Elon Musk gave out $1 million checks on Sunday to two Wisconsin voters, declaring them spokespeople for his political group, ahead of a Wisconsin Supreme Court election that the tech billionaire cast as critical to President Donald Trump’s agenda and “the future of civilization.”
[…]
Musk and groups he supports have spent more than $20 million to help conservative favorite Brad Schimel in Tuesday’s race, which will determine the ideological makeup of a court likely to decide key issues in a perennial battleground state. Musk has increasingly become the center of the contest, with liberal favorite Susan Crawford and her allies protesting Musk and what they say is the influence he wants to have on the court.
“I think this will be important for the future of civilization,” he said. “It’s that’s significant.”
He noted that the state high court may well take up redistricting of congressional districts, which could ultimately affect which party controls the U.S. House.
Where to begin?
Let me start with a boring political science observation. These elections are legally nonpartisan. That is, there are no party labels on the ballots. Anbd yet, everyone know who the conservative candidate is and who the liberal candidate is. So, even without actual labels, it is clear thart we have two different parties of voters coalescing around these candidates. This is just an example of who parties form naturally in competitive elections. There are signals other than letters after names for this to be obvious.
I will move to the circus of it all. Musk is not from Wisconsin, and yet he has so much money that he can choose to parachute in and run weird $1,000,000 lotteries and drop tens of million on a state Surpreme Court race. Indeed, I think that Musk’s behavior continues ot underscore the dangers to be associated with a single individual having this much money and being allowed to throw it around in elections.
In regards to gerrymandering, it seems worth pointing out that Wisconsin is, on the state level, has a partisan split close to 50-50.
Here are some recent presidential elections, via 270towin:
However, the House delegation is 6-2 in favor of Republicans, and the State Assembly has been decidedly Republican (via Ballotpedia).
Indeed, as I wrote back in 2018, the partisan gerrymandering for the State Assembly was skewed towards one party so heavily that one could question the democratic character of those elections. Legislation was passed in 2024 (in response to a court ruling) to help rectify this fact, but elections still skew in a GOP direction relative to the actual voter distribution. As such, from a democratic point of view, the lines probably do need to be revised.
Ironically, perhaps, the fact that the state Supreme Court is so evenly divided that one seat makes such a difference is a far better representation of the state’s partisan split, by far, than is true of the institutions that are supposed to actually represent the state. The court is currently 4-3 liberal and this race will determine if it stays that way or goes 4-3 conservative (despite, you know, it being all nonpatisan and all).
Regardless, I would note that, as best as I can tell from various sources, there is no suggestion that the Democrats are hoping to challenge the House districts in court. As such, Musk’s claims that this election is somehow about blocking such a suit seems made out of whole cloth (never mind that the gerrymandering in the state has been a GOP tool).
For instance, in 2022, the court’s conservative majority blocked the use of drop boxes for voting. That ruling was overturned the following year, after the court had gained a progressive majority, allowing dropboxes to be used in 2024.
“So that’s what’s critically important in this election, preserving the right to vote” Jay Heck, the executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, told Democracy Docket.
In regards to districting, the likely issue would appear to be more likely the state legislative maps than the US House districts.
Redistricting could play out similarly. Wisconsin has been at the center of some of the most contentious redistricting battles in recent years — the most recent one ending with the state Supreme Court’s liberal majority striking down state legislative maps drawn by GOP lawmakers in December 2023 as a partisan gerrymander. A conservative majority on the state’s highest court could allow the GOP-controlled legislature’s gerrymander of the state’s congressional map to stand, or give a green light to future Republican gerrymanders.
At least that’s the pitch that Musk is making as he spends millions of dollars to rally voters in Wisconsin. In a recent interview with Schimel hosted on X, Musk said congressional redistricting is the “most consequential” aspect of the race.
“If the other candidate wins, instead of Justice Schimel, then the Democrats will attempt to redraw the districts and cause Wisconsin to lose two Republican seats,” he said. “In my opinion that’s the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin. It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place.”
Heck thinks a conservative-controlled court could also take another look at the state legislative map.
“It was a 4-3 progressive majority that threw out the Republican gerrymandered maps of 2022,” Heck said. “Certainly a change at the top of the Wisconsin Supreme Court would likely revisit that particular issue.”
Heck thinks that if Democrats wanted to challenge the state’s congressional maps, with the goal to pass new ones that boost representation in Congress, they would have done so by now, considering the Wisconsin Supreme Court has had a liberal majority since 2023. Still, there’s no question that Musk and the GOP are using the issue to mobilize GOP voters.
