Latest news with #SecondAmendments
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Danger of Trump's Clash with the Conservative Legal Movement
FOR NEARLY A DECADE, the conservative legal movement has endured a marriage of convenience with Donald J. Trump. The president has now unequivocally asked for a divorce. The signs of trouble in this relationship were there from the beginning. The conservative legal movement owes its remarkable success to three things: principle, persuasion, and persistence. These are qualities Trump does not appreciate. His wins flow from other characteristics. Over the years, they tried to make it work. Trump held up the core of his bargain—the nomination of traditional constitutionalist judges. He appointed men and women of generally high caliber, in the model of judges we might have expected from a President Rubio, Cruz, or Jeb Bush. That transformed judiciary led to many victories, including strengthened First and Second Amendments, a fatal blow to racial preferences, a historic turn against the administrative state, and the reversal of the conservative legal movement's great white whale—the jurisprudentially appalling Roe v. Wade. But, over time, Trump's dalliances with illegality and his failure to live up to his oath of fidelity to the Constitution grew harder to ignore. His actions following the 2020 election, culminating in the events of January 6th, nearly ruptured the relationship. Yet somehow, with some work and wishful thinking, the parties moved past that unpleasantness and looked to 2025 with hope. At the jubilant post-election Federalist Society dinner in November 2024, one leader boasted from the podium that he had just gotten off the phone with the once and future president and had told him he was about to dine with thousands of his favorite lawyers. Share Yet soon, the trouble, which anyone outside the dysfunctional relationship could see coming, materialized. Again in power, Trump engaged in brazen corruption, enabled and promoted unfit characters to positions of public trust, broke faith with the rule of law, and recklessly flirted with constitutional crisis. Mocking the very notion of 'law,' Trump infamously tweeted: 'He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.' Much of the conservative legal movement closed its eyes and thought of the judges. But if anybody in the conservative legal movement thought the toxic relationship could still survive all this bad behavior, the president has moved to end things. He has turned his back on the movement that enabled his rise and made possible his most lasting (constructive) legacy: the transformation of the federal judiciary. Conservatives hoping for more judges like those of his first term should prepare for disappointment. He's seeing other people. The break came in two steps in late May. First, Trump nominated Emil Bove to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals—a figure known not for commitment to conservative jurisprudence but for loyalty to Trump, including his role in the politicization of the Justice Department. Then, on social media, Trump expressed regret for ever having listened to the Federalist Society and called Leonard Leo, one of its longtime leaders, 'a sleazebag' and 'a bad person' who 'probably hates America.' IN THE MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY, progressives controlled the judiciary, the bar, and the legal academy. Conservatives struggled to push back. Eisenhower regretted appointing Brennan and Warren to the Supreme Court. Nixon campaigned against the Supreme Court and had an opportunity to change it with four vacancies in his time in office. Yet he struggled to find qualified candidates, saw multiple nominations fail spectacularly, and his successful nominations included Justice Blackmun, who would shortly author Roe v. Wade. Republicans had neither the arguments, nor the bench of talent, nor the political support network to reliably confirm justices cut from a different cloth. In the 1970s, the conservative legal movement began to take shape. Over the half century that followed, it transformed legal culture and became a central player in the staffing of Republican administrations and a pipeline for judicial talent. By the time Donald Trump became president in 2017, it could plausibly claim to have played the decisive role in his victory, after which it partnered with him to help advance one of its primary goals: the transformation of the federal judiciary. What explains this success? Principle, persuasion, and persistence. Early conservative slogans favored in the Nixon era—like 'strict construction' or 'law and order'—lacked coherence. Over time, the movement developed intellectually robust doctrines—textualism and originalism. These insisted that judges interpret the law as written, based on its meaning at the time of enactment. The fundamental principles have guided the conservative legal movement—indeed, adherence to them defines what constitutes that movement. Contrary to popular perception, the movement is not monolithic. It includes a multitude of institutions, both academic and litigation centers. The Federalist Society, founded in 1982, is among the most prominent institutions of the movement, but it includes many members with diverse perspectives. It's a well-worn observation that the Federalist Society is a 'they, not an it.' Members of the conservative legal movement have differed in politics and law. They might describe themselves as conservative or libertarian, Burkean or Hayekian. They continue to have