Wisconsin State Flag | Getty Images Creative

This week marked the fifth anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection, in which supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol, demanding that then-Vice President Pence overturn the will of the people. Efforts to impose accountability for those responsible and those involved have largely ended — except in Wisconsin. This means that Wisconsin has the opportunity, and the responsibility, to re-assert the rule of law, to ensure justice, and to bolster the foundations on which American democracy has been built over the past 250 years.

As we assess the state of our democracy in light of this somber anniversary, let’s start with the bad news: 

• The U.S. Supreme Court derailed efforts by states to enforce the 14th Amendment’s prohibition against insurrectionists serving in federal office, and then it invented an ahistorical and jaw-droppingly broad doctrine of presidential immunity to derail criminal prosecutions of Trump in state and federal courts alike. 
• Federal prosecutions of the violent mob in the Capitol were upended by Trump’s Department of Justice, and Trump issued sweeping federal pardons to every individual connected with Jan. 6, effectively encouraging them to keep it up. 
• State prosecutions of the fraudulent electors — those who executed an unprecedented effort to overturn the 2020 election by submitting to Congress (and other officials) paperwork that falsely declared Trump to have won seven key states that he in fact lost and thereby laying the groundwork for the Jan. 6 rioters to violently demand Pence validate their efforts — have faltered, often for reasons unrelated to the merits of those actions. 

But here in Wisconsin there are still grounds for hope. Hope that bad actors who deliberately took aim at our democracy will be held accountable. Hope that our institutions will stand up and protect our democracy from further meddling by those most directly responsible. And hope that those institutions will act promptly to prevent further damage. Every Wisconsinite should be watching the following accountability efforts — and urging our elected officials to use their authority to advance the rule of law and protect our democracy. 

First, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will soon determine the appropriate sanction for Michael Gableman’s ethical transgressions as he spearheaded a sham “investigation” of the 2020 election. Gableman, who once served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, accepted this job despite his own assessment that he did not understand how elections work in Wisconsin. He wasted taxpayer funds, undermined government transparency laws, dealt dishonestly with his clients and the public, lied to and insulted courts, and tried to jail the elected mayors of Green Bay and Madison. In March 2023, Law Forward filed an omnibus ethics grievance, documenting Gableman’s myriad breaches of the ethics rules that bind all Wisconsin attorneys. Last summer, Gableman stipulated that he had no viable defense of his conduct and agreed with the Office of Lawyer Regulation to jointly recommend his law license be suspended for three years. (He is now trying to wriggle out of accountability by serially pushing justice after justice to recuse.) 

Wisconsin precedent is clear that, where a lawyer is charged with multiple ethical breaches, the proper sanction is determined by adding the sanctions for each breach together. The Court should apply established law, which demands revoking Gableman’s law license. Then the Office of Lawyer Regulation and the Court should act on our requests to hold Andrew Hitt (chairman of the Wisconsin fraudulent electors) and Jim Troupis (chief Wisconsin counsel to Trump’s 2020 campaign and ringleader of the fraudulent-elector scheme) accountable as well.

Second, the primary architects of the fraudulent-elector scheme, detailed in records  obtained through Law Forward’s groundbreaking civil suit, are also facing criminal prosecution in Dane County. Attorney General Josh Kaul’s case is narrowly focused only on three lawyers — two who were based here in Wisconsin, and one working for the Trump campaign in DC — who conceived and designed the scheme to overturn Wisconsin’s results and then convinced six other states to follow suit. Troupis, who himself was appointed to the Wisconsin bench by former-Gov. Scott Walker as a reward for his key role in the 2011 partisan gerrymander, has gone to great lengths to slow down this prosecution, which Kaul initiated in June 2024. He filed nine separate motions to dismiss the case. He accused the judge hearing preliminary motions of misconduct and insisted that the entire Dane County bench should be recused. And now he has appealed the denial of his misconduct allegations. This case, since assigned to a different Dane County judge, will proceed, and it is the best hope anywhere in the country to achieve accountability for the fraudulent-elector scheme. 

Third, on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and two individual voters, Law Forward is suing Elon Musk and two advocacy organizations he controls for their brazen scheme of million-dollar giveaways to influence the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court election. This case is about ensuring that Wisconsin elections are decided by Wisconsin voters, not by out-of-state efforts to buy the results they want for us. We’re waiting for the trial court to decide preliminary motions, but, with another Wisconsin Supreme Court election imminently approaching, there is urgency to clarify that Wisconsin law forbids the shenanigans we saw last year, which contributed to the most expensive judicial race in American history. 