“I just had not heard discussion of that being a major point, or something that a progressive Supreme Court is likely to take up,” Heck said. “I think that’s a lot more bluster than truth. And I think that needs to be pointed out, because that’s a manufactured concern just to gin up the conservative base in Wisconsin.”
The results will be interesting, if anything because they are an early opportunity for voters to express their views on the White House, even if technically no Republican is on the ballot. These kinds of elections are often a signal about the sitting administration, especially one that has been as controversial as the Trump administration has been. The insertion of Musk into the process, which is an aid to the conservative candidate in terms of money, may also be a detriment, as Musk has made himself into a divisive, polarizing figure as well as a key symbol of the Trump administration.
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on Twitter and/or BlueSky.
I blame JFK. In 1964 he pushed through a reduction of the top personal income tax rate from about 90 to 70 percent. This started the long slippery slope to where we now find ourselves.
So according to Republicans, you can’t hand out water bottles to black voters standing hours in line, but a drug-addicted illegal immigrant Nazi oligarch can hand out $1 million checks.
@Connor:
While I’m all for getting money out of politics…Your IQ must be in single digits to think these things are the same.
As noted by the original post, Musk is doing exactly what he claims, absent proof, Soros is doing. Please, Drew/Guarnari, show us a clip of Soros in front of a crowd with a million dollar check. Or anything remotely similar. And if you can’t, I suggest you slink away once and for all.
@Connor: it’s nice you add in Soros. Just in case people didn’t get the grand Jewish conspiracy just from Bloomberg (who is more aligned with his “third way” nonsense than either party)
It’s a fine piece of work you did there.
——
I tend to think that anyone who can donate over a million dollars to politics simply isn’t taxed enough.
Further. Blame the brain trust who decided that Jefferson Davis and Co. should’ve been repatriated rather than summarily executed, then their property burnt to the ground and confiscated.
Sen. Ted Kennedy blocking Nixon’s universal healthcare bill attempts didn’t help either.
Ted Kennedy was also one of the prime movers behind airline deregulation.
Of all the predictions made by supporters, only one came true: air fares have gone down.
But data indicates air fares were coming down before deregulation. Admittedly fares might be lower under competition than through the old Civil Aeronautics Board. Today, though, given the plethora of ancillary fees, both by the airlines and government, and given the degraded travel experience*, one must wonder whether fares are all that low.
Many predictions yielded the oposite. One dealt with the number of airlines. By now, the US is supposed to have like three dozen airlines, each fiercely competing against all others. Instead there are well under a dozen (excluding outfits that only fly regional rutes for the majors).
*It’s not even that long ago. the last time I flew Mexicana, before it died, the fare included free bags, seat assignment, and dinner. In coach. that was 2010.
If that $1 million were confiscated (i.e. taxed) from Musk, do you think it would be spent wisely?
Second, imagine you gave $1000 to a campaign. Someone out there would say that anyone who has an extra grand to donate to politics isn’t taxed enough. In other words, the monetary line we all set as “too much” seems to correspond to others but never ourselves (we don’t know each other but I’ll bet that the average OTB reader has a higher net worth than most).
Finally, and more importantly, I was a jerk to you yesterday and I apologize. I certainly crossed the line between discussion and argumentation and I’m genuinely sorry for doing so.
If that $1 million were confiscated (i.e. taxed) from Musk, do you think it would be spent wisely?
Yes. I do. Or, to be more specific, there is zero doubt in my mind that there is a lengthy list of better ways to spend the $2,000,000 in question.
And the bottom line is that Musk’s wealth gives him a force multiplier for his voice that is simply democratically problematic. And not, it is not just the 2 million, but an additional 20. Musk’s $22 million far outstrips anything my $1000 (to stick to your example) can do. And his $22 million (on top of the at least $200 million he spent on the presidential campaign) far outstrips the relative influence any one us would have giving $1000 versus someone who could give nothing.
It is arguable that the reason we have Pete Hegseth as SecDef is because there was a credible threat that Musk would fund a primary challenge against Senator Ernst.
Would you consider your home state’s bullet train money being spent wisely? Your caveat is noted – that there is a lengthy list of better ways to spend the money in question – but I just don’t see that as realistic given my belief that the notion of a politician as a public servant is oxymoronic.
Having said that, from the original post:
“The insertion of Musk into the process, which is an aid to the conservative candidate in terms of money, may also be a detriment, as Musk has made himself into a divisive, polarizing figure as well as a key symbol of the Trump administration.”
