Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, has taken legal action to prevent billionaire Elon Musk from distributing $1 million checks to voters ahead of the state’s crucial Supreme Court election. The lawsuit filed on Friday aims to halt Musk’s controversial plan, which was initially set to unfold over the weekend. Musk’s scheme involved handing out substantial cash rewards to individuals who had already voted in the judicial race, an act Kaul argues violates state election laws.
Musk announced through his social media platform, X, that he intended to distribute $2 million to two voters who participated in the election but later clarified that these funds were actually meant for individuals willing to act as “spokesmen” for a petition opposing what he termed “activist” judges. Instead of being event-specific to voters, it would now focus on signatories of the petition.
Despite the deletion of the original post, legal proceedings continue as concerns about potential election law violations persist. Musk’s plan had already generated significant attention and was facing scrutiny from various political figures and campaign staff. The wavering nature of Musk’s announcements prompted Kaul to argue for a court ruling to both cease future payments and stop further promotion of the giveaway, deeming the initiative a violation of Wisconsin laws regarding election inducements.
The contentious Supreme Court race has already set a record for spending in U.S. judicial elections, surpassing $81 million. The competition, symbolizing broader political battles, sees Republican candidate Brad Schimel facing off against Democrat-backed Judge Susan Crawford. The stakes are particularly high as the outcome could shift the ideological balance on the court, which is poised to rule on key issues such as abortion rights and voting regulations.
Republican-backed support for Schimel includes former President Donald Trump, who actively participated in the campaign efforts, emphasizing national significance over local concerns. Meanwhile, Crawford garners support from prominent Democrats, notably former President Barack Obama.
Kaul’s lawsuit against Musk was initially assigned to Judge Susan Crawford but was rapidly transferred to another judge within Columbia County. Public reactions to Musk’s planned event have been mixed, with Schimel’s campaign remaining noncommittal regarding the legality of Musk’s actions. Schimel remarked that his campaign was independent of such legal controversies and declined further involvement.
As the legal battles unfold, Musk’s PAC announced its first $1 million recipient, Scott Ainsworth, a Green Bay resident with ties to conservative politics and donor history in support of Schimel. Ainsworth’s involvement echoes Musk’s broader strategy, invoking substantial financial backing in favor of the conservative candidate, which has made a notable impact on this high-stakes judicial race.
Although the legality of Musk’s actions remains under review, his political activities in Wisconsin echo previous efforts during the last White House elections. Similar incentives were posed to enhance voter support for constitutional rights in battleground states. However, a Pennsylvania judge previously allowed that initiative, underscoring the legal complexities surrounding electoral inducements.
The legal implications of Musk’s offer, involving potential violations of election law, have raised critical questions about the influence of wealth in democratic processes. While arguments can be made on both sides regarding whether these offers intend to affect voter behavior, the repercussions may ultimately conclude in the Supreme Court if challenged legally.
All eyes remain on Wisconsin as Musk and other influential donors continue to play pivotal roles in what promises to be one of the most significant judicial elections in recent history, with implications stretching well beyond state boundaries.