AG files last-minute appeal to block Musk from gifting $2 million to voters in high-stakes WI court race

Fox News - Mar 30th, 2025

The Wisconsin Supreme Court race has drawn national attention as Attorney General Joshua Kaul filed an appeal to prevent Elon Musk from handing out $1 million checks at a rally for candidate Brad Schimel. The appellate court previously denied Kaul's request for an emergency injunction. Schimel, a Republican, faces Susan Crawford, a liberal jurist, in a race that could have significant national implications. Musk's involvement has been criticized, with claims that his actions violate state election laws by offering incentives to voters. The outcome of this election could influence redistricting and other political dynamics in the state.

The context of the controversy centers around the accusation that Musk's financial contributions and offers could sway the election outcome, raising questions about election integrity. Critics argue that Musk's actions are potentially illegal under Wisconsin Statute § 12.11, which prohibits offering anything of value for voting. The race is crucial as it could impact the balance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court and, by extension, influence national politics, including redistricting efforts that could affect congressional districts. With high-stakes and big money involved, the race underscores the growing politicization of judicial elections in the U.S.

Elon Musk Wisconsin Supreme Court Political Influence Susan Crawford Brad Schimel Joshua Kaul Election Laws Redistricting

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The news story provides a timely and engaging account of a high-stakes Wisconsin Supreme Court race, highlighting the controversial involvement of Elon Musk. The story effectively captures public interest by addressing significant issues like election integrity and judicial influence, with potential national implications. The article is generally accurate and well-sourced, though some factual claims require further verification. While the story presents multiple perspectives, it could benefit from a more balanced exploration of the issues. The language and structure are clear and accessible, but simplifying complex legal concepts could enhance readability. Overall, the story is informative and relevant, with the potential to influence public opinion and spark meaningful discussions.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims about Elon Musk's involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, including his financial contributions and legal challenges. These claims are generally accurate but require verification, such as the specific amount Musk has contributed and the details of the legal proceedings. The story accurately describes the legal basis for the injunction and references Wisconsin Statute § 12.11, which prohibits offering anything of value in exchange for voting. However, the story could benefit from more precise details about the court's decisions and the implications for redistricting and union power. Overall, the story aligns with known facts, but some areas need further verification.

Balance

The story provides perspectives from both sides of the political spectrum, mentioning the positions of Republican Brad Schimel and Democrat Susan Crawford. It also includes viewpoints from Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul and Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler. However, the story leans towards highlighting the actions and statements of Musk and his supporters, which may overshadow the perspectives of the opposing side. The inclusion of comments from Gov. Josh Shapiro adds some balance, but the story could benefit from a more comprehensive exploration of the implications for both candidates and the broader political context.

Clarity

The story is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information that guides the reader through the key points. It effectively uses quotes and statements to illustrate the positions of different stakeholders, and the language is accessible to a general audience. The story maintains a neutral tone, which aids in comprehension. However, the inclusion of more detailed explanations of legal terms and processes could enhance clarity for readers unfamiliar with legal jargon. Overall, the story is easy to understand, but there is room for improvement in simplifying complex legal concepts.

Source quality

The story cites multiple credible sources, including statements from public figures like Elon Musk, Josh Kaul, and Ben Wikler. It also references court filings and legal statutes, which are authoritative sources for the legal aspects of the story. The inclusion of contributions from the Associated Press adds to the reliability of the information. However, the story could improve by providing direct quotes from court documents or legal experts to enhance the credibility of the legal claims. Overall, the source quality is strong, but there is room for improvement in attribution and sourcing depth.

Transparency

The story provides some context for the legal and political dynamics of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, but it lacks transparency in explaining the methodology behind certain claims, such as the financial contributions and the potential national implications. The story does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and it could benefit from a clearer explanation of the basis for the legal arguments presented. While the story includes statements from various stakeholders, it could offer more background information to help readers understand the motivations and interests of the parties involved.