- Musk proposed $1M payments to voters, prompting election bribery complaints
- Wisconsin AG requested emergency injunction against alleged law violations
- Revised offer ties checks to petition signatures, creating legal ambiguity
- Conservative PACs spend over $20M in record $81M judicial election
- Court majority shift could impact abortion rights and 2028 elections
Billionaire Elon Musk ignited a legal firestorm Friday after announcing plans to award $1 million checks to Wisconsin voters participating in the state’s pivotal Supreme Court election. Attorney General Josh Kaul swiftly filed for an emergency injunction, arguing the payments violated Wisconsin Statute § 12.11, which prohibits offering incentives for voting. This marks Musk’s second major entanglement with election laws after similar 2024 presidential election tactics.
The controversy began when Musk’s political action committee, America First, promised six-figure sums to ballot-casting voters via social media. Legal experts immediately flagged this as potential felony bribery under state law. University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter noted: Offering lottery-style rewards contingent on voting participation crosses clear legal boundaries.Musk later revised the offer to link payments to anti-judicial activism petitions, though critics argue this remains legally questionable.
Wisconsin’s judicial race has become a proxy war for national political interests, with Musk-backed groups spending over $20 million supporting conservative candidate Brad Schimel. The total election cost now exceeds $81 million – surpassing 2023’s $51 million record for state judicial contests. Analysts attribute this spending surge to the court’s upcoming rulings on abortion access, redistricting maps, and 2028 voting regulations.
This pattern mirrors Musk’s 2024 strategy where he offered Pennsylvania voters $1 million daily for constitutional petitions. While Philadelphia prosecutors challenged the tactic, courts allowed it as non-coercive voter outreach. Wisconsin’s case differs through direct ties to an active election, creating stronger grounds for bribery claims according to State Democracy Research Initiative attorney Bryna Godar.
Unique Insight: Judicial elections now attract national financiers because state courts increasingly decide federal issues. Wisconsin’s 2020 ruling against Trump’s election lawsuit set precedent for this trend. Musk’s involvement coincides with Tesla’s pending lawsuit against Wisconsin dealership laws – a case potentially reaching the Supreme Court he’s attempting to influence.
The election’s outcome could reshape Midwestern politics through:
- Abortion rights rulings post-Roe v. Wade reversal
- Redistricting plans affecting 10 congressional seats
- Voter ID law interpretations for 2026-2028 elections
With 30% voter turnout projected, watchdog groups warn outsized PAC spending disproportionately impacts low-engagement elections. Common Cause Wisconsin director Jay Heck notes: A single billionaire’s contributions equal 25% of total election spending – this undermines judicial impartiality.Legal challenges to Musk’s payments may ultimately land before the same court he’s seeking to sway.
