Mandela Barnes and Relational Exploitation
Milwaukee Beagle recently acquired a letter that appears to have been written to then Democratic Party of Wisconsin chair Ben Wikler in 2023, which was sent again to Devin Remicker (Wikler’s replacement as chair) as well as three other candidates for governor: Sara Rodriguez, David Crowley, and Kelda Roys.
Find a transcription of the letter as we received it (it’s a slightly blurry photo, so apologies if anything is mistranscribed) below. Our source says this letter has been circulating widely in Democratic Party circles. We’ve heard about it from multiple people, and have also heard rumors that journalists are investigating the claims in the letter, including a piece Dan Bice was working on when he passed in April.
We received this letter Tuesday afternoon and are releasing our article about it as quickly as we could. We're not publishing this letter because we believe we can determine whether every allegation it contains is true. We can't, and that's not our role. What we can say is that this letter exists, that it was shared with senior Democratic Party leaders, and that it appears to have circulated widely within Wisconsin political circles. Those facts alone make it newsworthy.
Milwaukee Beagle is an all-volunteer media project. It’s something a handful of us do in our spare time. If people like us were able to get a hold of this letter, then it is not secret anymore. There is no question of if this letter and results of investigations into it will become part of the Governor’s race, there is only a question of when and under whose terms.
We’re releasing it now because we are tired of politically opportunistic or well-timed and carefully orchestrated scandal drops. The political costs or benefits of this letter coming to light at one time versus another are less important to us than addressing the hostile environment created by party leaders trying to keep secrets, rather than resolve conflicts. We'd rather readers have access to the document itself than wait for Wisconsin to have an intense, last minute, politicized information spinning blitz anything like the one Maine is experiencing.
A Transcription of the Letters
Devin Remmiker,
I write to you hoping that you will have the courage to do what Ben Wikler refused to do last year (See attached). It’s sickening to think that the democratic party would allow him to rise to the top of yet another election, knowing everything that you know.
Maybe one of the other candidates can stop him, but this can’t be our reality again. For all women in Wisconsin, I hope you do something.
CC Sara Rodriguez, Kelda Roys, David Crowley
Ben,
I write this letter anonymously, because for a woman to speak out on this topic is to risk her reputation and career. Consider this a letter from so many women who have been left voiceless because of the culture we live in, perpetuated by men.
It’s time to face the facts about who Mandela Barnes is. Everyone knows what’s in his past. It’s the worst kept secret in politics. Everything you have heard it [sic] true and proven and the only reason it’s not in the press is because these women know they’ll lose their jobs, sanity and be accused of things if they did go public. They shouldn’t have to risk all of that because we didn’t create this situation- men did. You have contributed to this and I’m asking you now, what will you do it about?
The egregious way he’s used his office and power to gain access to women, abuse them, isolate them, leave many silenced and unable to speak out is disgusting. YOU know what’s in his past. His staff knows what’s in his past. And you all look away while making us look right at it.
You have him speak on behalf of the party, highlight him at events, refer him for future jobs and assist in funding a PAC so he can continue to have a platform. Can you imagine what it is like for the over 50 women to sit in a room and see their abuser, not only lifted up, but given the chance to do it again and again. Consensual sex in [sic] not consensual when you are manipulated into the situation, lied to about the number of women in your same position, and the person who asked for consent used his office and stature to present as one thing and be another thing. Many of these women are young, some interns, and I can assure you that the list is long.
The worst part is he isn’t even an elected official, which means you have a choice.
Because right now, you’re a groomer and this entire party is a part of it. Look around you… how many women have power in this state, run campaigns and organizations, and are well respected people versus the number of men? It’s because we’re not welcome and the culture is disgusting. That for two years you all are more than aware of this and do not stop it is frankly something you all should be held accountable for.
And you never will because for this to become public, to shame you enough to stop this, would mean at least one, and many more, would have to suffer publicly what all women suffer when they speak out.
You are probably reacting to being called a groomer. You should be. You put potential victims in the same vicinity as him. You validate what a great person he is and how much he’s helped the community as is trustworthy. You give him access to the very people who have been susceptible to this behavior in the past.
