Wait, did Elon Musk really try to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?
If you spent any time on X (formerly Twitter) or watching local news in early 2025, you probably saw the photos. There was Musk, the world’s richest man, wearing a green-and-gold foam cheesehead on a stage in Green Bay. He wasn't there to talk about rockets or electric cars. He was there to talk about "activist judges" and the "destiny of Western civilization."
It was a wild scene. Honestly, it felt less like a judicial campaign and more like a high-stakes circus. Musk wasn't just endorsing a candidate; he was throwing tens of millions of dollars into a race that usually flies under the national radar. He even started handing out giant $1 million checks to random voters who signed his PAC’s petition.
People were furious. Or they were thrilled. There wasn't much middle ground.
The musk wisconsin supreme court saga isn't just a footnote in state history; it’s a case study in how one billionaire’s checkbook can turn a local court race into a global headline. Here’s the real story of the million-dollar checks, the lawsuits, and why the "Musk effect" ended up backfiring in the most expensive judicial election in American history.
The $100 Million Bench
In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court is a big deal.
The court has a 4-3 liberal majority. That slim margin decides everything: abortion rights, gerrymandered voting maps, and union laws. In April 2025, a seat opened up. If the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel, won, the court would flip. If the liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, won, the liberal majority would stay locked in until at least 2028.
Musk saw this as a "save the world" moment. He funneled roughly $25 million into the race through his America PAC and other groups. To put that in perspective, the previous national record for a court race was $51 million total. Musk’s involvement helped push the 2025 total over $100 million.
👉 See also: What Really Happened With the Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz
Think about that. $100 million for one seat on a state court.
The Million-Dollar "Lottery"
The drama peaked when Musk started his "petition" giveaway.
His PAC offered $100 to any registered Wisconsin voter who signed a petition supporting "non-activist" judges. But the real kicker was the $1 million prizes. Musk announced he would give away $1 million checks to random signers.
The first winner was a guy from Green Bay named Scott Ainsworth. Musk literally handed him a giant check on stage.
Critics called it what it looked like: election bribery. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul sued Musk, trying to block the payments. Kaul argued that offering money to induce people to vote—or even to register so they could sign a petition—violated state law. Musk’s lawyers argued it was just "free speech" and that the winners were actually "spokespeople" for the PAC.
The legal fight moved fast. Two lower courts refused to stop the payments before the election. When it reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the justices declined to hear it on procedural grounds. The checks kept flying right up until Election Day.
Why Musk Cared So Much
It wasn't just about politics. It was about business.
✨ Don't miss: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
Tesla has been in a long-running legal battle with the state of Wisconsin. Basically, Wisconsin law prevents car manufacturers from owning their own dealerships. Tesla, which doesn't use the traditional dealership model, wants to sell directly to consumers.
That case was working its way through the system and was widely expected to end up before the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
If Musk could help seat a conservative justice like Schimel, he might find a more sympathetic ear for Tesla’s business model. Liberal groups shouted from the rooftops that Musk was trying to "buy his own judge." Schimel, for his part, stayed mostly quiet about Musk’s antics, even skipped the Green Bay rally, and said he didn't know the criteria for the $1 million giveaways.
The Backfire Effect
Then came April 1, 2025.
Musk’s strategy was simple: flood the zone with cash and use the $1 million "lottery" to energize conservative voters who might otherwise stay home.
It didn't work. In fact, it might have done the opposite.
Susan Crawford crushed Brad Schimel by 10 percentage points. She didn't just win; she dominated in areas where Musk had been most active. In Brown County (Green Bay), where Musk wore the cheesehead and handed out checks, Schimel actually lost.
🔗 Read more: The Galveston Hurricane 1900 Orphanage Story Is More Tragic Than You Realized
Political analysts later pointed out that Musk became the "boogeyman" that Crawford needed. She ran ads calling the race "The People v. Elon Musk." Instead of discouraging liberals, Musk’s presence acted like a lightning bolt, driving record-breaking turnout from people who were offended by the idea of an out-of-state billionaire trying to "purchase" their court.
The Numbers That Mattered:
- $100 Million+: Total spending on the race.
- $25 Million: Musk's estimated contribution.
- 10%: The margin by which Musk's candidate lost.
- $1: The amount Wisconsin law says you can't exceed when "inducing" a voter.
The Fallout in 2026
We’re now in 2026, and the legal echoes of that race are still ringing.
Even though the election is over, Law Forward and the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign filed a massive lawsuit against Musk and America PAC. They want a permanent ban on these kinds of cash giveaways. They're calling it a "public nuisance" and a conspiracy to corrupt the electoral process.
Musk’s response? He’s mostly pulled back.
After the Wisconsin "flop," as the Associated Press called it, Musk announced he would be spending less on political campaigns. His favorability ratings took a hit, dropping significantly in the months following the election.
The lesson here is pretty clear. You can buy a lot of things with $25 million—rockets, social media platforms, fancy hats—but in Wisconsin, you apparently can't buy a Supreme Court seat.
Actionable Insights for Following the Case
If you're tracking the ongoing legal battles or the future of Wisconsin's judiciary, keep these points in mind:
- Monitor the "Bribery" Lawsuit: The case filed by Law Forward is still active. If the court rules against Musk, it could set a national precedent that bans "lottery-style" giveaways in future elections.
- Watch the 2026 Election: There is another Wisconsin Supreme Court seat up for grabs right now. The candidates are already using the "Musk 2025" playbook to warn voters about outside spending.
- Check the Tesla Case: Keep an eye on the Tesla dealership lawsuit. Now that the court remains 4-3 liberal, Tesla’s chances of winning an exemption to the dealership law are significantly lower.
- Transparency Reports: If you want to see exactly where the money went, the Wisconsin Ethics Commission publishes full campaign finance reports. It’s a rabbit hole, but it’s the only way to see the "dark money" groups Musk used to bypass individual donation limits.
The era of the "billionaire-funded court" isn't over, but the Wisconsin experiment proved that voters often push back when the spending becomes the story. Musk tried to change the "destiny of humanity" in a Green Bay convention center, but Wisconsin voters decided they liked their own destiny just fine.