The Wisconsin Elections Commission has identified probable cause to suggest that Elon Musk contravened the state’s election bribery laws. The controversy stems from accusations that the billionaire offered $1 million payments to voters participating in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Following a closed session last Thursday, the commission voted 5-1 to refer two complaints against Musk to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office. These complaints were lodged by voters from Milwaukee and Green Bay, adding a significant dimension to the case surrounding alleged electoral misconduct. Prosecutors now have 40 days to decide on pursuing criminal charges.
The commission’s probable cause determination hinges on Musk’s contentious offer, allegedly made to induce voting in the Supreme Court election. According to Wisconsin’s election bribery laws, it is illegal to promise money or anything of value to encourage voter participation in terms of attending polls, casting ballots, or voting for specific candidates or referendums. In a now-deleted post on X, Musk initially limited attendance at an upcoming event in Wisconsin to those who had voted in the election, promising $1 million to two attendees as a gesture of appreciation.
This development raises significant legal questions concerning the interplay of money, influence, and electoral processes. Although Musk later altered his announcement to restrict event attendance to individuals who signed America PAC’s petition opposing “activist judges,” the repercussions of the original offer continue to unravel. Three Wisconsin voters eventually received $1 million checks, highlighting the effectiveness of the financial enticement. America PAC, Musk’s political action committee, also offered smaller monetary incentives of $100 to individuals signing or referring others to sign the petition.
The implications of these actions are far-reaching. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul previously attempted legal intervention to prevent Musk and America PAC from distributing payments before the election, though the state courts declined to enforce such a block. Musk’s legal team contended that the payments were expressions of advocacy against “activist judges,” protected under free speech, rather than direct candidate endorsements.
The underlying dispute also influences broader political dynamics. Musk and his affiliates reportedly expended at least $20 million in support of Brad Schimel, the Republican-backed candidate. Despite these efforts, Schimel lost to Susan Crawford, the Democratic-backed incumbent, who secured her position by a margin of approximately 10 percentage points, maintaining the liberal majority within the court. This campaign was part of the costliest judicial election in US history, with total expenditures surpassing $100 million.
Furthermore, Musk and his associated entities face additional civil challenges. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and two Wisconsin voters have filed a lawsuit alleging breaches of election bribery and unauthorized lottery statutes, coupled with civil conspiracy and nuisance claims. Plaintiffs aim to halt future instances of similar inducements in Wisconsin elections. Details of this ongoing case can be found in the pending legal proceedings in Brown County.
The link to the detailed report and further nuances on this issue can be found here.