The Biggest Loser in Wisconsin

The richest man in the world could not buy an election

Reuters

The Wisconsin Supreme Court race is the most important election since Trump took office. Wisconsin is a purple state, and Court races there have been both close and crucial. The last one, when liberals retook the majority, ended the practice of gerrymandering in the state.

One person seemed especially determined to end the new liberal majority: Elon Musk. The richest man in the world bet big in the state. And lost.

Amidst extraordinary turnout, voters rejected the Musk-endorsed candidate, weakening Musk’s reputation as a kingmaker in American politics. His personal brand is so negative that it may more than offset the money and social media support he brings to the able.

Both candidates, Brad Schimel, the former state Attorney General for Scott Walker, and Susan Crawford, a Dane County judge, tried to make the race a referendum on Trump. But Musk insisted it be about him. He visited Wisconsin on Sunday, having dumped $25 million into the race, giving Schmiel a $9 million edge in spending. He also pushed his preferred candidate on X, posting more than 70 times on the race by Monday.

Musk’s candidate lost by 10 points. In Wisconsin terms, that is a landslide. Trump won the state by less than one percent. A GOP-backed referendum to add voter ID to the constitution, intended to boost Schimel, passed. Dems won a less visible race, for State Superintendent for education, but only by about five percent even with an incumbent candidate. Crawford supporters were less likely to vote for downballot races — their focus was on the Supreme Court race. All signs suggest that Musk was a drag, rather than a boost, to the candidate he invested so much personal and financial capital into.

Musk spent his money not just on advertising, but by paying voters in what looks awfully like a bribe. Musk promised to pay people $100 to sign his petition against what he called activist judges (i.e. judges he disagrees with), or $50 to show pictures of his preferred candidates at voting locations.

He entered those who registered to vote in a sweepstakes for $1 million prizes "in appreciation for you taking the time to vote." Musk’s PAC originally posted a video where one of the winners said “I did exactly what Elon Musk told everyone to do: sign the petition, refer friends and family, vote, and now I have a million dollars." The PAC later edited the video to remove the mention of voting, nervous about the legal liability of advertising explicitly what was clear to everyone: Musk was offering money for votes.

He had used such tactics before the 2024 election in the crucial swing state of Pennsylvania. But the winners of Musk’s sweepstakes did not appear to be random. In the 2024 election, Musk lawyers admitted to a judge that winners were picked based on their ability to convey political messages. In the Wisconsin election, one winner was the head of the Wisconsin College Republicans. In other words, this is a scam not just on democracy, but on participants.

Money is a an aggressive growing tumor at the heart of American democracy. The 2023 Wisconsin state supreme court race cost $56 million, a national record at the time. The 2025 version blasted that out of the water, and could end up costing almost twice that much. To give a sense of out-of-kilter we are, a single state court race saw significantly more spending than the entire United Kingdom national election.

As Alex Burness in Bolts noted: “Musk by himself spent more this spring than the total spending in any judicial race in U.S. history prior to 2023.”

If money is speech, then we give the richest man in the world the biggest loudspeaker, drowning out everyone else. He can do so even though he has already purchased government power, can get on TV whenever he wants, and owns his own media platform which he has repurposed into a political propaganda machine. Even if you are fine with the monetizing of elections, the brazenness of the techniques Musk has pioneered is remarkable.

In some states, it is illegal to give water to voters waiting in line to vote, but Musk can give $50 for someone waving a photo of his preferred candidate. His preference for money shows a deep distrust of democracy, assuming the best way to shape it is by paying voters rather than by the power of ideas. Indeed, Musk and Republican’s standard explanation for their unpopularity — that angry voters at town halls or Tesla dealerships must be paid protestors — suggests they cannot believe that voters are capable to acting in response to the events they see unfolding, or that they care about anything other than self-interest. It is a profoundly bleak view of the people they claim to champion.

The result makes it more likely that abortion access will remain in Wisconsin, rather than revert to an 1849 ban that Schimel supported. One other reason the race is so important is that redistricting is coming up. Musk accused the potential liberal majority of gerrymandering. This is extraordinary chutzpah, since Republicans ran one of the most aggressive gerrymanders in the country in Wisconsin since 2010, once that assured Republicans of controlling the state legislature even in blue wave years, and the Congressional maps.

And so, the race centered on Musk: could the richest man in the world buy an election in a state he had never previously visited to protect his movement (and increasingly, it is his movement, not just Trump’s)? In his event for Schimel, Musk was unable to refer to Wisconsin issues, and instead delivered “extended monologues about immigration policy, alleged fraud in the Social Security system and the future of artificial intelligence.” Could he engage in brazen election deception and paying voters for their participation? Could the sheer volume of money overcome the increasing dislike of Musk and anger at his dismantling of public services?

The stakes could not be higher. If Musk won, his combination of unlimited money and social media dominance would appear unbeatable. But his loss signals that money and messaging cannot dominate the deep and growing sense of dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, and with Musk in particular.

The chair of the Outagamie County Republican Party, the magnificently named Pam Van Handel said: “I’m honestly shocked. I thought we had it in the bag, I thought [Musk] was going to be an asset for this race. People love Trump, but maybe they don’t love everybody he supports. Maybe I have blinders on.” Maybe so Pam, maybe so.

Posting after the loss, Musk engaged in some retroconning: “I expected to lose, but there is value to losing a piece for positional gain.” It’s nonsense. Let me know if you can see the “positional gain” in the map below. The reality is that the race gives Dems a real psychological boost. Rohn Bishop, the GOP Mayor of Waupan, was more honest about his dashed expectations: “I thought maybe Elon coming could turn these people to go out and vote. I think [Musk] helped get out voters in that he may have turned out more voters against [Schimel].”

It turns out that for one day, at least, America’s democracy was not sold to the highest bidder. That voters cared more about the damage Musk is doing than his offers of cash.

It is not just Wisconsin. A spate of Republican proposed referendums failed in Louisiana. Republicans won in two special elections in Florida to bolster their House majority, but far more narrowly than expected.

The change in the national mood is real. Sometimes political leaders direct followers, and sometimes they are directed by their followers. And right now, voters are angry and want pushback against the Trump-Musk agenda.

Jamie Kelter Davis/Bloomberg via Getty Images