Beginning in 2011, Wisconsin became the country’s primary testing ground for the most radical anti-democratic ideas. From Act 10 to one of the strictest voter ID laws in the country, from subverting the separation of powers and steamrolling local control over local issues to hobbling the regulatory state and starving our public schools, Wisconsin’s gerrymandered Legislature adopted idea after idea hostile to democracy. With the end of the nation’s most extreme and durable partisan gerrymander in 2023 and a change in the makeup of the state Supreme Court, however, the tide in Wisconsin has ebbed somewhat. 

Now, improbably, Wisconsin is the place that democracy can best hold the line. We can create accountability for those who have abused power, have undermined elections, and have diminished the ideals and institutions of our self-government. That, in conjunction with Law Forward’s broad docket of work to defend free elections and to strengthen our democracy, sustains my hope.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Wisconsin politicians denounce the "billionaire loophole" that makes state elections so expensive, but they're still raising tons of cash. | Getty Images

Two high-profile candidates for governor of Wisconsin, Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and Democratic former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, have denounced the unlimited flow of cash into state political campaigns. Then, practically in the same breath, both men announced their plans to raise tens of millions of dollars, signalling to their less well funded primary opponents that they might as well get out of the way.

In an interview with PBS Wisconsin on Dec. 5, Tiffany criticized “that pass-through loophole, I call it the ‘billionaire loophole,’” in Wisconsin law, adding, “there’s just so much money that comes into Wisconsin.” 

“You can cry about it or you can compete,” Tiffany continued. “We choose to compete … We’re hoping to raise $40 million.”

As Baylor Spears reports, Tiffany actually voted for the “billionaire loophole” he now criticizes back when he was serving in the state Senate in 2015. 

Mandela Barnes, in a recent campaign stop in Madison, told Spears and other reporters that he has raised a “strong haul,” in the first week of his campaign, and that he intends to raise a staggering $50 million by the end of the race. He added that he doesn’t like the role of money in politics. “It’s not a good sign,” he said, and his future goal is “to get big money out of politics” and enact “campaign and ethics reform.”

Back in 2015, when Republicans were ramming through the “billionaire loophole,” Barnes opposed it, saying at the time that it would allow “shady special interest money and allow for more corruption to go undetected and unprosecuted.”

Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause Wisconsin, remembers that moment well. Under former Republican Gov. Scott Walker, Republican legislative majorities passed the law eviscerating campaign finance limits along with other measures getting rid of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board and eliminating the John Doe procedure that was used to criminally prosecute leaders of both political parties for campaign finance crimes in the infamous caucus scandal of the early 2000’s.

The 2015 law doubled the amount individuals could give to candidates. More importantly, it eliminated all limits on state party contributions to candidates and allowed coordination between candidates and outside groups that make issue ads supporting the campaigns. Donors were able to give as much as they wanted to political parties, which then funneled that money to candidates, creating the billionaire loophole to which Tiffany belatedly objects. The 2015 law cleared the way for outsiders like Elon Musk to pour limitless cash into state races to try to affect the outcome.

“The Republicans did that in 2015 because they were convinced that they would have a great financial advantage since they generally raised more money from donors and special interests,” says Heck. “Of course, what they didn’t anticipate was [former Wisconsin Democratic Party chair] Ben Wikler and the Democratic Party’s ability to take that big hole in the law and use it to raise massive amounts of money.”

Recently, Democrats in Wisconsin have been beating Republicans in the fundraising arms race. In 2025, in the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, Susan Crawford, the candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court supported by the Democratic Party, raised $28.3 million compared with Republican-supported Brad Schimel, who raised $15.1 million. Outside special interests accounted for most of the spending on the race, with Musk alone putting in nearly $20 million through his political action committees and millions more laundered through the state Republican Party for Schimel, while the Democratic Party of Wisconsin funneled $10 million to Crawford.

The lesson of the 2015 law, says Heck, is, “be careful what you wish for.”

That certainly applies to Republicans, who lost the two most expensive state Supreme Court races in history as well as the last two record-breaking gubernatorial races won by Gov. Tony Evers with $93 million in total spending in 2018 and $164 million in 2022. 

But it also applies to Democrats, who cannot count on continually bringing in more money than Republicans.

More importantly, when it costs tens of millions of dollars to win state elections, regular voters’ voices are drowned out by billionaires, who are not investing in candidates just out of the goodness of their hearts.

