Wisconsin's bipartisan Elections Commission voted 5-1 on July 9, 2026, to refer two criminal complaints against tech billionaire Elon Musk to the Brown County district attorney — a decision made public on July 14. The commission found probable cause that Musk violated Wisconsin's election bribery statute when he offered $1 million to people who voted in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Under Wisconsin Statute 12.11, giving anyone more than $1 in value to induce them to vote is a Class I felony, punishable by up to 3.5 years in prison. The underlying race — between Republican-backed Brad Schimel and Democrat-backed Susan Crawford — became the costliest judicial election in U.S. history at over $100 million. Musk and groups he backed spent at least $20 million on it. Schimel lost by 10 points.

The Law Calls It Bribery

Wisconsin's elections commission — including at least one Republican — found the giveaway crossed a clear legal line.

This is exactly what the bribery statute prohibits. The WEC's motion named the specific act: Musk posted on social media offering $1 million to people who voted, "in order to induce them to vote in that election." The commission is bipartisan — three Democrats, three Republicans — and the 5-1 vote means at least one Republican agreed the evidence cleared the probable-cause threshold.

The state tried to block this before the checks went out. Wisconsin AG Josh Kaul sued in March 2025, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected his emergency injunction minutes before Musk's Green Bay rally. Courts moved too slowly to stop the checks from going out — but election law reformers say that delay didn't make the payments legal.

A second front opened in civil court. The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign filed a lawsuit in Brown County seeking to bar Musk from ever making similar payments in the state again. A separate judge ordered Musk to testify under oath in a class action brought by voters who alleged they were deceived about their odds of winning.

But Musk Says It's Political Speech

His legal team argues the payments were a protected grassroots campaign, not a bribe.

The payments went to petition signers, not to voters. After initial backlash, America PAC changed the requirement from "voted" to "registered voter who signed the petition opposing activist judges." His attorneys argued in court filings that the payments were "intended to generate a grassroots movement in opposition to activist judges, not to expressly advocate for or against any candidate" — political expression, not a bribe.

Musk's First Amendment argument has real precedent behind it. A Pennsylvania judge allowed a nearly identical Musk voter giveaway to continue through the 2024 presidential election, finding insufficient evidence of illegal lottery activity. Musk's team argues that restricting political cash payments to motivated voters would violate both Wisconsin and U.S. constitutional protections on political speech.

Still, the DA Might Not Act

The referral matters, but the Brown County prosecutor — a Republican — has full discretion.

A referral is not a charge. Brown County District Attorney David Lasee, a Republican, has 40 days from the referral to notify the commission on whether he'll pursue charges. He did not respond to press inquiries. Bringing a felony case against a billionaire Trump ally, in a county where Musk held his rally, is a decision that carries its own political weight.

The statute is clear. Enforcement is not. Rob Yablon, a UW-Madison election law professor, said it is a felony to offer anything of value to induce anyone to vote. He added that prosecutors may be reluctant to bring charges — particularly against the voters who took the money. Even if Lasee acts, Musk's First Amendment defense would likely push the case into federal courts — and could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Where This Lands

Wisconsin's elections commission concluded that Musk's $1 million giveaway met the definition of voter bribery under state law, and that conclusion was bipartisan. Musk's team argues the whole thing was protected political expression, and a Pennsylvania court gave that argument room in 2024. The practical resolution is in the hands of a Republican prosecutor who hasn't said a word publicly. Whatever Lasee decides in the next 40 days will either close the case or open a constitutional fight over the limits on political cash payments to voters.

Sources