In an unprecedented move, billionaire Elon Musk has made headlines by handing out $1 million cheques to Wisconsin voters ahead of the state’s pivotal Supreme Court election. This controversial distribution comes after the state supreme court declined to intervene in the giveaway, which has raised questions about the legality of such an action amid ongoing election tensions.
The backdrop to this electoral drama centers around a lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Attorney General and Democrat Josh Kaul, seeking to halt Musk’s initiative under a state law prohibiting gifts in exchange for votes. With the election set for Tuesday, the stakes are exceedingly high as it could determine whether control of the Supreme Court shifts to the Republican side, catalyzing the most expensive judicial race in American history.
At a rally on Sunday evening, Musk addressed the audience, stating, “We just want judges to be judges,” as he presented two cheques to voters who had supported a petition against “activist judges”. Critics, including Kaul, argued that this giveaway represents an unlawful attempt to influence voter behavior through financial incentives.
Musk’s legal team counters that the giveaway is not meant to directly endorse or oppose any candidate but is instead aimed at fostering a grassroots opposition to what they term activist judges. In the wake of two lower court rulings favoring Musk, Kaul sought an emergency intervention from the supreme court, which concluded unanimously to not entertain the case.
Interestingly, Musk is not alone in his support for the conservative candidate Brad Schimel, who serves as a Waukesha County Judge. Former President Donald Trump has also endorsed Schimel, seeking to tip the balance of the court away from its current liberal majority. Schimel is now running against Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, who boasts endorsements from Wisconsin’s liberal justices.
The legal tumult has led Musk’s lawyers to assert that judges favoring Crawford should be disqualified from handling the case, citing potential bias. As the election looms, the intersection of money, politics, and judiciary integrity remains a hot topic amidst this extraordinary political maneuvering.