debates about how to apply originalism, whether courts should exhibit 'restraint' or 'engagement,' about whether and to what degree the courts should defer to legislatures, about the legitimacy of the administrative state, and more. The center of gravity in the community on some of these questions has shifted over time. Members of the conservative legal movement remained united, though, in the belief that law matters, that the law is knowable, and that the law serves as an important constraint on judges as well as on the other branches. These are the principles to which it held and the constancy with which it held them throughout changing circumstances gave them force and gave the movement coherence. For more deep, clear-eyed, historically informed essays from sometimes unexpected points of view, sign up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription. To be sure, some individuals were drawn to the cause with partisan or policy motivations. And it cannot be denied that the correlation of conservative theory with some conservative policy ends (for example, restricting abortion, protecting gun rights, or banning affirmative action) supercharged the movement. But the claim of the critics on the left that the legal principles merely cloaked a pursuit of a particular agenda never held, either among the legal theorists who debated the fine points of originalism or even among the ranks of the lawyers who staffed Republican administrations and congressional offices. Ideas, as every young conservative will tell you, have consequences. But not without persuasion. Conservative lawyers, in particular, understood that persuasion is not merely a political tactic—it is a civic duty. Ours is a system built on consent, not coercion; on the give-and-take of argument, not the imposition of will. A commitment to persuasion lay at the heart of the conservative legal movement for decades. It could be seen at Federalist Society events featuring panels showcasing diverse views and in signature debates between legal luminaries, right and left. But, in a genuine republic, the law cannot be left merely to the lawyers, and the conservative legal movement worked hard to convince a popular audience. Edwin Meese, President Reagan's attorney general, championed the cause of originalism. Justice Antonin Scalia famously traveled widely giving speeches and debating before general audiences and giving interviews to popular media. The core ideas of originalism became broadly accepted by Republican-leaning voters and, soon, even Supreme Court nominees of Democratic presidents seemed to embrace them in their confirmation hearings. Lasting change in America requires one further element: persistence. Our Framers gave us a constitutional system where even a decisive electoral triumph does not yield transformation. A political intellectual movement must stay true to its course over successive administrations, through successes and setbacks. And the conservative legal movement saw its share of setbacks as it saw close defeats on cases ranging from abortion, affirmative action, property rights, same-sex marriage, and more. But despite these defeats, the conservative legal movement stayed the course. It did not succumb to the temptations of jurisdiction-stripping, court packing, or judicial impeachments. It stuck to principle. It kept up the work of persuasion, and with persistence, it prevailed, at least as far as its project to transform the judiciary goes. Leonard Leo, in response to Trump's attacks, stated—correctly, from a conservative and originalist perspective—that 'the Federal Judiciary is better than it's ever been in modern history.' That doesn't mean the judiciary has been wholly remade; even today's conservative Supreme Court can deliver opinions no originalist could love. But by any measure, the conservative legal movement has had remarkable success. Now Trump threatens to burn it all down. Join now EVEN TRUMP CRITICS ON THE RIGHT must acknowledge that we arrived at this point, in part, through the willingness of the conservative legal movement to work closely with a president who has never had much fondness for conservatism or the law. Yet politics demands a measure of practicality and prudence. The Democratic party had long ago rejected originalism and limited-government constitutionalism. For the conservative legal movement, the GOP remained the only viable path for its political project. Not long before Donald Trump emerged as the presumptive Republican nominee in 2016, Justice Scalia had passed away; a vacancy remained on the Court, and the remaining justices were evenly divided on key questions. The Court hung in the balance like never before. The conservative legal movement made a deal with the GOP nominee. He pledged to nominate originalist jurists, including by taking the unprecedented step of publishing a list of prospective options for the Supreme Court. In exchange, much of the conservative legal movement supported his candidacy. Following his surprise election, many seasoned veterans of the conservative legal movement staffed his administration and soon worked productively with others on the outside to deliver on Trump's pledge. The success of the judicial project, however, came at a deep civic cost. The conservative legal movement's fixation on the judiciary led many of its members to ignore (or worse, excuse) the degradation of the other two branches of government and damage to constitutional norms and values. While there were many notable exceptions, much of the movement, particularly in