has received over $585 million in BND profits into its general fund since mid-century).
Comparisons to Bank of North Dakota (BND): The Bank of North Dakota – founded in 1919 and the only state-owned bank in the U.S. – is the proof of concept for Hong’s proposal. In terms of structure, Hong’s envisioned bank closely mirrors BND’s model. Like BND, it would be wholly owned by the state and the legal depository of state funds, using those deposits to fund in-state economic activity. BND’s example shows several key outcomes and safeguards:
Economic Outcomes: BND has been remarkably successful and stable. It has “turned a profit every year since its founding” over a century ago. In recent years, BND has reported record profits (net income of $191 million in 2022, for example) and impressive returns on investment (15–19% ROI). These profits have allowed BND to return significant funds to North Dakota’s budget – over $1 billion cumulatively has been given back to the state or used for public purposes since the 1940s. For a small state, this has been a major fiscal benefit, sometimes “saving the state from budget shortfalls” during downturns. Hong cites this outcome in arguing a Wisconsin bank could likewise become a revenue-generator for taxpayers rather than a cost. Moreover, BND has contributed to North Dakota having a very high number of community banks per capita and a robust small-business lending climate. Hong touts how BND “augments the lending capacity of private banks” rather than crowding them out, partnering on loans to extend credit farther. In Wisconsin, which has lost many community banks to mergers, a public bank could play a similar partnering role to boost local lending.
Structural Safeguards: North Dakota’s bank is structured to ensure prudent management and public oversight. It is overseen by the North Dakota Industrial Commission, composed of the Governor, Attorney General, and Agriculture Commissioner – meaning top elected officials are directly accountable for the bank. Additionally, BND has an advisory board including private bank executives to provide guidance. Hong’s AB 1220 outlines a governance board for the Wisconsin bank as well (likely including state officials and financial experts, per drafting documents). The Wisconsin bank would be chartered and regulated like any other bank by the state’s Division of Banking, subjecting it to professional supervision and examination. A key safeguard in both models is the deposit base: by law, BND takes deposits of state (and local) government funds, not arbitrary hot money. This stable deposit base (tax revenues, agency funds) makes the bank less volatile and not prone to bank runs by the general public. Likewise, Wisconsin’s bank would not be chasing risky markets; AB 1220 limits it to holding public deposits and lending for public purposes. North Dakota also prohibits BND from speculating in risky securities and historically has maintained conservative lending practices. Wisconsin’s proposal is expected to include similar statutory guardrails (e.g. possibly prohibiting the public bank from competing for ordinary retail deposits or engaging in risky derivatives). Another notable safeguard Hong supports is ensuring the public bank advances public policy goals – for example, AB 1220 includes a provision that the bank should only finance private projects if they have a “labor peace agreement” in place, meaning borrowers must have fair labor standards. This ties the bank’s activity to broader state interests (supporting good jobs) and avoids undercutting labor laws. Such conditions ensure the bank operates in the public interest and not simply as a state capitalist enterprise.
Comparative Structure: In broad strokes, Hong’s Public Bank of Wisconsin would function very similarly to BND. Both are “general-service” public banks – able to do a range of lending (student loans, business loans, infrastructure financing) but not operating retail branches. Both keep deposits local (BND holds roughly 15% of North Dakota bank deposits, all from state/local govt), and Wisconsin’s would do the same with state funds. One structural difference might be scale and focus: Wisconsin’s economy is larger and more diverse than North Dakota’s, so a Wisconsin public bank could have a larger asset base and potentially a broader portfolio (agriculture plus urban development, etc.). However, Hong often notes that North Dakota (a rural, conservative state) has successfully used public banking for everyone’s benefit, implying that Wisconsin can tailor the model to its needs just as effectively.
Safeguards and Risk Management: Critics sometimes worry about political interference or financial risk in a state-run bank. Hong responds by pointing to BND’s strong track record of safety: BND has high capital reserves and has maintained at least an “A” credit rating; it weathered the 2008 financial crisis smoothly and even stepped up lending when private banks pulled back. The Wisconsin bank would be designed with similar prudence. Being run by financial professionals under DFI supervision means standard banking regulations (capital requirements, loan loss provisions, audits) would apply. Public oversight is actually a strength – the bank’s mandate isn’t to chase maximal profit, but to meet public needs, which can prevent the kind of excessive risk-taking that led private banks into trouble. Additionally, because the bank’s shareholders are the people of Wisconsin, transparency would be expected: regular reports to the Legislature, audits by the Legislative Audit Bureau, and open meetings for any governing board. Hong emphasizes that public accountability will ensure the bank remains a public good.
