Elon Musk faces a legal battle over $1 million in voter payments in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
In a dramatic escalation of political tensions, Wisconsin’s Democratic Attorney General, Josh Kaul, has launched a lawsuit against billionaire Elon Musk to halt his plan to distribute $1 million checks to voters just days before the state’s pivotal Supreme Court election on April 1, 2025. The legal action, filed on March 28, 2025, stems from Musk’s announcement that he would personally award the payments at a rally scheduled for March 30 in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Initially framed as a reward for voting in the closely watched race between conservative Brad Schimel and liberal Susan Crawford, Musk later revised his statement, claiming the funds would support “spokesmen” for an America PAC petition against “activist” judges. This last-minute clarification did little to quell concerns, as Kaul argues the scheme violates Wisconsin’s election laws, spotlighting a contentious debate over money’s role in democracy.
The origins of the controversy trace back to Musk’s now-deleted X post on March 27, where he promised to hand over $2 million, 1 million each, to two voters who had already cast ballots, emphasizing his appreciation for their participation. The post, which sparked immediate backlash from Democrats and legal experts, was retracted within 12 hours, replaced with a new narrative tying the payments to petition advocacy rather than voting itself. Despite this pivot, Kaul’s lawsuit asserts that the initial intent remains suspect under Wisconsin law, which deems it a felony to offer anything of value to induce voting—a charge that could carry fines up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to three-and-a-half years. The timing, just two days before an election poised to determine the ideological balance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, amplifies the stakes.
Musk’s deep involvement in the race is no surprise to political observers. Through his America PAC, he has already funneled over $20 million to support Schimel, a former Wisconsin Attorney General and Trump-endorsed candidate, making this the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history with over $80 million in total spending. The court’s 4-3 liberal majority hangs in the balance, with looming decisions on abortion rights, redistricting, and voting rules that could shape elections through 2028. Musk’s financial clout—paired with his controversial tactics—has turned him into a lightning rod, with Democrats decrying his actions as an attempt to “buy” the court, while supporters see it as a bold push against judicial overreach.
The legal battle unfolded rapidly. Kaul’s initial filing in Dane County Circuit Court sought an emergency injunction, but Columbia County Judge Andrew Voigt declined to hear the case on March 28, citing procedural issues. Undeterred, Kaul appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, only to face another setback on March 29 when the appellate court refused to intervene, clearing the way for Musk’s rally to proceed as planned on March 30. This judicial green light echoes a precedent from the 2024 presidential election, when Musk’s PAC offered $1 million daily to petition signers in battleground states like Wisconsin—a move that survived legal challenges in Pennsylvania. Critics argue this pattern reveals a loophole in election oversight, while Musk’s allies frame it as a legitimate exercise of free speech.
Public reaction has been sharply divided. Wisconsin Democrats, led by party chairman Ben Wikler, have accused Musk of blatant election bribery, with Wikler calling for his arrest if he sets foot in the state. On X, posts range from outrage—“Wisconsin can’t be bought!”—to resignation, with some users lamenting the unchecked influence of wealth in politics. Meanwhile, Schimel has distanced himself from the payments, telling WISN-TV he’s unsure of the criteria and questioning whether he’d sign the petition himself. Crawford’s campaign, backed by liberal donors like George Soros, has seized on the controversy, branding Musk’s involvement a “desperate distraction” ahead of Tuesday’s vote.
The broader implications of this saga extend beyond Wisconsin. Musk’s strategy—tested in 2024 and now refined—could set a template for future elections, raising alarms about the erosion of democratic norms. Legal scholars like UCLA’s Richard Hasen have flagged the payments as “legally suspect,” yet the courts’ reluctance to act suggests enforcement challenges in an era of big money politics. With Tesla also suing Wisconsin over dealership restrictions—a case that could reach the Supreme Court—Musk’s influence looms large, intertwining corporate interests with electoral outcomes. As the March 30 rally approaches, all eyes are on Green Bay, where Musk’s actions could either cement his status as a conservative kingmaker or fuel a backlash against his outsized role.
As of March 30, 2025, the situation remains fluid. The election’s outcome—pitting Schimel’s conservative vision against Crawford’s liberal stance—will likely reverberate nationally, testing whether Musk’s gambit pays off or backfires. For now, Kaul’s legal defeat leaves the payments unchecked, but the controversy has galvanized debate over election integrity, voter influence, and the power of billionaires in shaping justice. With no announcement canceling the rally, Wisconsin stands at a crossroads, its Supreme Court race a microcosm of broader struggles over democracy in the age of wealth and polarization.
