Written by Jonathan Caldwell.
As Wisconsin approaches its Supreme Court election on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, an extraordinary development has thrust the contest into the national spotlight. Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur, has sparked widespread debate by distributing $1 million checks to voters, prompting a swift but unsuccessful legal challenge from Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul. On March 30, 2025, the state’s highest court—split with a 4-3 liberal majority—denied Kaul’s emergency motion to halt Musk’s actions, intensifying an already high-stakes battle that could alter the court’s ideological makeup and wield significant influence over congressional authority in the nation’s capital.
Musk’s Strategic Intervention and Judicial Restraint
The drama unfolded when Musk, hosting a Green Bay town hall organized by America PAC—an entity he founded to support Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign—presented two voters with $1 million checks. These recipients had signed a petition decrying “activist judges,” a cause Musk champions. Kaul contended that this act contravened Wisconsin Statute § 12.11, which prohibits offering valuable incentives to affect voting decisions. Yet, the Supreme Court, comprising four liberal and three conservative justices, unanimously declined to step in, a choice that hints at judicial caution as the election loomed just days away.
Musk defended his approach with pragmatic candor, wielding a comically large check as a prop. He argued that the payments were a calculated bid to spotlight an election he deems overlooked, compelling media coverage that might otherwise ignore it. His legal counsel elaborated that the funds support a broader movement against perceived judicial overreach, not a direct endorsement of any candidate—an assertion that remains legally untested but has so far evaded judicial rebuke.
Contenders and Consequences
The election pits Brad Schimel, a conservative Waukesha County judge and ex-Republican attorney general, against Susan Crawford, a liberal Dane County judge known for her progressive leanings. In Wisconsin, Supreme Court justices secure 10-year terms through public vote, and this race will decide whether the court’s liberal edge persists or yields to conservative dominance. Schimel, enjoying Musk’s and Trump’s backing, has stressed his independence from external financial influence, pledging impartiality irrespective of who funds his campaign.
The ramifications reach well beyond Madison. Should Crawford prevail, the court’s liberal majority could endure, potentially greenlighting congressional district maps favoring Democrats—a shift analysts predict might strip Republicans of two U.S. House seats by 2026, risking their congressional majority. A Schimel victory, however, could entrench conservative sway over pivotal matters like reproductive rights, electoral rules, and workers’ protections, critical in a state where a Democratic governor and Republican legislature perpetually vie for control.
Legal Ambiguity and Electoral Firestorm
Kaul’s legal challenge framed Musk’s payments as an overt violation, noting that the recipients had already voted, which muddies whether the money truly swayed ballots. Musk’s team rebutted that the initiative fuels a wider anti-activism push, not a vote-buying scheme for Schimel. The court’s sidestepping of the issue has left it unresolved, stoking discussions about wealth’s role in elections. To seasoned observers, this recalls eras like the Gilded Age, when tycoons leveraged fortunes to mold political outcomes—a historical echo that sharpens the current controversy.
Adding fuel to the fire, Scott Presler—a voter mobilization expert credited with flipping Pennsylvania red in 2024—has teamed with Musk to rally Republicans. He invokes the 2023 Wisconsin race, where liberal Janet Protasiewicz trounced conservative Dan Kelly, flipping the court’s balance. Presler cautions that apathy could doom conservatives again, a fear driving America PAC’s $1 million investment in Schimel’s ground game and Building America’s Future’s $1.5 million ad blitz. Spending in this race has soared past $70 million, eclipsing the $51 million of 2023, with liberal donors like George Soros countering Musk’s largesse, signaling the contest’s outsized national weight.
Our Take
The 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election lays bare the escalating fusion of affluence, partisan fervor, and judicial authority in America. Musk’s brazen disbursement of million-dollar checks to spotlight a state race epitomizes a disquieting trend: billionaires wielding resources beyond the average citizen’s reach to shape electoral narratives. His aim to curb judicial activism might strike a chord with some, yet the tactic invites scrutiny over electoral equity. The court’s choice to stand pat, while justifiable given the eleventh-hour timing, leaves a gap in oversight that may invite bolder ploys ahead.
For astute readers, this race is a masterclass in power’s machinations. It transcends Schimel versus Crawford—it’s about a swing state’s judiciary tilting the national balance. The deluge of outside cash and the specter of redistricting amplify its coast-to-coast resonance. As a journalist attuned to tectonic political shifts, I view this as a watershed: will democracy buckle beneath wealth’s heft, or will voters reclaim their voice? Tuesday’s result will decide, but its echoes will linger, shaping the interplay of money and justice for decades.
