Elon Musk hands out $1 million payments after Wisconsin Supreme Court declines request to stop him
Elon Musk gave out $1 million checks on Sunday to two Wisconsin voters, declaring them spokespeople for his political group, ahead of a Wisconsin Supreme Court election that the tech billionaire cast as critical to President Donald Trump's agenda and 'the future of civilization.'
'It's a super big deal,' he told a roughly 2,000-person crowd in Green Bay on Sunday night, taking the stage in a yellow cheesehead hat. 'I'm not phoning it in. I'm here in person.'
Musk and groups he supports have spent more than $20 million to help conservative favorite Brad Schimel in Tuesday's race, which will determine the ideological makeup of a court likely to decide key issues in a perennial battleground state. Musk has increasingly become the center of the contest, with liberal favorite Susan Crawford and her allies protesting Musk and what they say is the influence he wants to have on the court.
'I think this will be important for the future of civilization,' he said. 'It's that's significant.'
He noted that the state high court may well take up redistricting of congressional districts, which could ultimately affect which party controls the U.S. House.
'And if the (Wisconsin) Supreme Court is able to redraw the districts, they will gerrymander the district and deprive Wisconsin of two seats on the Republican side,' Musk said. 'Then they will try to stop all the government reforms we are getting done for you, the American people.'
A unanimous state Supreme Court on Sunday refused to hear a last-minute attempt by the state's Democratic attorney general to stop Musk from handing over the checks to two voters, a ruling that came just minutes before the planned start of the rally.
Two lower courts had already rejected the legal challenge by Democrat Josh Kaul, who argues that Musk's offer violates a state law. 'Wisconsin law prohibits offering anything of value to induce anyone to vote,' Kaul argued in his filing. 'Yet, Elon Musk did just that.'
But the state Supreme Court, which is currently controlled 4-3 by liberal justices, declined to take the case as an original action. The court gave no rationale for its decision.
Kaul had no immediate comment on the court's order.
Musk's attorneys argued in filings with the court that Musk was exercising his free speech rights with the giveaways and any attempt to restrict that would violate both the Wisconsin and U.S. constitutions.
The payments are 'intended to generate a grassroots movement in opposition to activist judges, not to expressly advocate for or against any candidate,' Musk's attorneys argued in court filings.
Musk's political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the presidential election last year, offering to pay $1 million a day to voters in Wisconsin and six other battleground states who signed a petition supporting the First and Second amendments. A judge in Pennsylvania said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day.
Liberals currently hold a 4-3 majority on the court. All four liberal justices have endorsed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate.
Musk's attorneys, about four hours before the rally was to begin, asked that two liberal justices who have campaigned for Crawford — Jill Karofsky and Rebecca Dallet — recuse themselves from the case. His attorneys argued their work for Crawford creates 'the specter of inappropriate bias.' If they did recuse, that would leave the court with a 3-2 conservative majority.
Both justices rejected the request and said they would spell out their reasons why at a later date.
One of the court's conservative justices has endorsed Schimel, who wore a 'Make America Great Again' hat while campaigning Sunday.
Schimel said in a national television interview that he does not control 'any of the spending from any outside group, whether it's Elon Musk or anyone else' and that all Trump asked was whether he would 'reject activist judges' and follow the law.
'That's exactly what I've committed to anybody, whether it's President Trump, Elon Musk or any donors and donors or supporters or voters in Wisconsin. That's my commitment,' Schimel told 'Fox News Sunday.'
The contest has shattered national spending records for a judicial election, with more than $81 million in spending.
