Lawsuit Seeks to Ban Elon Musk from Offering $1 Million to Voters in Wisconsin

A Wisconsin-based government watchdog group has filed a lawsuit seeking to prohibit billionaire Elon Musk from offering cash payments to voters in future elections. This legal action stems from Musk’s controversial $1 million checks given to three Wisconsin voters during the state’s heated Supreme Court election earlier this year.

The lawsuit claims Musk’s actions create a significant risk of turning Wisconsin elections into an “open auction,” where votes are bought and sold by the highest bidder.

In the spring of 2025, Musk handed out $1 million checks to three voters in Wisconsin, including two who received their payments in person just days before the April 1 Supreme Court election. These payments were part of a larger effort led by Musk’s political action committee, America PAC, to support the conservative candidate Brad Schimel.

Musk and his affiliated groups spent over $20 million in an attempt to flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s majority, but despite this massive spending, Schimel lost the election to Democratic-backed candidate Susan Crawford by a margin of 10 percentage points.

The lawsuit, filed by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign in state court, argues that Musk’s actions are in violation of state laws prohibiting vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries.

The suit claims that Musk’s influence over Wisconsin voters, combined with the large monetary incentives, was an unlawful conspiracy and a public nuisance. The plaintiffs argue that allowing such actions to continue would undermine the democratic process by allowing individuals with vast resources to unduly influence elections.

Musk’s political action committee, America PAC, had offered $100 to Wisconsin voters who signed petitions opposing “activist judges,” further extending the reach of their efforts.

Musk’s political spending in the state contributed to making the Wisconsin Supreme Court race the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history, with more than $100 million spent on both sides.

Despite the significant financial backing from Musk, the outcome was a defeat for his preferred candidate, as Susan Crawford’s victory solidified a 4-3 liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

The legal action, filed by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and supported by liberal groups like Law Forward and Democracy Defenders Fund, calls for the court to prohibit Musk from offering similar payments in future elections.

In the past, Musk’s political influence has drawn scrutiny, with critics arguing that such tactics could create an environment where wealthy individuals could buy political influence in battleground states.

The legal ramifications of Musk’s actions are far from settled. The new lawsuit could potentially be heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which will have to decide whether Musk’s actions violated state law.

Crawford, who will join the Wisconsin Supreme Court in August, is expected to recuse herself from the case due to her involvement in the election. If she does, the case would be left to a divided court, with three conservative and three liberal justices.

This lawsuit comes on the heels of a previous legal challenge filed by Wisconsin’s Democratic attorney general, which sought to block Musk’s payments to voters. The state Supreme Court had declined to hear that case, with lower courts rejecting the lawsuit.

Musk’s legal team has consistently argued that his actions are protected under the First Amendment, asserting that the payments were part of his right to free speech and that any attempts to restrict them would violate both the Wisconsin and U.S. constitutions.

Musk’s America PAC has previously used similar tactics in other states, including offering $1 million a day to voters in battleground states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and others who signed petitions supporting the First and Second Amendments.

In Pennsylvania, a judge ruled that Musk’s offer did not constitute an illegal lottery and allowed the petition drive to continue until Election Day. However, in April 2025, a federal lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania alleged that Musk and his PAC failed to pay over $20,000 for obtaining signatures for the petition in 2024.

The case is still pending, with America PAC filing a motion to dismiss the allegations. The controversy surrounding Musk’s involvement in elections raises important questions about the role of money in politics and the influence that billionaires can wield over the democratic process.

Critics argue that the current state of campaign finance laws allows wealthy individuals like Musk to have a disproportionate impact on election outcomes, particularly in swing states where the race is expected to be close.

The question of whether Musk’s actions constitute vote bribery is at the heart of this legal challenge. While Musk’s supporters argue that he is simply exercising his First Amendment rights and contributing to causes he believes in, critics contend that his approach crosses a line by offering direct monetary incentives to voters in exchange for their political support.

This concern is compounded by the fact that Musk has consistently used his wealth to influence both state and national elections, with his massive financial contributions serving to amplify his political voice.

In the case of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court election, Musk’s financial backing did not lead to the desired outcome. Despite spending millions of dollars on the race, Musk’s candidate was defeated by a significant margin.

Some political analysts believe this outcome may have been influenced by Musk’s attempt to buy influence, with many voters seeing his actions as an overstep of what should be considered acceptable political behavior.

Whether or not the lawsuit will succeed in blocking Musk from using similar tactics in future elections remains to be seen, but it has already sparked a broader conversation about the intersection of money, power, and politics in the U.S.

The lawsuit’s outcome could have far-reaching consequences for Musk, his political action committee, and future elections in Wisconsin and other battleground states.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could set a precedent for restricting the ability of wealthy individuals to influence elections through direct monetary payments to voters. This could have a chilling effect on similar efforts by other billionaires to shape election outcomes in the future.

As the case progresses, it will likely continue to generate heated debate about the role of money in politics and the potential dangers of allowing individuals with vast resources to buy influence in democratic processes.

The stakes are high, as the outcome could reshape the way elections are fought in the future and determine the extent to which wealthy donors can influence the political system.

In conclusion, the Wisconsin lawsuit against Elon Musk and his political action committee represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over campaign finance laws and the influence of money in politics.

Musk’s offer of $1 million to voters in Wisconsin has sparked widespread controversy and legal challenges, with critics arguing that it represents a dangerous erosion of the democratic process.

As the case moves forward, it will likely set important precedents for how similar actions will be treated in the future and could have lasting implications for both Musk and the broader political landscape.