Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has announced plans to personally travel to Wisconsin to hand over $2 million to two voters who have already cast ballots in the state’s high-stakes Supreme Court election. The move, which Musk framed as a show of appreciation for voter participation, has ignited controversy, as Wisconsin law prohibits offering anything of value in exchange for voting.
Late Thursday night, Musk took to his social media platform, X, to declare that he would be hosting a rally in Wisconsin on Sunday, just two days before the pivotal election. During the event, Musk said he would present two randomly selected voters with $1 million each. Attendance at the rally, he added, would be restricted to those who have already voted, though he did not clarify how voting status would be verified.
“I will also personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote,” Musk wrote. “This is super important.”
The tech mogul did not explain how the recipients would be chosen or what criteria were being used. His involvement in the race has added fuel to an already fiercely contested election that will determine ideological control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for years to come.
A Race Drawing National Attention
The Wisconsin Supreme Court election has already shattered records for spending on a U.S. judicial race, with national figures from both political parties weighing in. The race has become a referendum not only on Musk’s influence in politics but also on the early months of President Donald Trump’s second administration.
Trump, a Republican, has endorsed conservative candidate Brad Schimel and held a telephone town hall for him on Thursday night.
“It’s a very important race,” Trump said during the call. “I know you feel it’s local, but it’s not. It’s really much more than local. The whole country is watching.”
Schimel, a former attorney general and current Waukesha County judge, faces off against liberal-leaning Dane County Judge Susan Crawford. Crawford has received endorsements from leading Democrats, including former President Barack Obama and the four liberal justices who currently hold a 4-3 majority on the court. With the upcoming retirement of a liberal justice, the balance of power on the court is at stake.
Questions About Legality
Musk’s promise of cash rewards for voters has raised legal concerns. Wisconsin law makes it a felony to offer, give, or promise anything of value to induce a person to vote or refrain from voting. The controversy has drawn comparisons to Musk’s previous financial incentives during the 2024 presidential race when his political action committee (PAC) offered money to voters in battleground states for signing petitions supporting the First and Second Amendments.
Last year, a similar initiative led to legal action in Pennsylvania, where Philadelphia’s district attorney sued to block Musk’s PAC from distributing payments. A judge ultimately ruled that the prosecution failed to demonstrate the effort was an illegal lottery, allowing it to continue through Election Day.
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, has not yet commented on Musk’s latest move. However, Crawford’s campaign spokesperson, Derrick Honeyman, dismissed Musk’s planned visit as a “last-minute desperate distraction.”
“Wisconsinites don’t want a billionaire like Musk telling them who to vote for, and, on Tuesday, voters should reject Musk’s lackey Brad Schimel,” Honeyman said.
Schimel’s campaign has not issued an official statement regarding Musk’s event. When asked about Musk’s petition initiative on Thursday, Schimel told WISN-TV that he had considered signing it himself but ultimately decided against it.
“I, frankly, thought, ‘Should I sign that petition? I’m against activist judges, but I don’t think I should do that,’” Schimel said. On the subject of the $1 million prizes, he added, “I don’t know what the criteria to get it was.”
Influence and Potential Conflicts
Musk’s deep financial involvement in the race has also raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. His company, Tesla, recently filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin over state laws that prevent it from opening direct-to-consumer dealerships. If the case reaches the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Musk’s support for Schimel could come under intense scrutiny.
Crawford and her allies have accused Musk of trying to “buy influence” on the court, particularly given the massive sums he and his affiliated groups have poured into the election. Musk’s PAC alone has spent more than $20 million in support of Schimel. Meanwhile, billionaire George Soros has contributed $2 million to bolster Crawford’s campaign, and Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has donated $1.5 million.
The stakes in the election extend far beyond the Tesla lawsuit. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is expected to rule on several critical issues in the coming years, including abortion rights, congressional redistricting, labor union power, and voting regulations that could shape future elections, including the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential race.
A Crucial Battleground State
Wisconsin’s status as a swing state has intensified interest in the Supreme Court race. The state has played a decisive role in recent presidential elections, with five of the last seven contests being decided by less than one percentage point.
Trump won Wisconsin in 2016 and 2024 by razor-thin margins but lost it in 2020 to President Joe Biden. With control of the state’s election laws in the balance, both parties see the Supreme Court race as a pivotal battleground.
The unprecedented spending in this election reflects its importance. More than $81 million has already been spent, shattering the previous record of $51 million set in Wisconsin’s 2023 Supreme Court race, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
As Musk prepares to make his controversial visit, the legal and ethical ramifications of his involvement remain uncertain. With Election Day fast approaching, Wisconsin voters will soon determine not just the ideological balance of their highest court, but the broader implications of billionaire influence in American politics.
Comments