Wisconsin appeals court won’t stop Musk’s $1 million payments to voters after attorney general sues

On Saturday, March 29, 2025, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied a request from the state’s Democratic Attorney General, Josh Kaul, to stop Elon Musk’s planned distribution of $1 million to two voters at a rally ahead of a pivotal state Supreme Court election. This decision marks the latest development in an escalating legal dispute involving Musk’s political involvement in Wisconsin's judicial election.

Musk’s controversial payments were initially announced for a rally scheduled for Sunday, just two days before voters head to the polls to decide on a race that could swing the ideological balance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. At the center of the controversy is Musk’s promise to give $1 million each to two Wisconsin voters who sign an online petition opposing “activist” judges. Musk has also offered smaller monetary incentives, such as $100 for each individual who signs the petition.

Kaul's legal challenge, filed on March 28, argued that Musk’s payments violated Wisconsin state law, which makes it a felony to offer anything of value in exchange for a person’s vote. While Musk's payments were intended to incentivize participation in the petition rather than directly influence votes, Kaul contended that such actions still represented a form of voter bribery. Despite the state’s legal challenge, the court's decision allows Musk to proceed with his planned giveaway, further intensifying the controversy surrounding the election.

Elon Musk’s involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election has been a major source of political tension. Musk has publicly supported Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, who is running for the seat against Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, who is backed by the Democratic establishment. Musk’s support for Schimel, alongside significant financial backing from the billionaire, has raised concerns about the increasing influence of wealthy individuals in state judicial races.

The stakes of the race are particularly high, as it could determine the ideological balance of the court. Liberals currently hold a narrow 4-3 majority, but with a recent retirement, the court’s ideological future is uncertain. Both Musk and former President Donald Trump have pumped millions of dollars into Schimel's campaign, with Musk’s political action committee (PAC) contributing substantial sums, raising questions about the fairness and influence of money in state elections.

The case has drawn national attention as a test case for Musk’s controversial use of financial incentives in political campaigns. In 2024, Musk used a similar tactic in Wisconsin and other battleground states, offering $1 million a day to voters who signed petitions supporting the First and Second Amendments. A Pennsylvania judge allowed this effort to continue during the presidential election, ruling that prosecutors had failed to demonstrate that it constituted an illegal lottery. This history could be a key factor in the ongoing legal debate surrounding Musk’s tactics.

The ongoing legal battle between Attorney General Josh Kaul and Musk highlights broader concerns about the integrity of elections in Wisconsin and the influence of outside money. With the Wisconsin Supreme Court race set to shape critical future decisions on issues such as abortion rights, voting rules, and redistricting, the growing involvement of billionaire figures like Musk has sparked debates about fairness in judicial elections.

As the election approaches, critics argue that Musk’s actions undermine the transparency and integrity of the process. Voters may feel pressured to participate in Musk’s petition campaign, or even in his financial giveaways, raising concerns about whether such tactics distort democratic outcomes. The race’s implications are significant not only for the future of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court but for the broader question of whether elections are becoming increasingly influenced by wealthy, powerful figures rather than the voters themselves.

With Musk’s promise of additional payouts and the uncertainty surrounding future challenges to these actions, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election has become a bellwether for how such unprecedented tactics could shape future electoral contests. As the court continues to weigh these issues, the coming days will likely bring further developments in this high-profile legal and political saga.