In a highly contentious election scheduled for this Tuesday, Wisconsin voters will cast their ballots for a pivotal seat on the state Supreme Court. The stakes are alarmingly high, with significant implications for issues such as abortion rights and the redrawing of electoral districts—factors that could ultimately influence the balance of power in Congress.
The judicial race has escalated into a financial frenzy, with projected spending expected to reach $100 million, potentially marking it as the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history. This staggering figure reflects the intense interest from outside donors, including billionaires like George Soros, JB Pritzker, and notably, Elon Musk, who has notably backed conservative Judge Brad Schimel. Musk has already contributed more than $20 million to Schimel’s campaign, a sum that, given his wealth exceeding $300 billion, is a mere fraction of his fortune.
The election features Judge Susan Crawford from the liberal stronghold of Dane County competing against Schimel, who hails from the more conservative Waukesha County. With such financial muscle behind them, both candidates have received substantial funding to promote their agendas, but the campaign has largely devolved into a barrage of negative advertising. Ads have included alarming claims against both candidates, painting them as threats to public safety, and featuring misleading images—one ad mistakenly used a photograph of a different Susan Crawford, a Harvard law professor, instead of the candidate.
Critics argue that the influx of billionaire money into local elections undermines the democratic process. The prevalence of attack ads has raised concerns about the integrity of the electoral system, as voters are bombarded with disinformation and fear tactics. One ad ominously suggested that Crawford’s election would lead to increased danger from sex offenders in the community, while another accused Schimel of being lenient on a convicted child predator.
In an unusual twist, Musk’s political action committee has employed a controversial tactic reminiscent of retail promotions by offering Wisconsin voters $100 for signing petitions opposing “activist judges.” This approach has been met with skepticism, as many question the ethics of monetizing political participation.
While some in Wisconsin seem to embrace this influx of billionaire influence, viewing it as an opportunity for financial gain, others are alarmed by the implications for the state’s democratic processes. The race has sparked heated discussions about the role of money in politics and the potential consequences for local governance.
As the election approaches, the spotlight remains on Wisconsin, where the clash of ideologies and the overwhelming presence of wealthy donors has transformed what is typically a state-level judicial election into a spectacle of national interest. The outcome could reverberate beyond state borders, affecting legal precedents and political dynamics for years to come.