It comes as Wisconsin's highest court is expected to rule on abortion rights, congressional redistricting, union power and voting rules that could affect the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election in the state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Los Angeles leaders impose curfew as protests against Trump's immigration crackdown continue
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Los Angeles leaders set a downtown curfew Tuesday on the fifth day of protests against President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown as his use of the National Guard escalated and the governor accused him of drawing a 'military dragnet' across the nation's second largest city. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom asked a court to put an emergency stop to the military helping federal immigration agents, with some guardsmen now standing in protection around agents as they carried out arrests. He said it would only heighten tensions and promote civil unrest. The judge chose not to rule immediately, giving the administration several days to continue those activities before a hearing Thursday. The change moves troops closer to engaging in law enforcement actions like deportations as Trump has promised as part of the administration's immigration crackdown . The Guard has the authority to temporarily detain people who attack officers but any arrests ultimately would be made by law enforcement. Trump has activated more than 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines over the objections of city and state leaders, though the Marines have not yet been spotted in Los Angeles and Guard troops have had limited engagement with protesters. They were originally deployed to protect federal buildings. As the curfew went into effect, a police helicopter flew over downtown federal buildings that have been the center of protests and ordered people to leave the area. As it approached, several groups had gathered downtown, with some saying they planned to ignore it and others chanting calls for the gathering to remain peaceful. Officials said the curfew was necessary to stop vandalism and theft by agitators looking to cause trouble. LA mayor puts curfew in place Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass declared a local emergency and said the curfew will run from 8 p.m. Tuesday until 6 a.m. Wednesday. 'We reached a tipping point' after 23 businesses were looted, Bass said during a news conference. The curfew will be in place in a 1 square mile (2.59 square kilometer) section of downtown that includes the area where protests have occurred since Friday. The city of Los Angeles encompasses roughly 500 square miles (2,295 square kilometers). The curfew doesn't apply to residents who live in the designated area, people who are homeless, credentialed media or public safety and emergency officials, according to Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell. McDonnell said 'unlawful and dangerous behavior' had been escalating since Saturday. 'The curfew is a necessary measure to protect lives and safeguard property following several consecutive days of growing unrest throughout the city,' McDonnell said. Trump says he's open to using Insurrection Act Trump left open the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the U.S. to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. It's one of the most extreme emergency powers available to a U.S. president. 'If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it. We'll see,' he said from the Oval Office. Later the president called protesters 'animals' and 'a foreign enemy' in a speech at Fort Bragg ostensibly to recognize the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. Trump has described Los Angeles in dire terms that Bass and Newsom say are nowhere close to the truth . The protests began Friday after federal immigration raids arrested dozens of workers in Los Angeles. Protesters blocked a major freeway and set cars on fire over the weekend, and police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. The demonstrations have been mostly concentrated downtown in the city of 4 million. Thousands of people have peacefully rallied outside City Hall and hundreds more protested outside a federal complex that includes a detention center where some immigrants are being held following workplace raids. On Tuesday, a few dozen protesters gathered peacefully in front of the federal complex, which was quickly declared an unlawful assembly. Police issued a dispersal order and corralled the protesters, telling members of the media to stay out to avoid getting hurt. Officers with zip ties then started making arrests. McDonnell said that police had made 197 arrests on Tuesday, including 67 who were taken into custody for unlawfully occupying part of the 101 freeway. Several businesses were broken into Monday, though authorities didn't say if the looting was tied to the protests. The vast majority of arrests have been for failing to disperse, while a few others were for assault with a deadly weapon, looting, vandalism and attempted murder for tossing a Molotov cocktail. Seven police officers were reportedly injured, and at least two were taken to a hospital and released. Demonstrations have spread to other cities in the state and nationwide, including Dallas and Austin, Texas, Chicago and New York City, where a thousand people rallied and multiple arrests were made. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested Tuesday that the use of troops inside the U.S. will continue to expand . The Pentagon said deploying the National Guard and Marines costs $134 million. ___ Baldor and Copp reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Dorany Pineda and Christopher Weber in Los Angeles, Amy Taxin in Orange County, California, John Seewer in Toledo, Ohio, Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas, and Greg Bull in Seal Beach, California, contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on
The Hill
35 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge rejects Newsom's emergency request to limit Trump LA troop deployment
A judge has rejected California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) emergency request to limit President Trump's Los Angeles troop deployment. Newsom had earlier Tuesday asked a federal judge to immediately intervene to limit Trump's deployment of the National Guard in L.A., asking for an emergency ruling by 1 p.m. PDT that day. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, however, granted the Trump administration's request for more time to respond to Newsom's request. The administration has until 11 a.m. PDT Wednesday to submit its arguments. 'The court did not deny or rule on the Governor's request for a temporary restraining order. The court set a hearing for Thursday, after the federal government and the state file additional briefs, and we anticipate the court will rule on the request for a TRO a short time later,' a Newsom spokesperson told The Hill on Tuesday when reached for comment. Trump and Newsom have gone after each other amid the recent immigration protests in Los Angeles, with Trump even saying he would support arresting the Golden State governor. 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom shot back in a post on X Monday at Trump. Vice President Vance also took swings on Monday at Newsom, responding to Newsom's post about Trump's comments on his arrest by telling him to 'Do your job.' 'That's all we're asking,' he added.