circles closest to power, held their tongues. A community built on principles became increasingly transactional, and Trump learned that he could get away with quite a lot of constitutional arson without losing the support of self-described constitutional conservatives. America is a two-party system. Many interest groups will find that one party seems implacably opposed to their cause and, naturally, fall into an alliance with the other. But the alliance must serve known ends, and the interest group must retain some leverage. Legal conservatives must remain the constitutional conscience of the GOP, not merely captives. Trump found that he could count on many of them to be the latter, so long as he kept delivering judges. Reasonable conservatives can disagree whether the bargain was ever worth it. (I have grave doubts.) But now that Trump has threatened to walk away from his prior commitment to nominating conservative judges, what remains for the conservative legal movement in the alliance? It's time for conservatives, even those who support the president, to rebel. It's time for them to do what they have done best: stand on principle, persuade, and persist. Zip this to a friend or zap it onto social media: Share When George W. Bush went around the conservative legal movement and nominated his White House counsel to the Supreme Court, it divided the right. But the nomination of Harriet Miers ultimately failed because a growing chorus of conservative legal thinkers and their allies in the Senate asked hard questions and spoke important truths. They especially recoiled at the argument from the White House that they should support Miers because she had the president's confidence and she would vote the 'correct' way. As much as they may have admired President Bush, conservative lawyers were not about to throw away their leverage or their values to support whomever the president wished to see on the bench. They insisted that Republican presidents appoint principled legal conservatives, not presidential lackeys or outcome-driven jurists. They must continue to insist that now. Join now WHATEVER ONE THINKS ABOUT the relationship between Trump and the conservative legal movement to date, the breach portends ill not only for conservatives, but for all Americans. Even MAGA voters will likely soon have reasons to regret it. The first Trump administration relied on stalwarts of the conservative legal movement in the White House, the Justice Department, and at many key agencies. Their counsel helped restrain the president's worst impulses and enabled his more lasting accomplishments. Trump 2.0, instead, drips with contempt for the law. The president has removed internal safeguards and watchdogs, replaced seasoned lawyers with loyalists, and put MAGA movement hacks in essential positions. Ed Martin, briefly an interim U.S. attorney and now the pardon attorney in the Department of Justice, is but one example of a disturbingly common type. An administration acting without the guidance of serious lawyers will prove more chaotic, more likely to abuse the rights of citizens, and less likely to accomplish meaningful positive reforms. We have already seen some of this. But the bigger, lasting damage could come to the judiciary. As every middle schooler learns, our system rests on checks and balances upon which our liberties depend. Each branch checks the others. We do not have the option of stopping an overreaching president with a vote of no confidence or a recall election. We count on Congress and the judiciary to perform their constitutional roles. With a supine Congress, the duty to hold the president accountable to the law increasingly falls to the courts. Checked by judges, including his appointees, who uphold the law rather than follow presidential whim, the president and his allies have grown irate. They've deployed incendiary rhetoric, pushed for impeachment, and mused about suspending the writ of habeas corpus. All this amounts to a sustained campaign against the authority and legitimacy of the courts. The judges, to date, have responded with courage and firmness. In breaking with the conservative legal movement, the president must hope to find nominees made of more pliable stuff, more loyal to him personally. Or, instead of weak judges, the president might find fighters—fighters committed to advancing his agenda from the bench. For years, a small but growing band of right-wing academics and agitators has called for a different type of judicial nominee. No longer should the right be satisfied, they have argued, with a commitment to the law and neutral principles in judging. Instead, they have hoped for a future where Republican presidents would install on the bench loyalists and fighters for their view of the good. This is not merely a more aggressive posture than that taken by the traditional conservative legal movement; it is a complete inversion of all that it held dear. Constitutionalists should take little comfort from knowing that legislating from the bench points in a rightward direction. Share The Bulwark Other dangers lurk in abandoning the conservative legal movement's talent pipeline. For one, it has produced remarkably high-quality judges, as it did empirically in Trump's first term, despite the characterization of critics. A Trump appointment process that cuts out the conservative legal movement likely will name less-qualified candidates, from which all litigants will suffer. Trump's recent decision to fully end the American Bar Association's (deeply flawed) review of judicial nominees