Elon Musk is paying voters again ahead of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election

The Verge - Mar 21st, 2025

Elon Musk is once again using his financial influence to sway political outcomes, this time in the crucial Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Musk’s America PAC is offering $100 to registered voters who sign a petition against “activist judges,” a tactic that skirts the legal boundaries of election law. The April 1 election will determine the ideological balance of the court, impacting major issues such as abortion rights, public sector unions, and gerrymandering. With over $76 million already invested in the race, Musk-aligned groups have contributed more than $14 million to support conservative candidate Brad Schimel, who trails behind liberal candidate Susan Crawford.

This development has significant implications, given the national spotlight on Wisconsin as a swing state. Musk’s actions echo his previous political maneuvers, raising questions about the influence of money in politics and the legal gray areas surrounding voter engagement strategies. The involvement of high-profile donors like Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman highlights the importance of this race beyond state lines. Additionally, Tesla's ongoing legal battle with Wisconsin over dealership operations adds a personal dimension for Musk, further entwining business and political interests in this judicial contest.

Elon Musk Tesla Wisconsin Supreme Court America Pac Susan Crawford Brad Schimel Activist Judges Election Law Campaign Finance

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of Elon Musk's involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, highlighting the potential implications of his actions on democratic processes. The story is timely and addresses topics of significant public interest, such as the influence of money in politics and the judiciary's role in shaping policy.

While the article is largely accurate and well-written, it could benefit from more explicit sourcing and a more balanced representation of perspectives. The story effectively engages readers by focusing on high-profile figures and controversial topics, although additional context and interactive elements could enhance engagement further.

Overall, the article is a valuable contribution to public discourse, with the potential to influence public opinion and spark meaningful discussions about the role of money and influence in politics.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims, such as Elon Musk's involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election through his America PAC, which offers $100 to registered voters for signing a petition. This claim is supported by multiple sources, confirming its accuracy. However, the story's assertion that this tactic is legally ambiguous due to differing interpretations by election law experts requires further verification.

The article accurately describes the context of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, noting its potential impact on issues like abortion and gerrymandering. This is corroborated by reports on the election's significance. Additionally, the financial involvement of Musk-affiliated groups and other donors is consistent with reported figures, although the exact amounts vary slightly among sources.

The claim about Tesla's lawsuit against Wisconsin is factual, as Tesla has indeed sued the state over dealership restrictions. However, the article could have provided more detailed information on the lawsuit to enhance understanding. Overall, while the story is largely accurate, some areas, such as the legal interpretation of the petition payments, need further clarification.

Balance

The article mainly focuses on Elon Musk's actions and the implications of his involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which may suggest a bias towards highlighting his influence. The perspectives of other stakeholders, such as the liberal donors and the candidates themselves, are mentioned but not explored in depth.

While the article provides some context on the election's significance, it could have offered a more balanced view by including more information on the candidates' platforms and the broader political landscape in Wisconsin. Additionally, the story could have benefited from perspectives from election law experts on both sides of the legal debate regarding the petition payments.

Overall, the article presents a somewhat imbalanced view by focusing heavily on Musk's actions without equally exploring other relevant perspectives. Including more diverse viewpoints would enhance the article's balance.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly presents the main points, making it easy for readers to follow the narrative. The language is straightforward, and the tone is neutral, contributing to the article's clarity.

The story effectively explains the significance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election and Musk's involvement. However, it could improve clarity by providing more background information on the candidates and the specific issues at stake in the election.

Overall, the article is clear and accessible, but additional context would enhance reader understanding.

Source quality

The article appears to rely on credible sources, as it includes information that aligns with reports from established news outlets. However, the article does not explicitly cite these sources, which would strengthen its credibility.

The story's reliance on election law experts for the legal interpretation of the petition payments is appropriate, but it would benefit from direct quotes or references to specific experts to enhance authority. Additionally, providing more information on the sources of financial data regarding campaign spending would improve transparency and reliability.

Overall, while the article's information aligns with credible sources, it lacks explicit attribution, which affects the perceived quality of the sources.

Transparency

The article provides a clear overview of the situation, including Musk's involvement in the election and the legal implications of his actions. However, it lacks transparency in terms of sourcing and methodology.

The article does not disclose how it obtained information about Musk's America PAC or the financial figures mentioned. Additionally, the story could benefit from more explicit disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, such as Musk's personal stake in the election due to Tesla's lawsuit.

Overall, the article provides a transparent account of the situation but could improve by offering more context on its sources and potential biases.