Heck believes that change will only come when voters demand reform, most likely because a big scandal clearly illustrates that politicians are doing favors for their donors in exchange for campaign cash.

“It’s going to require a bipartisan coming-together to establish some limits,” Heck says. 

Even as the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the floodgate for campaign spending with the Citizens United decision, which in 2010 struck down a federal ban on political donations from corporations, and McCutcheon v. FEC, which in 2014 found that annual caps on total political donations from one person are unconstitutional, states have the ability to impose limits. 

A report by the National Conference of State Legislatures shows Wisconsin is one of only 11 states that allow unlimited candidate contributions by state parties and among the top 10 for the highest limits on PAC contributions to candidates. Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois and most other states limit how much political parties can accept, which reduces the Elon Musk effect. Plus, “We are one of few states that allows so-called coordination between political candidates and outside groups,” Heck says.

The problem is that candidates, while acknowledging that massive amounts of money fueling their campaigns is a bad look, don’t want to unilaterally disarm. 

But now, as the Trump administration drags the country to new levels of overt corruption, it could be a good time for a campaign that ties together billionaires’ destructive influence on society and the fact that they are buying our democracy. 

“There has to be public disgust with the amount of money being spent,” says Heck. “If a candidate put corruption front and center, it might get a lot of traction.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In 2021, a high-profile EV summit at the White House brought together some of the biggest names in the auto industry. Hosted by then-President Joe Biden, the event was pitched as a landmark moment for the nation’s transition to electric vehicles. Executives from GM, Ford, and Stellantis were all present.

But conspicuously absent? Elon Musk, or anyone from Tesla, for that matter. That absence didn’t go unnoticed, especially when Biden publicly credited GM with leading the EV revolution.

Read: GM’s Mary Barra Promises Cleaner Engines, But Looser Rules Fuel More Gas Guzzlers

As history has shown, Musk likes to hold a grudge. And while it may have seemed like a fleeting political oversight at the time, the snub may have had consequences that extended far beyond the Beltway.

What Was Behind the Snub?

Little has been said publicly about the summit in the years since, but during an interview at the 2025 New York Times DealBook Summit, GM president Mary Barra shed new light on what happened behind the scenes. According to Barra, she spoke privately with President Biden at the event to redirect some of the praise being sent her way.

“He was crediting me and I said, ‘Actually, I think a lot of that credit goes to Elon and Tesla,’” Barra told the audience. “You know me, Andrew. I don’t want to take credit for things.”

The snub was thought to have been done in part to throw the White House’s support behind the United Auto Workers and GM, Ford, and Stellantis, all of which have unionized labor. Tesla, on the other hand, doesn’t. Musk has been openly critical of labor unions for years, a stance that’s often put him at odds with Democratic policymakers.

The Fallout That Followed

The story didn’t end there. As reported by the Business Insider, in her recent memoir, then-Vice President Kamala Harris acknowledged that leaving Musk off the invite list was, in hindsight, a misstep.

“If you are convening the nation’s manufacturers of electric vehicles and the biggest player in the field is not there, it simply doesn’t make sense,” she wrote. “Musk never forgave it.”

Speaking in a separate interview, Harris reflected further: “So, I thought that was a mistake, and I don’t know Elon Musk, but I have to assume that that was something that hit him hard and had an impact on his perspective,” she said, according to Fox News.

It’s hard to quantify exactly how much the snub shaped Musk’s political outlook, but for years, the Tesla CEO had aligned himself with Democratic candidates, casting votes for figures like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

But around 2022, Musk’s political leanings began shifting to the right, and he would go on to play a significant role in helping elect Donald Trump to a second term. Whether things might have turned out differently if Biden had acknowledged him is anyone’s guess.

Let’s not forget the White House giving Tesla the cold shoulder, excluding us from the EV summit and crediting GM with “leading the electric car revolution” in the same quarter that they delivered 26 electric cars (not a typo) and Tesla delivered 300 thousand.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 24, 2023

Not long after Tesla began renting out its cars from two California locations, the EV maker is reportedly exploring another shift in strategy, one aimed at sparking fresh demand: bringing Apple CarPlay to its vehicles.

If that turns out to be true, it would mark a surprisingly pragmatic turn for Elon Musk, who’s spent years brushing off the idea of letting Apple CarPlay or Android Auto anywhere near Tesla’s carefully walled software garden. Maybe the wall’s starting to crack.

