Stephen King Takes Jab at Elon Musk's Efforts in Wisconsin Election

Newsweek - Mar 29th, 2025

Billionaire Elon Musk has pledged $1 million payments to two individuals who sign a petition opposing 'activist' judges ahead of Wisconsin's Supreme Court election. This move has drawn criticism from best-selling author Stephen King, who took to social media to voice his disapproval. The election is crucial as it will determine whether the court maintains its liberal majority or shifts to conservative control, influencing significant issues like abortion and redistricting in the state. Musk's actions have faced legal challenges, with Wisconsin's Attorney General Josh Kaul filing a motion against him, claiming the payments are illegal, although a judge has not stopped Musk's plan.

The high stakes of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election have attracted record-breaking financial contributions, with Musk reportedly spending over $19 million supporting conservative candidate Brad Schimel against liberal candidate Susan Crawford. The race is recognized as the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history. Despite Musk's financial backing, recent polls suggest Crawford is leading. Stephen King's criticism of Musk, underscored by his social media post urging people to retweet if their vote is not for sale, echoes broader concerns about the influence of money in politics and its implications for democracy.

Social Media Elon Musk Susan Crawford Brad Schimel Josh Kaul Political Donations Stephen King Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and engaging look at the intersection of politics, law, and influential public figures, focusing on Elon Musk's controversial financial involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. It effectively highlights the public interest by addressing significant issues of election integrity and the role of money in politics. However, the article would benefit from more diverse perspectives, particularly from legal experts, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the implications and legality of Musk's actions. While the story is generally clear and well-structured, further simplification of complex details and increased transparency about sources and potential biases would enhance its credibility and impact. Overall, the article succeeds in sparking interest and debate but could be strengthened by deeper exploration of the broader political and legal context.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on Elon Musk's involvement in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, including his offer of $1 million payments to two individuals and $100 to anyone signing a petition. However, it lacks precise details about the legality of these actions, which is crucial given the ongoing legal challenges. The claim about Musk's total spending being over $19 million aligns with known figures, but further verification is needed. Additionally, the story correctly notes Stephen King's criticism, though it could provide more context on his history with Musk. Overall, the article presents factual information but requires further verification on legal aspects and financial details.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from both Elon Musk's actions and Stephen King's criticism, offering a viewpoint from the Democratic Party as well. However, it predominantly focuses on Musk and King's public personas without delving deeply into the broader political implications or the perspectives of Wisconsin voters. The inclusion of a statement from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin provides some balance, yet the story could benefit from additional viewpoints, such as those from legal experts or conservative voices, to provide a more comprehensive analysis of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it easy for readers to follow the main points. It effectively uses subheadings to break down complex information, such as the implications of the election and the legal challenges faced by Musk. However, some sections could benefit from clearer language, particularly regarding the legal aspects and the potential consequences of Musk's actions. Overall, the article maintains a neutral tone and presents the information logically, but further simplification of complex legal and financial details would enhance clarity.

Source quality

The story relies on statements from public figures like Elon Musk and Stephen King, as well as a statement from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. While these sources are credible in their own right, the article lacks input from independent experts or legal analysts who could provide more depth and context. Furthermore, the absence of direct quotes from Musk or King about the specific allegations limits the article's authority. Including more diverse and authoritative sources would enhance the credibility of the reporting.

Transparency

The article outlines the main events and claims but does not fully disclose the methodology behind the claims, such as how the financial figures were obtained or the legal basis for the accusations against Musk. It also lacks transparency regarding the potential biases of the sources quoted, such as the Democratic Party's vested interest in the election outcome. Greater transparency about the sources of information and potential conflicts of interest would improve the article's credibility and help readers better understand the basis of the claims.