Today (Tuesday, April 1), diligent Wisconsinites will elect their next state supreme court justice. This is ostensibly a nonpartisan race, so the candidates are not directly aligned with a political party, but that doesn’t mean ideological camps haven’t formed. The Democratic Party, including Obama, support the liberal Susan Crawford while the Republicans and Trump back the conservative Brad Schimel. Even the sitting justices ignored the appearances of nonpartisanship, have endorsed candidates and actively campaigned on their behalf.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court is made up of seven justices and despite the court’s supposed non-partisanship, four currently lean liberal and three lean conservative. One of the liberal-leaning justice is retiring, which means the court’s power is on the line.
So while on its face a nonpartisan race, this election is important because of what is on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s docket.
Redistricting of Wisconsin’s Congressional districts, and possible control of the House in 2026. During a discussion last week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries suggested a win by Crawford could lead to two additional Democrat-leaning seats in Wisconsin. This point was reiterated on the other side by Trump.
Abortion (and the possibility the Wisconsin court reinstates an 1850s era ban), and
Union power (the Republican-controlled legislature appealed a ruling in early December which restored the collective bargaining rights for teachers and government workers).
Nationally, this race is being framed as one of the first public tests of Trump 2.0.1 Wisconsin is the quintessential swing-state, and the media is hoping this election provides a bit of a sense check. Are people pleased with Trump’s first two months in office or is there a growing backlash
But even beyond Trump, this race is defined by money.
And in the United States of 2025, one man is more associated with money than anyone else.
Elon Musk and the campaign
Elon Musk has made his presence and support for the conservative Brad Schimel loud and clear.
Last week Elon Musk’s organization, America PAC, gave one voter $1mn for signing the organization’s petition opposing “activist judges.” Over the weekend, Elon Musk gave two Wisconsinites each a check for $1mn.
As you may recall, Musk used a similar tactic during the general election campaign last fall. Across the seven critical swing-states (including Wisconsin), he gave away $1mn to a selection of voters who signed petitions supporting the First (right to free speech, etc.) and Second (right to organized militia) Amendments. When Musk’s check campaign was argued in a Pennsylvania court in November, a judge ruled the campaign could continue through Election Day, saying it was not an illegal lottery designed to scam people.
At a rally in Green Bay, Musk presented checks to two Wisconsinites
This year, Wisconsin’s Democratic attorney general argued Musk’s ploy violated an anti-bribery law to prevent the campaign from happening. But Wisconsin’s court rejected to hear the lawsuit (though Musk did modify wording around the sweepstakes to avoid the appearance of paying for people to vote, since paying people to vote is expressly forbidden under Wisconsin law).
***************************
As an aside, how did Republicans respond to this potential illegality on the part of Musk? Reporting from The Washington Post presented without comment:
While Republicans remained mum about the legality of the $1 million payments, they raised concerns about another offer to voters — from a group supporting Crawford that provided ice cream to college students. An attorney for the Republican National Committee warned the group to halt its efforts immediately.
“Wisconsin has strict laws against any election bribery,” attorney Kurt Goehre wrote to the group.
The group, Wisco Project, responded by telling Goehre that it was following the law by giving ice cream to anyone, regardless of whom they supported. Included in its letter to Goehre was a gift certificate for ice cream.
***************************
Emboldened, on Sunday Musk said he would give Wisconsinites $20 each if they took a picture with a photo of Schimel before the election. This came on top of the already ~$20mn Musk spent on the campaign, much of which Musk provided through his America PAC which he helped found last year to support Trump.
It’s important to note that Musk is not the race’s only big spender. George Soros, the liberal financier, and JB Pritzker, the Democratic billionaire governor of Illinois, have each given at least $1.5mn to support Crawford.
But these donations pale in comparison to Musk, who has core business interests at stake here.
Musk, Tesla and Wisconsin
Wisconsin law prevents automakers from owning car dealerships and selling directly to customers. Instead, companies have to work through local franchisees. This is not too unusual, a dozen states have similar laws on the books. But Tesla traditionally sells direct to the consumer, the company doesn’t work with dealerships. In Wisconsin, you can go to a Tesla showroom in Milwaukee to take a peak at the cars. But in order to purchase one, you have to either buy online and pick it up in Minnesota or Illinois, or hop across the border to buy directly from a Tesla dealership.
In January, Musk filed a suit to overturn this law, and the case will probably end up in front of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In ~20 other states, Tesla has successfully argued for similar laws to be altered or overturned.
Musk spent close to $300mn to get Trump and Republicans elected last year, what’s another $20mn or so to buy a favorable ruling for his business?
One point of order to note: Elon Musk right now isn’t all that popular. His DOGE antics have broken into the general consciousness like nothing else in Trump 2.0 (aside from perhaps Signalgate). As a result, Musk is considerably less popular than Trump, and has been trending down since Inauguration Day.
No wonder Democrats have christened the race, “The People vs. Musk.”
******************
This is not the first time Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has been in the spotlight. In 2023, the race to elect the next justice (again, with the balance of the court on the line) generated political spending of $56mn, at the time a record level for a state judicial race. The 2023 race ended with the liberal leaning justice winning the seat, but who wins today is really a toss-up.
But regardless of the result, the spending by each side has gotten out of control. This year’s the candidates and their supporters spent close to $100mn, obliterating the record set in 2023.
How did we arrive at this point, where elections are money pits?
But is this really what we want, for elections to be co-opted by the most wealthy? I know, that sounds naive, but it didn’t use to be this way.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Nuance Matters to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.