will further enable lower-quality nominations. Conservatives should also worry about a return to nominations based on patronage, political relationships, personal loyalty, or objective qualifications absent clear jurisprudential commitments. These approaches to judicial nominations yielded jurists like Warren, Blackmun, and Souter. Who knows what surprises a lawyer who happens to enjoy the favor of Trump at the moment might bring to the bench? In cutting out the conservative legal movement from the process of judicial selection, the Trump administration would also shift the gravity of the nomination and confirmation process toward the White House and away from the Senate. Several process changes in the Senate have weakened the hand of senators in influencing nominations, but historically, a collaborative process between the branches often yielded higher-quality nominees possessing an appropriate judicial temperament. On the Republican side, the conservative legal movement fostered a dialogue between presidents and senators based on shared principles. Given Trump's well-known gift for self-inflicted wounds, it shouldn't surprise that his decision to sideline the conservative legal movement in judicial nominations also undermines his goals. Judges tend to retire when they have the confidence that the president will replace them with nominees of whom they would approve. Conservative judges will no longer have that confidence and may defer retiring or taking senior status as a result, giving him far less of a chance to shape the judiciary this term than he otherwise would. Furthermore, even if one agreed that a turn toward a more outcome-oriented right-wing judiciary was desirable, it would be a generational project, as the traditional conservative legal movement has seen. And without the principle, persuasion, and persistence modeled by the conservative legal movement, its odds of success are long. Furthermore, the type of sharp-elbowed 'fighter' MAGA wants on the bench would only complicate that project by repelling rather than persuading judges whose votes they need to prevail on multi-judge panels. Populist commentators imagine that Federalist Society judges 'make nice with the left, get invited to the right conferences, and write elegant dissents.' In reality, traditional conservatives persuade their colleagues and increasingly write majority opinions. Our new MAGA-warriors in robes will be the ones writing dissents, but with more anger than eloquence. Some commentators have suggested that Trump's rejection of the conservative legal movement will have little impact on nominations because he will have nowhere else to look for judicial candidates than Federalist Society circles. This is wishful thinking for two reasons. First, if the president's chief concern in judicial selection is a loyal MAGA fighter, there are plenty of them to be found. There are over a million lawyers in America, many are Republicans. The president can turn to the ranks of the Republican National Lawyers Association and look for lawyers who have worked on campaigns or run for office with MAGA bona fides. The conservative legal movement performed an important function in recommending individuals with established jurisprudential commitments. Finding such people takes work and judgment, but if you want hacks, you can swing a gavel and hit them. The second reason this is cold comfort is that today's Federalist Society membership is not what it was twenty years ago. Belonging in the Federalist Society once clearly signified a deep interest in and commitment to a certain jurisprudential approach; if anything, membership might hurt one's career in some circles. As the society has grown and become associated with power, it has become attractive to ambitious lawyers more generally. Long-established leaders of the conservative legal movement know very well who among the ranks has a serious commitment to sound jurisprudence. But if the president has hostility to the core of the conservative legal movement, and to its most prominent leaders, he can certainly find pliant tools who can claim Federalist Society membership. Join now THE NOMINATION OF EMIL BOVE to the Third Circuit presents the first test case of a Trump presidency divorced from the conservative legal movement. A self-respecting Senate would reject this nomination on basic character and competence grounds. Bove's involvement in the deeply corrupt Eric Adams affair alone disqualifies him. But this nomination is not just about Bove. It is about how the second Trump term will approach judicial nominations, including to the Supreme Court. If the Senate confirms Bove, it will send a clear signal that the president has the freedom to depart from the model of judges long favored by the conservative legal movement. We can count on him to take that freedom and run with it for other vacancies, including for the Supreme Court. The president himself announced Bove in partisan terms, promising his followers on Truth Social that Bove 'will end the Weaponization of Justice, restore the Rule of Law, and do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Emil Bove will never let you down!' Outside commentators who have long rejected principled legal conservatism applauded and suggested Bove would be the new model for Trump judicial nominees, those who are committed 'warriors' who understand 'the fight for our country is existential.' The Bove nomination is an existential fight—for the conservative legal movement. If the conservative legal movement and its allies in the Senate