In terms of specific safeguards, the North Dakota model offers a guide: BND is forbidden from making political donations or engaging in lobbying, keeping it out of unseemly influence games; it also limits its own activities to those that support (not compete with) local financial institutions. Hong has indicated Wisconsin’s bank would focus on partnership loans – for instance, co-financing a small business loan with a community bank by taking on part of the loan, thereby sharing risk and freeing up private banks’ capacity. This collaborative approach is a safeguard in itself, as it subjects loans to dual review (by the local bank and the public bank) and spreads risk. Moreover, by statute BND cannot loan directly to state legislators or statewide officials, preventing conflicts of interest; similar ethical rules would no doubt govern Wisconsin’s bank to avoid any self-dealing.
Conclusion – The Case to the Public: Hong makes the case for a Wisconsin public bank as an innovative yet proven tool to strengthen the state. She notes that right now, Wisconsin’s deposits and debt payments often flow to big financial institutions headquartered elsewhere – effectively exporting financial benefits. A public bank would “keep our money here”, multiply it in loans to Wisconsin communities, and recycle the profits back into Wisconsin’s economy. The Bank of North Dakota’s outcomes bolster her argument: for over 100 years, BND has supported North Dakota’s farmers and businesses, contributed to its fiscal health, and “provided local businesses improved access to credit [and] augmented the lending capacity of private banks”. Hong envisions the same for Wisconsin: easier financing for start-ups in Milwaukee, expanded dairy processing facilities in rural counties, more student loan refinancing for graduates staying in-state, and infrastructure loans that save towns money. All of this, she contends, aligns with Wisconsin’s populist traditions (she often invokes “Fighting Bob” LaFollette’s legacy of battling corporate power). By comparing the proposed Public Bank of Wisconsin with the Bank of North Dakota, Hong highlights a compelling combination of evidence and ideals: evidence that public banking can be run prudently and profitably, and the ideal that the public’s credit should serve public values like liberty, opportunity, and broadly shared prosperity – very much in line with the principles on which the United States was founded.
Bibliography (Chicago Style)
Primary Legislative Sources
Wisconsin State Legislature. Assembly Bill 1220 (2023–2024 Regular Session): Establishing the Public Bank of Wisconsin. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Legislature, 2024.
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau Reports and Committee Records (2021–2024 Sessions). Madison, WI.
Official Statements and Platforms
Hong, Francesca. Official Legislative Website and Press Releases. Wisconsin State Assembly, 2021–2025. https://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/76/hong/.
Hong, Francesca. Economic Justice Bill of Rights Resolution (with Rep. Kristina Shelton), 2023.
Hong, Francesca. “Care Economy Platform.” Campaign materials, 2022–2024.
Campaign Finance Data
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Campaign Finance Summaries and Contribution Databases: Francesca Hong (2020, 2022, 2024). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, accessed 2025. https://www.wisdc.org.
OpenSecrets. State-Level Campaign Finance: Francesca Hong. Center for Responsive Politics, 2020–2024. https://www.opensecrets.org.
Wisconsin Ethics Commission. Friends of Francesca Hong – Campaign Finance Reports (2020–2024). Madison, WI.
Ballotpedia. “Francesca Hong.” Accessed 2025. https://ballotpedia.org/Francesca_Hong.
Comparative Banking Models and Economic Research
Bank of North Dakota. Annual Reports and Financial Statements, 2019–2024. Bismarck, ND: Bank of North Dakota.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. “The Bank of North Dakota: A Model for Public Banking?” Minneapolis, MN: Federal Reserve, 2021.
Public Banking Institute. Public Banking Overview and State-Level Initiatives. Berkeley, CA: PBI, 2024.
Media Coverage and Secondary Sources
Wisconsin Examiner. “Francesca Hong Reintroduces Economic Justice Bill of Rights.” Madison, WI, 2023.
Wisconsin Watch. “Progressive Lawmakers Propose Public Bank to Boost Local Economies.” Madison, WI, April 2024.
Cap Times. “Rep. Hong Pushes Economic Justice and Care Economy.” Madison, WI, 2023.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Wisconsin Lawmakers Debate Public Bank Modeled on North Dakota.” Milwaukee, WI, 2024.
Historical and Philosophical Context
Jefferson, Thomas. Writings, ed. Merrill D. Peterson. New York: Library of America, 1984.
Hamilton, Alexander. Report on a National Bank, 1790. In The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961–1987.
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Philadelphia, 1776.
