In Madison, Wisconsin, a political group with ties to billionaire Elon Musk is orchestrating a misleading ad campaign targeting voters shortly before an important election for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. The effort mirrors tactics used previously against Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris in battleground states. This series of ads, fashioned to appear as authentic endorsements, purport support for Democratic-backed Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, labeling her as a “progressive champion” who supports immigrant rights and Planned Parenthood while advocating for a justice system that offers second chances. However, these advertisements are funded by the national conservative group Building America’s Future, with Musk among its most noteworthy contributors.
The deceptive ads, circulating on Facebook, Instagram, and via text messages, address contentious topics like abortion and immigration. They urge Crawford to assert her progressive views, language that might alienate moderate or conservative voters in Wisconsin, where judicial races are officially nonpartisan. Critics argue that this campaign represents the latest example of Musk’s significant financial influence in promoting Republican political interests, including in pivotal swing states that could affect future presidential races.
The upcoming election on April 1 holds significant consequences, deciding whether a liberal majority remains intact on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. With major cases on abortion, union rights, electoral laws, and redistricting on the horizon, the court’s decisions could have profound implications leading into the presidential elections in 2028. As the most prominent financial player in this judicial race, Musk’s affiliated super PAC, Musk’s America, has spent over $3.2 million supporting Republican candidate Brad Schimel, a former Wisconsin Attorney General. Meanwhile, Building America’s Future is reported to have spent approximately $2 million in this effort.
Besides his influence in the state judicial contest, Musk has extended his reach into national politics, contributing nearly $300 million to Republican campaigns last year, as per Federal Election Commission records. This maneuvering includes threats to fund primary challengers for GOP lawmakers who oppose the Trump administration. The use of misleading advertising is not new for Building America’s Future, which had previously deployed similar tactics under the alias Progress 2028. This group, registered in Virginia, falsely attributed extreme policy positions to Harris in past campaigns.
In Wisconsin, one ad mistakenly featured an image of the wrong Susan Crawford—a Harvard professor instead of the state supreme court candidate—a mistake later rectified. Advertisements placed on social media, initially flagged by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, were crafted to appear as legitimate endorsements. Furthermore, these ads misled even some conservative figures into questioning their provenance. Some perceived them as funded by progressive figures like George Soros. Despite not having a formal political role or party affiliation, Crawford boasts a record of championing Democratic causes, such as contesting the state’s voter ID law and representing Planned Parenthood in significant legal challenges.
The election’s timing aligns with the onset of early voting, challenging Crawford’s efforts to build name recognition with a largely uninformed electorate. Recent polling suggests a significant portion of Wisconsin voters still lack an opinion of her. Crawford’s campaign dismissed the ads as deceitful maneuvers from Musk, whom they accuse of entering the race uninformed and attempting to buy influence through financial leverage. Building America’s Future did not offer comments on the issue.
Although Musk’s funding is unparalleled, Crawford has attracted support from other influential donors, including Soros and several tech industry giants, with significant backing from A Better Wisconsin Together, a liberal group dedicated to her campaign. Political experts like Barry Burden from the University of Wisconsin-Madison argue that while the new ads are creatively misleading, their subtle nature may fail to sway the well-informed voters aware of the race’s complications. Voters keen enough to decipher these ads are generally informed enough to counteract their intended impact.
