Wisconsin’s Attorney General, Josh Kaul, has filed a request with the state’s liberal-controlled Supreme Court to prevent billionaire Elon Musk from distributing US$1 million cheques to two voters. This move came just hours before a rally where Musk planned to announce the giveaway, which he argues is part of a grassroots initiative against “activist judges.” Kaul contends that Musk’s offer violates state law prohibiting the exchange of valuable incentives to influence voter turnout.
Despite previous rejections of this legal challenge by two lower courts, Kaul maintains that the law is clear: offering tangible benefits to encourage voting is not permitted. Musk’s legal team, however, defends the payments as an exercise of free speech, asserting that attempting to limit such actions contravenes both Wisconsins and US constitutional rights. They emphasized that the cheques are designed to rally support against judicial activism rather than promoting any political candidate.
The legal battle is set against the backdrop of a vital Supreme Court election, where ideological control is at stake. The current court has a 4-3 liberal majority, with crucial endorsements for Democratic candidate Susan Crawford from liberal justices. In a strategic counter, Musk’s team has suggested that two of these justices, who have actively supported Crawford, should recuse themselves from the case to avoid any appearance of bias, a move that, if granted, could shift the court’s balance to a conservative 3-2 majority.
Conservative candidate Brad Schimel, backed by Musk and Donald Trump, is also in contention. Musk has significantly invested in supporting Schimel, pledging over US$20 million towards his campaign efforts. Schimel, in media appearances, has distanced himself from Musk’s financial activities, asserting his commitment to uphold the law and reject any form of judicial activism.
The controversial rally planned in Green Bay promises to distribute two cheques of US$1 million to individuals who have signed an online petition against “activist” judges. Musk initially framed his intentions as personal interactions with voters but later clarified that the event targets petition signers rather than those who merely voted.
This judicial election is unprecedented in campaign spending, with expenditures exceeding US$81 million, positioning it as a critical moment for potential shifts in policies regarding abortion rights, redistricting, and voting laws that could influence future elections. Musk’s past pledge of similar financial incentives during the previous election highlights the contentious intertwining of finances and political advocacy in Wisconsin, sparking national debate around electoral integrity and judicial influence.