rally to defeat this nomination as they did the Miers nomination twenty years ago, they will prove their commitment to principle and ensure their relevance going forward. They may get invited to fewer parties at the White House, but if legal conservatives stand firm now, they will remain a force to be reckoned with, for this administration and those to come. If, instead, the conservative legal movement accepts this nomination, it will surrender any leverage and influence it has. At the very least, it will lose its purpose in the political arena. Perhaps it will fade into obscurity, or return to its roots as primarily a debating society for constitutional nerds and academics. There's another, darker possibility. In surrendering to and accepting the Bove nomination, the conservative legal movement could send the message that the rising band of illiberal right-wingers and polemical pugilists have a place in its tent, alongside the Burkeans and Hayekians. In such an eventuality, the movement devoted to law and truth would legitimize those who reject it. In blessing the heretics of the 'post-constitutional' right, the movement will have lost its purpose. And its soul. Share this essay with your favorite Burkean or Hayekian conservative. Share Gregg Nunziata is the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law. He is a veteran of the conservative legal movement and a former chief nominations counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
New York Post
15-05-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Elon Musk's PAC stiffed swing state petition signers, lawsuit claims
Tech billionaire Elon Musk's America PAC has been accused of reneging on a promise to pay scores of swing state voters who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments, a new lawsuit has alleged. During the 2024 campaign, Musk promised to dole out $47 payments to registered voters who signed the petition in seven battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — before eventually upping the amount to $100 per person. Now, three voters from Georgia, Nevada and Pennsylvania are pursuing a national class action suit on behalf of signatories who claim they participated, but weren't paid. 'Plaintiffs are in communication with numerous others who referred voters to sign the America PAC petition, who are likewise frustrated that they did not receive full payments for their referrals,' the lawsuit, filed last week in Philadelphia federal court. Federal law bars paying people to register to vote, but Musk's America PAC worked around that by mandating that signatories already be registered. 3 Elon Musk had spent hundreds of millions of dollars seeking to help President Trump win the 2024 election. REUTERS One of the plaintiffs, Steve Reid, claimed to be a canvasser for America PAC in Georgia and Michigan, in theory making him eligible for additional rewards. 'Despite multiple attempts to receive payment, Plaintiff Steven Reid was also not paid the full promised amounts for these referrals. He estimates that he has not been paid at least several thousand dollars he is owed for his referrals,' the suit alleged. A separate complaint filed last month raised similar concerns about Pennsylvania residents who claimed that they had been bilked of the prize money as well. An America PAC spokesperson told CNN about that suit that the group 'is committed to paying for every legitimate petition signer, which is evidenced by the fact that we have paid tens of millions of dollars to canvassers for their hard work in support of our mission.' 3 Elon Musk emerged as a prominent figure early on in the Trump administration's cost-cutting efforts. Getty Images Musk spent some $300 million during the 2024 election in support of Trump, who won all seven key states. The world's richest man later landed a role as a special government employee with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). His status as a special government employee ends later this month and the tech guru has already taken steps to wind down his DOGE responsibilities. 3 The America PAC also previously faced litigation over the $1 million prizes. REUTERS Musk had repeatedly promoted the America PAC's petition on social media, with some of his posts garnering tens of millions of views. In addition to the $100 prize money for signing the petition, his PAC also vowed to give $1 million daily to randomly selected signatories. Musk personally handed out oversized checks to some of the winners at pro-Trump rallies. Another suit filed last year alleged that those sweepstakes were fraudulent and the winners had been predetermined. The Post contacted America PAC for comment.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Turns Out Elon Musk Didn't Pay Everyone Who Signed His Shady Petition
