"Our courts are not for sale": In setback for Musk, liberal candidate wins Wisconsin court seat

Salon - Apr 2nd, 2025

In a stunning political development, Susan Crawford emerged victorious in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, defeating her conservative opponent, Brad Schimel, by a 10-point margin. Despite Elon Musk's unprecedented $25 million campaign effort to overturn the court's liberal majority, Crawford's win was fueled by a significant increase in voter turnout, particularly among left-leaning constituents. Musk, aligned with President Donald Trump, invested heavily in the race, aiming to influence the court's stance on critical issues by supporting Schimel. However, his efforts seemed to galvanize Democratic voters more than sway Republicans, turning the election into a referendum on Musk and Trump's policies.

Crawford's victory is poised to have significant implications for Wisconsin's legal and political landscape. With the liberal majority now secure, the state Supreme Court is expected to tackle and potentially reshape crucial issues such as abortion rights, labor rights, and the redrawing of heavily gerrymandered congressional maps. This outcome not only strengthens liberal hopes in a period of perceived political lethargy but also underscores the limits of financial influence in judicial elections. Crawford's success sends a strong message about the resilience of democratic processes against high-profile interventions, setting the stage for potential shifts in national politics due to the court's upcoming decisions.

Donald Trump Elon Musk Wisconsin Supreme Court Susan Crawford Brad Schimel Campaign Finance Voter Turnout Liberal Victory Judicial Election

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant overview of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, focusing on the influence of financial contributions and the implications for political dynamics. While the article is generally clear and engaging, it suffers from a lack of transparency and source quality, which affects its overall accuracy. The emphasis on Elon Musk's financial role and the election's outcome highlights important public interest topics, though a more balanced representation of perspectives would enhance the article's depth. Overall, the article succeeds in capturing attention and addressing significant issues but could benefit from more detailed sourcing and context to improve its credibility and impact.

Accuracy

The article makes several factual claims that align with known events, such as Susan Crawford's victory in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race and the significant financial influence exerted by Elon Musk. However, there are discrepancies in the reported figures for Musk's spending. The article states Musk spent $25 million, but other sources indicate his groups spent over $20 million, with Musk personally contributing $3 million. This discrepancy affects the precision of the reporting. Additionally, the claim about Musk giving $1 million checks to voters requires further verification, as it is a serious allegation that could imply illegal activity. The article does provide a truthful account of the election outcome and the high voter turnout, which are supported by external sources.

Balance

The article appears to focus heavily on the actions and influence of Elon Musk and his alignment with Donald Trump, potentially overshadowing other perspectives. While it mentions Susan Crawford's victory and the liberal surge, it does not provide much detail on her campaign strategies or the viewpoints of her supporters. The emphasis on Musk's financial involvement and its portrayal as an unprecedented attack could imply a bias against his actions, without equally exploring the motivations or perspectives of his supporters. The article could benefit from a more balanced representation by including more voices from both sides of the political spectrum.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, making it accessible to readers. It presents the main events and key players in a straightforward manner, allowing readers to follow the narrative without confusion. However, the article could improve by providing more context for some of the claims, such as the significance of Musk's financial involvement and the potential legal issues surrounding it. While the tone is neutral, the clarity could be enhanced by elaborating on the implications of the election results and the broader political landscape.

Source quality

The article does not cite specific sources or provide direct quotes from authoritative figures, which diminishes its credibility. It mentions figures like Elon Musk and Susan Crawford but lacks direct statements or interviews that could enhance the reliability of the information presented. The absence of attributed sources or references to credible reports makes it challenging to assess the article's authority and impartiality. Relying on unnamed critics and general claims without clear attribution weakens the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in disclosing the basis of its claims, particularly regarding the financial figures and legal implications of Musk's actions. There is no explanation of the methodology or data sources used to support the reported facts. Additionally, the article does not address potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the reporting. Providing more context on how the information was gathered and any limitations or uncertainties would improve transparency and help readers understand the article's foundation.