Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Elon Musk’s $1 Million Giveaway
On the evening of March 30, 2025, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to intervene in a contentious political event hosted by Elon Musk and America PAC, allowing them to proceed with a planned giveaway of $1 million to two event attendees in Green Bay, Wisconsin. This ruling came shortly before the event supporting conservative candidate Brad Schimel was scheduled to begin.
Legal Background
The state’s Attorney General, Josh Kaul, had previously launched a lawsuit aimed at halting the giveaway. Kaul asserted that the promotion of monetary incentives to voters constituted a violation of state law prohibiting such practices to influence electoral outcomes. His initial filing sought an emergency order to prevent Musk and America PAC from advancing the giveaway and making payments to Wisconsin voters.
The legal proceedings escalated with Kaul’s appeal following a lower court’s decision refusing to hear the case before the event. A bid for emergency intervention was denied by an appeals court the day before the event, prompting Kaul to bring the matter before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Recusal Motion Denied
In a separate but related decision, Musk’s legal team requested the recusal of Justices Rebecca Frank Dallet and Jill J. Karofsky on the grounds that their previous campaigns for a competing Supreme Court candidate raised potential bias issues. This motion was also denied by the court.
Claims of Electoral Manipulation
In his lawsuit, Kaul emphasized that Musk’s announcement—specifically targeting individuals who voted in the upcoming state Supreme Court election—amounted to a blatant attempt to circumvent legal restrictions designed to protect electoral integrity. He argued that the giveaway was, in essence, a bribe aimed at influencing voter turnout and decisions.
Political Implications and Context
The event in Green Bay reflects the broader context of the upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which has gained attention as a pivotal race in national politics. As reported by the Brennan Center for Justice, this election is notably the most expensive state Supreme Court race in American history, reflecting the significant investments made by political groups aligned with Musk, including America PAC and Building America’s Future, who have collectively funneled nearly $20 million into supporting Schimel.
The controversial nature of cash giveaways by Musk isn’t new; he previously conducted a similar $1 million sweepstakes aimed at voters in swing states during the previous election cycle, intending to bolster support for then-President Donald Trump.
Conclusion
As the legal battles surrounding this high-stakes election unfold, the implications of the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s rulings may resonate far beyond the state, encapsulating the contentious relationship between financial incentives in politics and electoral integrity.