There aren’t a lot of pro-Trump voices here but your assessment merits serious reflection. To my mind the average non-MAGA swing voter is going to get sick of this and see oligarchy as opposed to “fight fight fight”.
but I just don’t see that as realistic given my belief that the notion of a politician as a public servant is oxymoronic.
I am not a Pollyanna about the government, or any human institution. But having said that, I know enough about human history and about comparative government to know that, in fact, human lives can be made better (and, indeed, have been made better) because of and through government.
It isn’t perfect, but little is, including the private sector, which can have many of the same foibles as government.
You intimated that you were a trained historian in one comment, so I expect you know that the government has, in fact, done good and useful things.
In re: bullet trains, are you referring to California? I only have passing familiarity, but based on what I do know, it has been an unfortunate disaster. But that such things happen doesn’t
change my general position.
I would counter with clean air and water, with the public education system that, for all its flaws, has lead to a literate population, with roads, with the protection of basic property rights, with going to the moon, and, really, with helping create the context of one of the most prosperous societies ever to exist.
But, of course, beyond all of that, what have the Romans done for us?
And I actually do believe that there are public servants in the government. A whole lot of them, in fact.
To my mind, the average non-MAGA swing voter is going to get sick of this and see oligarchy
This seems likely, especially based on a movement predicated on being for the little guy against the elite.
I just don’t see that as realistic given my unjustified religious belief that the notion of a politician as a public servant is oxymoronic.
Fixed that for you.
It’s not hard to find public servants, or even statesmen, in relatively recent history. Even the GOP has produced them in living memory, though that seems to no longer be possible. And it is extremely disingenuous to work tirelessly to corrupt politicians, then complain that they are corrupt…
But having said that, I know enough about human history and about comparative government to know that, in fact, human lives can be made better (and, indeed, have been made better) because of and through government.
This is a gross understatement.
Throughout human history, without exception, ONLY government has ever made lasting and significant improvements in the quality of human life. You don’t have to be Hobbes to understand what human life is like in the absence of government. You don’t have to be a genius to understand that the modern standard of living could never have been achieved in the absence of government. The people who insist that government is the problem are not political scientists — they’re con men.
I missed most of this yesterday, but will chime in and say that what Musk is doing gets so f*cking close to the line of illegal that most donors wouldn’t get near it.
You cannot pay for votes. Period. When I worked in politics, we shot down all kinds of ideas to entice people to vote because the law is very clear, and we didn’t want to test what might or might not fly. The difference is that Musk has the money to pay lawyers, we did not want to spend funds that way.
Additionally, the billionaire donors by far slant Republican. Of the $2.5 billion who donated by October of 2024, $1.6 billion was Republican money, $752 million was Democratic, and $214 million went to “both parties.” Out of the top 10 individual donors, the first SEVEN were Republicans, and the total was 8 out of the 10 were Republican donors.
@Jen:
Musk is coming ever closer to crossing the line. If I understood the current news reports the qualification to be eligible for his “prize” was 1) you have to vote and 2) must sign a pledge to vote against “activist judges”. It’s the second part – a pledge to vote a specific way – that is really pushing hard on the limits .
Taylor – I breathlessly await your critical essays on these folks:
Contributor; Democrats
Bloomberg, Michael R.
$43,453,634
… the donor list goes on … etc
Yes, we all remember when Bloomberg and all those other Democratic Party donors went up to _______________ (fill in name of any one of the 51 states) and opened a brief case and handed out $1M checks as ‘voter incentives.’
I do get your point, there is only ‘both sides do it.’ now.
You have to appreciate Musk having the lack of self-awareness to stand on a stage in Wisconsin and complain about “billionaires trying to buy an election.”
Of course, Republicans have had Soros Derangement Syndrome since Reagan.
And the actual politicians don’t care about anything – Republicans are perfectly fine with the current Treasury Secretary being both Soros’ #2 guy and gay.
Poor chief nazi. He buys a country, and finds the states are not included.
I blame JFK. In 1964 he pushed through a reduction of the top personal income tax rate from about 90 to 70 percent. This started the long slippery slope to where we now find ourselves.
So according to Republicans, you can’t hand out water bottles to black voters standing hours in line, but a drug-addicted illegal immigrant Nazi oligarch can hand out $1 million checks.
Seems legit from the Jim Crow 2.0 party.
