Wisconsin Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Halt Elon Musk's $1M Voter Payments
The Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously declined to intervene in Elon Musk’s plan to distribute $1 million checks to voters, amidst controversy over the legality of such payments.
In a significant ruling, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided not to hear an emergency request from the state’s Attorney General Josh Kaul, who sought to block Tesla CEO Elon Musk from handing out $1 million checks to voters. This decision came just hours before Musk was scheduled to host an America PAC town hall in Green Bay, where he planned to distribute the checks to two voters who had signed a petition against ‘activist judges.’
Musk’s initiative was part of his support for Brad Schimel, a Republican former state attorney general running for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court’s decision not to intervene means that Musk’s financial gestures, intended to draw attention to his cause, will proceed as planned. Musk himself described the checks as a means to ‘get attention,’ noting that such actions typically provoke significant media response.
The controversy stems from allegations by Attorney General Kaul that Musk’s payments violate Wisconsin election laws. Specifically, Kaul argued that offering money in exchange for voting contravenes state statute § 12.11, which prohibits offering ‘anything of value’ to influence voting behavior. Despite these claims, the two recipients of Musk’s checks had already voted, complicating the legal challenge.
Musk’s legal team countered that the payments were meant to foster a grassroots movement against activist judges, rather than directly advocating for or against any candidate. Brad Schimel, the candidate supported by Musk, emphasized his independence from external financial influences, stating he does not control spending by outside groups.
The ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court underscores the complexities surrounding campaign finance and voter influence, particularly in high-stakes judicial elections. As the state prepares for its election, the impact of Musk’s financial involvement and the court’s decision will likely continue to be a topic of intense debate.