Read: Tesla Can’t Sell Its EVs So It’s Renting Them Out From $60 A Day

While Tesla hasn’t commented on the report from Bloomberg, unnamed insiders say the automaker has started internal testing of the system and could be ready to roll it out in the coming months.

Bloomberg’s report suggests Tesla plans to offer the standard version of Apple CarPlay rather than the new CarPlay Ultra, which can take over the entire infotainment system and extend across multiple displays, including the digital gauge cluster.

Instead, Tesla appears to be preparing to include CarPlay as an optional feature within its own software, much like most mainstream carmakers do.

The addition would give Tesla drivers access to well-known Apple services such as iMessage, Apple Music, and Apple Maps. According to the report, Tesla aims to implement the wireless version of CarPlay, allowing users to connect without plugging in their phones.

The Importance of CarPlay

Elon Musk has spent years criticizing Apple and rejecting the notion of CarPlay integration. Rivian holds a similar stance, and GM recently decided to phase out both CarPlay and Android Auto from its upcoming models. Still, surveys consistently show that for many buyers, these features are far from trivial extras.

A study from McKinsey & Co. last year revealed that 30 percent of those in the market for an EV and 35 percent of prospective buyers of a new combustion car said that not having Apple CarPlay or Android Auto is a deal-breaker. This means that Tesla could be losing thousands of sales every month.

Source: Bloomberg

Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting was absolutely full of news. More than 75 percent of the company’s shareholders voted to approve Elon Musk’s one-trillion-dollar compensation plan, split into 12 tranches of shares that unlock only if Tesla meets a series of milestones over the next decade. Musk also confirmed that series production of the long-awaited CyberCab will begin in April next year.

Also: Elon Musk’s Trillion Dollar Pay Hinges On A Bet That Could Break Tesla

The Roadster 2 demo is now slated for the same month, and in classic Musk style, the timing isn’t without a joke. He says it’s happening on April Fools’ Day, partly because it “affords some deniability.” If the demo slips, he quipped, “I could say I was just kidding.”

What’s New With the Semi?

And then there’s the Semi, which is heading for a redesign and full-scale production next year, following its unveiling all the way back in 2017 The redesigned Class 8 hauler gets meaningful efficiency gains, higher payload capacity, and a package clearly engineered around Tesla’s autonomy ambitions.

While the original Semi entered limited production back in 2022, this is a full-scale update with big aspirations and changes.

Efficiency is the biggest news. Tesla claims energy consumption drops to 1.7 kWh per mile, a 15 percent improvement over the current Semi. Paired with a 500-mile range rating, the update positions the new truck more competitively against rivals from Daimler and Volvo.

Drive power holds at 800 kW, but Tesla says that internal improvements under the skin, such as cooling, software, and thermal routing, provide more consistent performance under load.

Fast Charge Future

Another major upgrade is charging. The new Semi supports a peak rate of 1.2 MW (1,200 kW). That eclipses the current Megacharger output and allows for significantly shorter high-volume charging stops when paired with compatible infrastructure. Payload capacity also increases, though Tesla didn’t reveal by how much.

Visually, the Tesla truck looks a lot more like the rest of the family now. It gets a new Model Y-style front light bar, cleaner body surfacing, and a reshaped roof to improve aerodynamic flow. The black glass side panel is narrower, the bumper is reworked, and that continues to the wheel openings.

Read: Tesla’s Cybercab Might Become The Affordable Model 2 After All

Tesla frames all of this as groundwork for a future autonomous freight platform. Amazingly, the brand and its CEO avoided reaffirming any specific Level 5 self-driving timelines.

How Fast Can It Build the Cybercab?

Elon Musk didn’t stop at teasing the Cybercab itself; he also boasted about how it would be built. According to him, the dedicated production line will operate on an astonishing sub-10-second cycle time, compared with the roughly one-minute rhythm it currently takes to assemble a Model Y.

If that target holds, Musk suggested, it could translate to an annual output up to five million Cybercabs, a figure that would eclipse the production pace of nearly any vehicle on the road today. Still, as with most of Musk’s projections, take everything said with a grain of salt.

Either way, it’s going to be a wild year for Tesla. From Semi production ramp-up to the launch of the Cybercab and the potential demo of the Roadster, there’s a lot to live up to and lots that could go wrong.

