Elon Musk Wisconsin Election Bribery Scandal Explained

Elon Musk faced allegations that he violated Wisconsin’s election-bribery law through million-dollar payment offers connected to the state’s highly contested 2025 Supreme Court election. The Wisconsin Elections Commission eventually voted 5-1 that there was probable cause to believe Musk violated state law and referred the matter for possible prosecution. On August 25, 2026, however, special prosecutor Tim Gruenke announced that he would not file criminal charges, saying he did not believe a jury would convict Musk. A separate civil lawsuit accusing Musk and his political organizations of election bribery and other violations remains pending.

The $1 Million Offer

Musk originally offered $1 million checks to people who had voted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. On March 27, 2025, Musk announced on X that he planned to hold a Wisconsin event with admission limited to people who had voted in the Supreme Court race. He said he would personally give two attendees $1 million each “in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.” That language ultimately became the focus of the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s election-bribery finding. [AP]

Musk replaced the original offer with different terms about 12 hours later. Musk deleted the initial post and said instead that admission would be restricted to people who had signed America PAC’s petition opposing “activist judges.” He said the two $1 million recipients would be spokespeople for the petition rather than receive the money for voting. That revision later became central to the prosecutor’s decision not to charge him. [Wisconsin Public Radio]

Musk’s Wisconsin Payment Campaign

America PAC was separately paying Wisconsin voters to sign a political petition. Roughly two weeks before the Supreme Court election, Musk’s America PAC began offering registered Wisconsin voters $100 for signing a petition opposing “activist judges” and another $100 for referring another registered voter who signed. [AP]

Three Wisconsin voters ultimately received $1 million checks associated with Musk’s effort. Two of the checks were presented by Musk personally during his March 30 Green Bay town hall, days before the election. The two Green Bay recipients were Nicholas Jacobs and Ekaterina Diestler. Jacobs was chairman of the Wisconsin College Republicans at the time. [AP] [WISN]

Musk said the Green Bay recipients were being paid as spokespeople for the petition. Musk’s attorneys subsequently maintained that the payments were designed to build a grassroots campaign against what the PAC called activist judges rather than to compensate people for voting for or against a particular candidate. [AP]

The Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

Musk was spending heavily to elect conservative candidate Brad Schimel. Musk and organizations he supported spent at least $20 million backing Schimel in the April 1, 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Total spending surrounding the race exceeded $100 million, making it the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history. [AP]

Musk openly urged Wisconsin voters to elect Schimel. At the Green Bay event where he distributed the two oversized checks, Musk promoted Schimel’s candidacy and urged supporters to mobilize ahead of Election Day. [Reuters]

Schimel lost despite Musk’s intervention and spending. Liberal-backed candidate Susan Crawford defeated Schimel by approximately 10 percentage points, preserving the liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. [AP]

Attorney General Josh Kaul Tried To Stop The Payments

Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul sued Musk before the Green Bay event. Kaul filed an emergency lawsuit on March 28, 2025 seeking to prevent Musk and America PAC from making the planned million-dollar payments, arguing that the arrangement violated Wisconsin law prohibiting payments intended to induce a person to vote. [Wisconsin DOJ]

Wisconsin courts did not stop Musk from handing out the checks. After lower-court efforts failed to produce an injunction before the event, Kaul took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On March 30, the court denied his petition to commence an original action and declared the request for temporary injunctive relief moot. The order did not make a substantive ruling that Musk’s payment program was lawful. [Wisconsin Supreme Court]

Musk handed out the checks after the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to intervene. Later that day, he appeared at the Green Bay town hall and presented two attendees with oversized $1 million checks. [ABC News]

Civil Election Bribery Lawsuit

The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign later sued Musk over the payment program. In June 2025, the election watchdog group and two Wisconsin voters sued Musk, America PAC and United States of America Inc. The complaint alleges violations of Wisconsin’s election-bribery and lottery laws as well as civil conspiracy and public nuisance. [Court Complaint]

The lawsuit alleges the payments amounted to a coordinated scheme to induce Wisconsin residents to vote. The plaintiffs contend that the $100 petition payments, million-dollar awards and Musk’s efforts to turn out voters were components of an unlawful attempt to influence participation in the Supreme Court election. Those are allegations in a civil complaint and have not been established as legal findings. [Court Complaint]

Musk has denied that the payments constituted election bribery. His lawyers have argued that the payment program was political speech protected by the Wisconsin and U.S. constitutions and that the payments promoted the petition rather than compensating anyone for casting a ballot. [AP]

The civil lawsuit remained pending in Brown County in 2026. Unlike the criminal referral, the civil case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including an order preventing Musk and his organizations from conducting similar payment programs in future Wisconsin elections. [AP]

Wisconsin Elections Commission Finds Probable Cause

The Wisconsin Elections Commission found probable cause that Musk violated the state’s election-bribery law. In July 2026, the bipartisan six-member commission voted 5-1 to refer two complaints against Musk to the Brown County District Attorney’s Office. [CBS News]

The commission focused specifically on Musk’s original social-media offer. Its motion said there was probable cause that Musk violated Wisconsin law by making a social-media post offering $1 million to people who voted in the 2025 Supreme Court election “in order to induce them to vote in that election.” [Wisconsin Public Radio]

The commission’s probable-cause decision was not a criminal conviction. The referral meant commissioners believed there was sufficient basis for prosecutors to examine potential charges. The decision about whether a criminal case could actually be proved beyond a reasonable doubt remained with prosecutors. [AP]

Special Prosecutor Appointed

The Brown County district attorney did not personally decide whether to prosecute Musk. Brown County District Attorney David Lasee said his office had a conflict of interest and sought appointment of an outside prosecutor. La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke was subsequently appointed special prosecutor to review the Elections Commission referral. [WBAY]

Prosecutor Declines To Charge Musk

Musk will not face criminal election-bribery charges over the Wisconsin payment offer. On August 25, 2026, Gruenke announced that he was declining prosecution because he did not believe he could persuade a jury to convict Musk. [AP]

Gruenke concluded that nobody ultimately received money for voting or promising to vote. The prosecutor acknowledged that Musk’s first post could be interpreted as offering a million-dollar prize for voting but emphasized that Musk quickly replaced it with the post identifying the recipients as petition spokespeople. [Wisconsin Public Radio]

The prosecutor characterized the original post as poorly worded rather than a provable criminal bribe. Gruenke said that after considering Musk’s apparent intent, the replacement post and the fact that no payment was ultimately made in exchange for voting, he did not believe a jury would convict Musk. [AP]

The decision not to prosecute does not erase the Elections Commission’s earlier finding. The commission found probable cause to believe Musk violated the election-bribery statute, while Gruenke applied the higher practical standard of whether prosecutors could prove a criminal case to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. No criminal charge or conviction resulted. [Wisconsin Public Radio]

The decision also does not resolve the separate civil lawsuit. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign case challenging Musk’s election-related payments remained pending independently of the criminal referral. [AP]

Relevant YouTube Videos