It turns out that Elon Musk failed to keep his promise to pay voters in swing states who signed his petition supporting Donald Trump ahead of the 2024 election, according to a new lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the national class action suit, filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania last week, say that Musk's America PAC never paid them for signing the petition. The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit are three people who lived in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia at the time, one of whom worked as a canvasser for the PAC in Michigan and Georgia. Musk spent roughly $300 million on the 2024 election in support of Trump, and offered initial payments of $47 to signatories of a petition supporting his PAC, later boosting those payments to $100. If a signatory referred the petition to others, they were offered additional payments for each successful referral. At the time, the tech oligarch said that signing the petition demonstrated support for the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution. The goal of the cash payments was to increase voter registration and turnout in battleground states. But according to the lawsuit's plaintiffs, the whole thing was a bait-and-switch. The lawsuit states that the plaintiffs are in contact 'with numerous others who referred voters to sign the America PAC petition, who are likewise frustrated that they did not receive full payments for their referrals.' They expect 'more than 100 Class Members' in the lawsuit who are owed more than $5 million. 'This case is about a broken promise: Elon Musk promised supporters that they would be paid for signing a petition and referring others to do the same,' Shannon Liss-Riordan, a co-founder of the law firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan representing the plaintiffs, told CNBC. 'Our clients relied on that promise because they believed in Elon, but unfortunately, that promise was not kept. It appears the promise was broken for many others as well.' Musk's election investment and promised payments gave him what he wanted in the end. Not only did Trump win the election, but Musk was handsomely rewarded with a powerful role in the administration 'cutting costs' and gaining access to sensitive data within the government under his Department of Government Efficiency initiative. Meanwhile, he continues to rake in billions in government contracts. But just like his beneficiary Trump, Musk is allegedly stiffing the people he promised to pay and getting sued over it.
Miami Herald
30-03-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
Wisconsin attorney general sues to stop Musk $1 million payments to voters
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul on Friday sued Elon Musk for his plan to pay two people $1 million each to sign a petition in opposition to activist judges days before the state's crucial Supreme Court race. Musk, who runs the Department of Government Efficiency, donated $277 million to return Donald Trump to the White House. His political action committee offered to pay $1 million a day to voters in six battleground states, including Wisconsin, who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments. All judicial elections in Wisconsin are nonpartisan. Democrats are lining up behind the liberal and Republicans backing the conservative for the high court seat. Wisconsin is considered a 'purple state' with one U.S. senator representing each party. There is a Democratic Party governor but the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature. Kaul, a Democrat elected in 2019, is seeking a restraining order to halt the giveaway. 'The Wisconsin Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that elections in Wisconsin are safe, secure, free, and fair,' Kaul said in a statement to The Hill and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 'We are aware of the offer recently posted by Elon Musk to award a million dollars to two people at an event in Wisconsin this weekend. 'Based on our understanding of applicable Wisconsin law, we intend to take legal action today to seek a court order to stop this from happening.' Columbia County Circuit Court Judge Andrew Voight on Saturday declined the state attorney general's request for an emergency injunction . The Wisconsin attorney general has vowed to appeal Voight's ruling. Musk, who is worth $347.7 billion, according to Forbes, planned on Sunday to speak with voters in Green Bay and hand cash in support of Republican Brad Schimel, a judge in Waukea County, for the open seat. Kaul's case was randomly assigned to Schimel's rival, Susan Crawford, a nonpartisan judge in Dane County, She recused herself from the case. 'Wisconsinites don't want a billionaire like Musk telling them who to vote for, and on Tuesday, voters should reject Musk's lackey Brad Schimel,' Crawford's spokesman Derrick Honeyman said. Schimel did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Journal Sentinel. The election is Tuesday with liberals holding a 4-3 edge. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, a liberal judge, announced last year that she will not seek re-election, leaving the majority up for grabs. Musk originally said the prizes were 'in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.' On Friday, Musk posted a clarification on his X platform: 'To clarify a previous post, entrance is limited to those who have signed the petition in opposition to activist judges. I will also hand over checks for a million dollars to 2 people to be spokesmen for the petition. Wisconsin officials say Musk's new plans still conflict with Wisconsin state law, which says that anyone who 'offers, gives, lends or promises to give or lend, or endeavors to procure, anything of value, or any office or employment or any privilege or immunity to, or for, any elector, or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector to' go or not go to the polls, or vote or not vote, is illegal. More than $47.4 million has been spent so far for the race, which is the most for a judicial race in the United States. Musk personally has donated $3 million this year to the state Republican Party. About $31.4 million had been spent on pro-Schimel campaigning through two Political Action Committees backed