The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a major ruling late Sunday night, rejecting an urgent lawsuit filed by Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul. The lawsuit aimed to block Elon Musk and America PAC from proceeding with a highly publicized $1 million giveaway to two attendees at a town hall event in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The event, which backed conservative candidate Brad Schimel, was already set to begin when the court's decision came down, solidifying its impact on the political landscape.
A High-Stakes Legal Battle
Kaul's legal maneuvering began on Friday when he filed an emergency request to halt Musk and America PAC’s controversial giveaway. His argument was straightforward: the giveaway was an illegal attempt to influence voters by offering financial incentives. Specifically, he claimed that Musk’s plan to distribute $1 million to two attendees was a blatant violation of Wisconsin election laws, which prohibit any offer of value in exchange for voting, refraining from voting, or supporting a particular candidate.
Despite the urgency, the case hit a roadblock when Columbia County Circuit Court Judge W. Andrew Voigt refused to hear the lawsuit before the Green Bay rally. That decision forced Kaul to escalate his appeal to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, only to have his emergency motion denied on Saturday. With time running out, he made a last-ditch effort to bring the case before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Sunday.
Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Swift Response
Just minutes before the event began, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its ruling, rejecting Kaul’s appeal. This decision effectively gave Musk and America PAC the green light to proceed with their planned giveaway, further solidifying their controversial role in the political arena.
However, Musk’s legal team didn’t just focus on defending the giveaway. In a separate move, they filed motions requesting that two Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, Rebecca Frank Dallet and Jill J. Karofsky, recuse themselves from the case. Their reasoning? Both justices had campaigned for Susan Crawford, a Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate known for her vocal criticism of Musk. Musk’s lawyers argued that their participation in the ruling could create an appearance of bias. The court ultimately rejected this request, allowing both justices to remain on the case.
The Political Firestorm
The stakes in this legal battle extend far beyond Sunday night’s event. The Wisconsin Supreme Court election, set for Tuesday, has already shattered records, becoming the most expensive state supreme court race in American history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. The battle over this seat has turned into a full-fledged political showdown, with millions of dollars flooding into the race from all sides.
Musk and his affiliated political groups have played an outsized role in this election. America PAC and Building America’s Future, two groups closely aligned with Musk, have collectively poured nearly $20 million into supporting Schimel’s campaign. This isn’t the first time Musk has wielded financial incentives as a political tool—he previously ran a $1 million sweepstakes targeting voters in key swing states during the last election cycle in an effort to boost Donald Trump’s chances.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The core of Kaul’s argument hinged on Wisconsin’s strict election laws, which explicitly forbid offering anything of value to influence a voter’s decision. In his lawsuit, Kaul claimed that Musk’s public announcement of the giveaway—directly tying financial rewards to event attendance and the upcoming election—was a clear violation of these statutes. He sought an immediate restraining order to prevent Musk and America PAC from promoting or executing the giveaway.
Kaul’s filing stated that the court should issue a restraining order “prohibiting Defendants from any further promotion of the million-dollar gifts to attendees of the planned Sunday, March 30, 2025, event,” as well as a temporary injunction preventing any actual payments to Wisconsin electors in connection with the vote. He also sought broader legal action to block what he called a "planned violation" of state election law.
Despite these arguments, the court’s refusal to intervene meant that Musk’s event proceeded as planned. Whether the giveaway will have a tangible impact on voter behavior remains to be seen, but the controversy surrounding it has certainly amplified the already intense political climate in Wisconsin.
A Precedent for Future Elections?
Sunday night’s ruling raises significant questions about the role of money in politics and the legal limits of election-related giveaways. Critics argue that Musk’s tactics push the boundaries of ethical campaign practices, leveraging his immense wealth to sway elections. Supporters, on the other hand, frame the giveaway as a form of political engagement, no different from other incentives used to boost voter turnout.
With the Wisconsin Supreme Court election just days away, the debate over Musk’s involvement is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Regardless of the final outcome, this case sets a fascinating precedent for future elections, where high-profile figures with deep pockets may continue to test the boundaries of campaign finance laws. One thing is certain—this battle is far from over.
Login