@Kathy: Lol, I come to OTB for comments like this!
@Franklin:
Thank you! I’ll be here all week.
Taylor – I breathlessly await your critical essays on these folks:
Contributor; Democrats
Bloomberg, Michael R.
$43,453,634
Moskovitz, Dustin & Cari
$38,785,700
Eychaner, Fred
$31,057,700
Simons, James H. & Marilyn
$30,757,103
Hoffman, Reid Garrett
$26,659,700
Mandel, Stephen F. Jr. & Susan Z.
$22,934,500
Simon, Deborah J.
$19,830,960
Jordan, Wayne D.
$14,488,811
Larsen, Christian
$13,442,479
Heising, Elizabeth D.
$12,638,350
And we didn’t even get to George Soros………..
@Connor:
While I’m all for getting money out of politics…Your IQ must be in single digits to think these things are the same.
As noted by the original post, Musk is doing exactly what he claims, absent proof, Soros is doing. Please, Drew/Guarnari, show us a clip of Soros in front of a crowd with a million dollar check. Or anything remotely similar. And if you can’t, I suggest you slink away once and for all.
@Kathy:
Netflix special?
@Connor: So, you can search a database and cut-and-paste.
Bravo.
@Connor: it’s nice you add in Soros. Just in case people didn’t get the grand Jewish conspiracy just from Bloomberg (who is more aligned with his “third way” nonsense than either party)
It’s a fine piece of work you did there.
——
I tend to think that anyone who can donate over a million dollars to politics simply isn’t taxed enough.
@Steven L. Taylor: You’re really not giving him credit for the spurious Soros. That was original work!
@gVOR10:
Further. Blame the brain trust who decided that Jefferson Davis and Co. should’ve been repatriated rather than summarily executed, then their property burnt to the ground and confiscated.
Sen. Ted Kennedy blocking Nixon’s universal healthcare bill attempts didn’t help either.
@DK:
Ted Kennedy was also one of the prime movers behind airline deregulation.
Of all the predictions made by supporters, only one came true: air fares have gone down.
But data indicates air fares were coming down before deregulation. Admittedly fares might be lower under competition than through the old Civil Aeronautics Board. Today, though, given the plethora of ancillary fees, both by the airlines and government, and given the degraded travel experience*, one must wonder whether fares are all that low.
Many predictions yielded the oposite. One dealt with the number of airlines. By now, the US is supposed to have like three dozen airlines, each fiercely competing against all others. Instead there are well under a dozen (excluding outfits that only fly regional rutes for the majors).
*It’s not even that long ago. the last time I flew Mexicana, before it died, the fare included free bags, seat assignment, and dinner. In coach. that was 2010.
@Gustopher:
If that $1 million were confiscated (i.e. taxed) from Musk, do you think it would be spent wisely?
Second, imagine you gave $1000 to a campaign. Someone out there would say that anyone who has an extra grand to donate to politics isn’t taxed enough. In other words, the monetary line we all set as “too much” seems to correspond to others but never ourselves (we don’t know each other but I’ll bet that the average OTB reader has a higher net worth than most).
Finally, and more importantly, I was a jerk to you yesterday and I apologize. I certainly crossed the line between discussion and argumentation and I’m genuinely sorry for doing so.
@Meh:
Yes. I do. Or, to be more specific, there is zero doubt in my mind that there is a lengthy list of better ways to spend the $2,000,000 in question.
And the bottom line is that Musk’s wealth gives him a force multiplier for his voice that is simply democratically problematic. And not, it is not just the 2 million, but an additional 20. Musk’s $22 million far outstrips anything my $1000 (to stick to your example) can do. And his $22 million (on top of the at least $200 million he spent on the presidential campaign) far outstrips the relative influence any one us would have giving $1000 versus someone who could give nothing.
It is arguable that the reason we have Pete Hegseth as SecDef is because there was a credible threat that Musk would fund a primary challenge against Senator Ernst.
That is too much power for one man.
@Daryl:
Such a false and shallow defense. Money in politics does what it does. The only thing we share is the view that less money would be better.
I wish I had a practical solution.
@Steven L. Taylor:
No real response, I see. I understand. It’s just selective outrage.
@Gustopher: I am just weary of bad faith nonsense.
And I note, just to the ether, the following.
First, yes, billionaires as a general matter have too much sway in American politics.
Second, none of the people on that list are doing anything near what Musk is doing in Wisconsin.
Third, if a commenter wants to make an argument, make one (and link to what you are using if you want me to look at it).