Feeling smug about that 2 percent pay rise you just squeezed out of your boss? You won’t be when you hear that Tesla shareholders have voted to pay CEO Elon Musk up to $1 trillion over the next decade if the company hits a series of extremely ambitious market-value and performance milestones.

Around 75 percent of investors voted in favor of the award, which ties Musk’s payout to Tesla hitting long-term valuation goals rather than fixed salary or bonuses.

To access the full $1 trillion, Musk will need to boost the automaker’s market value from $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and push it to make 20 million cars, a big jump from the 8.5 million it has produced in its lifetime.

Related: Yale Economists Quantify Exactly How Many Sales Musk’s Politics Cost Tesla

Other stipulations include achieving 10 million FSD subscriptions, putting 1 million Robotaxis on the street and delivering 1 million Optimus robots, CNBC reports.

The payout will happen in stages and won’t come in the form of giant check or pile of bills. Instead Musk will be awarded “hundreds of millions” of additional Tesla shares, which could lift his stake in the firm form 13 percent today – already making him the biggest single shareholder – to as much as 29 percent in a decade’s time.

The vote comes after senior Tesla’s board members publicly warned that without the deal, Musk might shift his focus elsewhere. This is a man, after all, with plenty of other gigs on the go, including SpaceX, Neuralink, and xAI, an OpenAI rival some Tesla shareholders want the automaker to invest in.

A controversial CEO

But the approval arrives at a delicate time for Tesla. Sales have been weaker than expected in key markets, despite the company recently giving the Model Y and Model 3 major updates meant to boost demand.

Prices have been cut repeatedly, margins have thinned, and both legacy Western brands and younger Chinese ones are now producing their own EVs and eating into Tesla’s pie.

And then there’s the Cybertruck. The stainless steel truck generated a ton of media coverage, but demand has failed to live up to the hype.

On top of that Tesla has been hit by multiple lawsuits about crashes allegedly related to its cars’ driver assistance tech, US regulators are also investigating the safety of those same systems and a recent study showed Musk’s right-wing affiliations have cost the company billions of dollars in lost sales.

Banking on AI

So why are shareholders still willing to back a jaw-dropping compensation deal? Two words: Robotaxi and AI. Musk has repeatedly said Tesla is on the brink of full self-driving automation and many investors believe only Elon Musk can lead that transformation.

If Musk can turn that vision into reality, the trillion-dollar pay plan suddenly stops sounding theoretical. But that’s a big if, and here’s another slightly smaller one: if you were a shareholder, would you have voted to approve Musk’s mega-pay package? Leave a comment and let us know.

Once hailed as a maverick genius we could all get behind, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has earned plenty of haters over the last few years as a result of his controversial political stances and affiliations.

Moreover, a new study has just confirmed what we all suspected all along: that those politics have cost Tesla billions of dollars in lost sales revenue.

How Bad Is the Damage?

Tesla US vehicle sales dropped by between 1 million and 1.26 million between October 2022 and April 2025, according to The National Bureau of Economic Research, a group of economists based at Yale University.

Related: Musk’s Tesla Payday Is So Absurd Even The Pope Had Something To Say

The authors estimate Teslas sales during that period should have been 67-83 percent higher. Some of those disaffected would-be buyers were pushed into the arms of rival carmakers, whose electric and hybrid vehicle sales grew by roughly 17-22 percent as a result, the study claims.

Among the actions that Tesla’s traditionally Democrat-voting customer base found offensive were his donation of $300 million to Republican candidates in the run up to the 2024 presidential election. The move marked a clear political shift that unsettled parts of his core audience.

Further controversy followed when Musk accepted a position with Donald Trump’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and voiced support for far-right political parties abroad, including Germany’s AfD.

Together, these choices reshaped his public image and deepened the divide between his business ventures and their once-loyal fan base.

The study suggests Musk’s behavior and its effect on sales negatively impacted California’s work towards achieving net zero emissions, derailing its plans to meet 2026 targets.

A Partial Rebound?

Even so, the researchers note that public sentiment toward the Tesla CEO had improved since Musk shifted his attention away from Donald Trump and back toward technology, namely robotaxis, self-driving cars and its fledgling robot business.

Tesla’s global sales are still projected to fall by about 10 percent this year, but that hasn’t slowed Musk’s ambitions. He’s now pushing for a $1 trillion pay package, which shareholders are set to vote on next month.

If approved, it would be by far the largest compensation deal ever granted to a corporate executive. Tesla chairman Robyn Denholm has written to shareholders warning that Musk could walk away if the cash doesn’t come through.