Elon Musk has his hands full these days. From rampaging through federal departments with the energy of a feudal lord to flirting with right-wingers in Germany’s last election, it’s hard to imagine that a state supreme court race would rank high on his list.
Yet he has turned his sights to Wisconsin, shoveling enough money into a state supreme court race there to make it the most expensive such contest in U.S. history.
That kind of money can damage the integrity of such races no matter which side it comes from, particularly when it floods in from outside sources. According to a 2023 Pew poll, 72% Americans believe there should be limits on campaign donations and 80% believe donors have too much influence. A whopping 85% believe the cost of running a campaign is prohibitive for “good people” who want to run for office. Yet effective campaign finance reform has proven elusive and is likely to remain so. It has no committed champions in either party, nor at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Musk is backing Brad Schimel, a circuit court judge from Trump-supporting Waukesha County, over Susan Crawford, a circuit court judge from liberal Dane County. But the names hardly matter. This has become a national litmus test for both parties, a proxy fight of resources and messages as they battle for control in a swing state that President Donald Trump won by fewer than 30,000 votes.
Musk’s millions have played a key role in this race so far, just as they did in 2024. His influence is amplified by his social media platform, X, where he has 219 million followers. Musk’s super PAC has spent $2.6 million on television ads, social media and on-the-ground canvassers, texts, digital ads and literature drops.
What’s in it for Musk? In a word, power. Musk embodies a combination of wealth and influence unseen in America — until now.
Victory in Wisconsin would prove Musk’s status as a pivotal powerbroker, a kingmaker who can swing elections as he likes. That in turn could pave the way for flexing his political muscle in the upcoming Virginia gubernatorial race, or the 2026 midterm elections, boosting Republicans defending key seats or supporting primary challenges to those who defy him.
Musk clearly enjoys the newfound political influence and next-level celebrity Trump’s victory has brought him. He got a taste of center stage during Trump’s reelection campaign, when he often was featured at rallies. Since then, Trump’s top donor has gotten an office in the White House and practically ran Trump’s first cabinet meeting. Heady stuff, even for a man with Musk’s considerable reach.
At stake in Wisconsin is majority control of the court, which tipped to liberals in 2023. That was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history — until Musk’s massive investment this year. Tipping the court back to conservatives would give Republicans a considerable advantage in the next state-wide election: The next court will be responsible for drawing congressional districts based on the latest census.
But this is likely not just about bragging rights for Musk. Wisconsin is among the states that do not permit car manufacturers to sell their vehicles directly to consumers and Musk’s car company, Tesla, is suing Wisconsin over its refusal to allow him to sell his cars through Tesla dealerships.
Should the case make it to the state’s highest court, Schimel could prove key to the outcome. Schimel wouldn’t have to recuse himself from the case, and has not promised to, despite the level of Musk’s support.
Big, outside donations in state races are no longer that unusual. In the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s 2023 election, Republicans complained bitterly about mega-donations from billionaire investor George Soros to the liberal candidate (who won by 11 points). Soros has given heavily in the current race as well.
That doesn’t change the fact that people want — and depend on — impartial judges when they seek justice. The level of money and influence being wielded in this race poses a threat to that standard of impartiality.
The Campaign Legal Center recently noted that when uber-wealthy private citizens such as Musk can dictate government action, “it threatens the public service mandate of our agencies.”
Many sensible campaign reforms were taken off the table by the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous 2010 Citizens United ruling. But the state laws governing ethics can and should be far stronger. A judge hearing a case centered on a top donor should be forced to recuse.
And as candidates, it is entirely within their power to mutually and voluntarily agree to decline outside money, or donations above a certain amount.
Voters have the power to demand this kind of culture change. And judicial candidates in particular should be prepared to observe the highest ethical standards — not the bare minimum.
Patricia Lopez is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. She is a former member of the editorial board at the Minneapolis Star Tribune, where she also worked as a senior political editor and reporter. This article was published by Bloomberg and distributed by Tribune Content Agency.