@Connor:
And you continue your bad faith bullshit.
Why should I respond to it? What is there even to respond to? You cut and pasted a list. What do you want me to do with that?
It isn’t like you responded to my post. But I am supposed to respond to a non sequitur of a comment?
If you want me to treat you like you are worth my time, be worth my time.
And my comment directed tyo Gustopher was before I saw Conor’s comment.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Would you consider your home state’s bullet train money being spent wisely? Your caveat is noted – that there is a lengthy list of better ways to spend the money in question – but I just don’t see that as realistic given my belief that the notion of a politician as a public servant is oxymoronic.
Having said that, from the original post:
“The insertion of Musk into the process, which is an aid to the conservative candidate in terms of money, may also be a detriment, as Musk has made himself into a divisive, polarizing figure as well as a key symbol of the Trump administration.”
There aren’t a lot of pro-Trump voices here but your assessment merits serious reflection. To my mind the average non-MAGA swing voter is going to get sick of this and see oligarchy as opposed to “fight fight fight”.
@Steven L. Taylor: Connor is a Man of Faith. Bad faith, to be specific.
@Meh:
I am not a Pollyanna about the government, or any human institution. But having said that, I know enough about human history and about comparative government to know that, in fact, human lives can be made better (and, indeed, have been made better) because of and through government.
It isn’t perfect, but little is, including the private sector, which can have many of the same foibles as government.
You intimated that you were a trained historian in one comment, so I expect you know that the government has, in fact, done good and useful things.
In re: bullet trains, are you referring to California? I only have passing familiarity, but based on what I do know, it has been an unfortunate disaster. But that such things happen doesn’t
change my general position.
I would counter with clean air and water, with the public education system that, for all its flaws, has lead to a literate population, with roads, with the protection of basic property rights, with going to the moon, and, really, with helping create the context of one of the most prosperous societies ever to exist.
But, of course, beyond all of that, what have the Romans done for us?
And I actually do believe that there are public servants in the government. A whole lot of them, in fact.
This seems likely, especially based on a movement predicated on being for the little guy against the elite.
@Meh:
Fixed that for you.
It’s not hard to find public servants, or even statesmen, in relatively recent history. Even the GOP has produced them in living memory, though that seems to no longer be possible. And it is extremely disingenuous to work tirelessly to corrupt politicians, then complain that they are corrupt…
@Steven L. Taylor:
This is a gross understatement.
Throughout human history, without exception, ONLY government has ever made lasting and significant improvements in the quality of human life. You don’t have to be Hobbes to understand what human life is like in the absence of government. You don’t have to be a genius to understand that the modern standard of living could never have been achieved in the absence of government. The people who insist that government is the problem are not political scientists — they’re con men.
I missed most of this yesterday, but will chime in and say that what Musk is doing gets so f*cking close to the line of illegal that most donors wouldn’t get near it.
You cannot pay for votes. Period. When I worked in politics, we shot down all kinds of ideas to entice people to vote because the law is very clear, and we didn’t want to test what might or might not fly. The difference is that Musk has the money to pay lawyers, we did not want to spend funds that way.
Additionally, the billionaire donors by far slant Republican. Of the $2.5 billion who donated by October of 2024, $1.6 billion was Republican money, $752 million was Democratic, and $214 million went to “both parties.” Out of the top 10 individual donors, the first SEVEN were Republicans, and the total was 8 out of the 10 were Republican donors.
Meet the megadonors pumping over $2.5 billion into the election
@Jen:
Musk is coming ever closer to crossing the line. If I understood the current news reports the qualification to be eligible for his “prize” was 1) you have to vote and 2) must sign a pledge to vote against “activist judges”. It’s the second part – a pledge to vote a specific way – that is really pushing hard on the limits .
@DrDaveT: I have been accused, from time to time, of engaging in the art of understatement.
@Connor:
Yes, we all remember when Bloomberg and all those other Democratic Party donors went up to _______________ (fill in name of any one of the 51 states) and opened a brief case and handed out $1M checks as ‘voter incentives.’
I do get your point, there is only ‘both sides do it.’ now.
@Steven L. Taylor:
You have to appreciate Musk having the lack of self-awareness to stand on a stage in Wisconsin and complain about “billionaires trying to buy an election.”
Of course, Republicans have had Soros Derangement Syndrome since Reagan.
And the actual politicians don’t care about anything – Republicans are perfectly fine with the current Treasury Secretary being both Soros’ #2 guy and gay.