This all sets the stage for this to continue. How do you sleep at night knowing how many victims there are, how much damage has been done and the fact that you don’t have the courage to stop it? Because women are supposed to stop it?
Because if this has to be a press story, or a widespread social campaign, it can be. Or you can actually go watch the Barbie movie, read about what it’s like for women in America and actually start using your position to prevent what’s happening. And maybe even advance their equality within the party and the democratic movement as a whole.
Keep justifying this as rumors or conjecture is bullshit. The facts are well known. I sincerely hope that no more women who have been victims have to sit in a room and watch their abuser be lifted up while what’s been done to them has been ignored completely. It makes me sick to think about and it should you as well.
Do something. Because not doing something is also abusing women, your power and further creates a destructive environment for this entire movement.
We’ll be watching.
Why This Matters
If you've followed politics over the last decade, you've probably noticed a pattern. Allegations of harassment, abuse, coercion, or manipulation surface about a politician. The initial response is often predictable: some people dismiss them as private matters, others insist they are immediately disqualifying, and everyone argues about where the line should be.
The specifics change from case to case. The political calculations change, too. But the underlying questions rarely do. What does someone's conduct in relationships tell us about how they exercise power? When should relational behavior become a matter of public concern? And what responsibility do political parties have when serious allegations land on their desks?
Those aren't questions unique to Washington. In light of this letter, these are questions Wisconsin is now confronting as well.
Rather than treating this as another scandal to be consumed and discarded, we think it's worth approaching it through a different lens - relational justice.
It’s All Relational
Politics is, at its core, about relationships. Every day elected officials decide whose voices are heard, whose needs are prioritized, and how power gets distributed. They negotiate competing interests, they build trust (or erode it), and they exercise authority over institutions that shape other people's lives.
Because of that, the way someone exercises power in their personal and professional relationships isn't necessarily separate from public service. That doesn't mean every allegation is true (important context here: between 90-98% of reports of sexual assault are considered credible based on rigorous long-term studies and studies indicate that the public and even court systems overestimate the rate of false allegations; in the case of “false reports” only 18% of complainants name a perpetrator) or that every private conflict belongs on the front page. It does mean that patterns of behavior can tell us something about how a person understands power, accountability, and the dignity of other people.
That's why we've found the idea of relational justice useful. The idea is pretty simple: justice isn't just about whether someone technically broke a law or violated a rule. It's also about whether people are treated with respect, whether relationships are marked by fairness rather than domination, and whether everyone involved has meaningful agency.
Think about what we ask of elected officials. We ask them to listen. To negotiate. To balance competing interests. To use power carefully. To represent people who didn't vote for them alongside those who did. None of those are solitary acts. It all happens in the context of relationships.
And we get to make decisions about who we want and who should engage in governing through elections. But here's the thing about elections: we're always making our best guess. None of us knows how someone will govern until they're in office - we look for patterns instead. How have they used power before? How do they respond when challenged? How do they treat people who have less institutional power than they do? Those questions are part of democratic decision making.
The same standard applies to institutions. Every political party has complaints land on their desk. What distinguishes parties isn't whether that happens; it's what they do next. Do they investigate? Do they communicate with the people involved? Do they take concerns seriously while respecting due process? Do they learn anything? Those decisions tell us something about how the institution itself understands power.
This is also why we think the familiar distinction between "public" and "private" deserves another look. Relational justice doesn't argue that every intimate relationship belongs in the public sphere. It asks a different question: when someone seeks public authority, can the ways they exercise power in close relationships be treated as irrelevant?
Back to the Letter
The questions raised by this letter extend beyond any individual politician. How should parties respond when they receive allegations about candidates? What obligations do they have to complainants, to the accused, and to the public? At what point does an internal concern become a matter of legitimate public interest?
We don't know where every allegation in this letter will ultimately lead. We do know that Wisconsin deserves to have these conversations in public rather than through whispered rumors, strategically timed leaks, or closed-door damage control. Whether one believes the allegations, doubts them, or lands somewhere in between, the questions they raise about power, accountability, and how our political institutions respond to interpersonal harm are worth asking before—not after—we cast our ballots.
Correction: an earlier version of this article did not include “that appears to have been…” in the description of the letter.