by Musk. Crawford has raised about $16 million. Musk did not reveal where in Wisconsin he will speak, and it's unclear how he will determine that someone did or didn't vote in the election, but the money he is to award is connected to the online 'Petition in Opposition to Activist Judges' that Musk's America PAC has circulated. The petition states that those who sign are 'rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role,' which the document defines as 'interpreting, not legislating.' The petition also offers $100 to registered voters of Wisconsin who fill out the online petition, and those who refer petition signers get another $100 for each referred person. However, while nowhere in the online petition's terms and conditions or anywhere in the body of its writing does it say there's an opportunity to win a million dollars, the America PAC posted to X Wednesday that 'Scott A. From Green Bay' was the 'first $1 million spokesperson for signing our Petition in Opposition to Activist Judges.' That winner has since been identified as Scott Ainsworth from Green Bay, Wisc., who said in a video posted to America PAC's X page Friday that 'everyone should do what I did-sign the petition, refer your friends, get out and vote early for Brad Schimel.' Meanwhile, the winner of the second million dollars has not yet been identified. As for Ainsworth, he went on to thank Musk in his video post and added that he's possibly taking 'a weekend trip down to Chicago and staying at Trump Tower.' Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
CBS News
21-03-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Elon Musk group offers $100 to Wisconsin voters ahead of pivotal state Supreme Court election
A group funded by billionaire Elon Musk is offering Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition in opposition to "activist judges," a move that comes two weeks before the state's Supreme Court election and after the political action committee made a similar proposal last year in battleground states. Musk's political action committee America PAC announced the petition in a post on X on Thursday night. It promises $100 for each Wisconsin voter who signs the petition and another $100 for each signer they refer. The campaign for Susan Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court, said Musk was trying to buy votes ahead of the April 1 election. The offer was made two days after early voting started in the hotly contested race between Crawford and Brad Schimel , the preferred candidate of Musk and Republicans. The winner of the election will determine whether the court remains under liberal control or flips to a conservative majority. Musk's PAC used a nearly identical tactic ahead of the November presidential election, 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. Philadelphia's district attorney sued in an attempt to stop the payments under Pennsylvania law. But a judge said that prosecutors failed to show that the effort was an illegal lottery and it was allowed to continue through Election Day. America PAC and Building for America's Future, two groups Musk funds, have spent more than $13 million trying to help elect Schimel, according to a tally by the Brennan Center for Justice. The winner will determine whether conservative or liberal justices control the court, with key battles looming over abortion, public sector unions, voting rules and congressional district boundaries. Crawford campaign spokesperson Derrick Honeyman accused Musk of "trying to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court to secure a favorable ruling in his company's lawsuit against the state." Just days before Musk's groups started spending on the Supreme Court race, electric car manufacturer Tesla sued Wisconsin over its decision to not allow it to open dealerships. Musk is the CEO of Tesla and also the head of rocket ship manufacturer SpaceX. Tesla's case could ultimately come before the Supreme Court. "Very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud," Musk posted on X, just eight days before the lawsuit was filed in January. Andrew Romeo, a spokesperson for America PAC, referred to the post on X announcing the petition when asked for comment on Friday. A spokesperson for Schimel's campaign did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Crawford and her allies have made linking Schimel with Musk a key plank of their campaign. The Wisconsin Democratic Party released a new ad this week accusing Musk of trying to buy the seat for Schimel, a close ally of Trump's/ Schimel earlier this week campaigned with Donald Trump Jr. at an event where the president's son said electing Schimel was essential for protecting Trump's agenda. America PAC has also been making that argument in flyers it's handing out to Wisconsin voters. Musk's other group, Building America's Future, said in a memo Thursday that to defeat Crawford it must "present Schimel as a pro-Trump conservative." The new petition says that "Judges should interpret laws as written, not rewrite them to fit their personal or political agendas. By signing below, I'm rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role — interpreting, not legislating." The petition, while designed to collect data on Wisconsin voters and energize them, is also in line with President Donald Trump's agenda alleging that "activist" judges are illegally working against him. Trump's administration is embroiled in several lawsuits related to Musk's Department of Government Efficiency effort to downsize the federal bureaucracy.
