'Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect?' asked a former Wisconsin Supreme Court chief justice | Getty Images Creative

Does it matter to Wisconsin voters that Elon Musk is trying to buy a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court? Maybe not to “Scott A.” as Musk called him, the Green Bay voter to whom Musk gave $1 million as part of his campaign to reward Wisconsinites who sign a petition against “activist judges,” while at the same time handing over their personal data to Musk. Scott A.’s haul is one-fifth the size of Musk’s $20 million investment in campaign ads and door-knocking to support his preferred candidate, Brad Schimel. 

And Musk’s $20 million spending spree accounts for about one-fifth of the total, record-breaking $100 million that makes the April 1 contest the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history.

The race is a test of many things: Whether Musk, serving as unelected and unpopular co-president to Donald Trump, is a political asset or a liability; whether the new liberal majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court will endure; whether the highest bidder is destined to win state court races even as the ad war becomes a blitzkrieg; whether three months into the Trump administration, amid mass firings, the dismantling of federal agencies and voter unease about the destruction of their health care and retirement security, Wisconsin might be the place where things begin to turn around. 

The money pouring into the Supreme Court race is obscene and a bad sign for the health of democracy regardless of next week’s outcome. But the sickness didn’t flare up overnight. It has been getting steadily worse for almost two decades.

Schimel makes the claim that he is running to restore the Court’s “impartiality,” motivated by his disgust at how “political” the Court’s new liberal majority has become. In truth, the politicization of the Court goes back almost two decades and Schimel, a highly partisan Republican, is an unlikely candidate to take us back to pre-partisan times. On the other side, Susan Crawford is backed by the Democrats and big out of state donors including George Soros. In a recent debate she conceded that the public has an interest in ethics rules that would require judges to recuse themselves from cases involving their donors, but the current rules don’t require that. Neither candidate has promised to recuse from such cases.

The turning point that led us to the current moment came in 2008. That was the year disgraced former Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman defeated incumbent Justice Louis Butler in a dirty campaign that broke all previous spending records. The race cost $6 million — at the time, an astounding sum.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Gableman’s biggest-spending supporter, paid for ads calling Butler “Loophole Louie” and accusing him of being soft on crime. Gableman himself ran a disgusting ad that placed Butler’s face next to the mugshot of a convicted rapist. Both men were Black. The ad misleadingly claimed that Butler “found a loophole” and let the man out of prison “to molest another child.” In fact, Butler was not the judge in the case. As a public defender assigned to defend his client, he lost in court and his client was imprisoned, then later reoffended after he was released, having served his full sentence. 

Gableman went on to help destroy ethics rules on the Court, refusing to recuse himself from cases involving WMC, which had spent more than $2 million to help elect him. He played a key role in passing the current ethics rule allowing justices to decide for themselves whether to recuse in cases involving their big-money campaign contributors. 

Gableman embarrassed supporters, including Dodge County District Attorney Steven Bauer, who publicly withdrew his support during the campaign because of the attack ad. Tellingly, after he left the Court, Gableman disappeared, never landing a job at a law firm or in public service. His brief return to the limelight, as Assembly Speaker Robin Vos’s chief investigator of nonexistent voter fraud, featured Gableman threatening to jail the mayors of Democratic cities and wasting more than a million taxpayer dollars on a farcical investigation that ended when Vos fired him.  

But the damage done by Gableman and the people who poured money into electing him endures.

The 2025 Supreme Court race, which is on track to double the cost of the last record-breaking election in 2023, is 15 times as costly as Gableman’s expensive and shamefully politicized campaign. 

Ads featuring scary crime stories are still a major feature of Supreme Court races, sponsored by people who know and don’t care that tough-on-crime issues aren’t coming before the Court. Instead, the ads are paid for by ideological groups, political parties and corporations interested in favorable treatment — like Musk, who has a current lawsuit in Wisconsin seeking to overturn a state law blocking him from opening Tesla dealerships here.

Back in 1873, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward Ryan worried about the rise of the robber barons, their accumulation of vast personal wealth and with it political power. Speaking at the University of Wisconsin Law School, he posed the question:  “Which shall rule — wealth or man; which shall lead — money or intellect; who shall fill public stations — educated and patriotic free men, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?”

We are well on our way to becoming a nation of feudal serfs to Elon Musk. The liquidation of government agencies and institutions that serve the public interest are a giant step in that direction. The Wisconsin Supreme Court election will take us further down that road, or move us in the opposite direction. But until we do something about the arms race in campaign spending, Ryan’s vision of government by “educated and patriotic free men (and women)” will be increasingly out of reach.

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

I’ve studied the rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for well over a decade, and for most of that time, the court tended to put corporations and employers over workers or consumers. That has changed in the last couple of years. And now that voters have elected a pro-worker majority, billionaires like Elon Musk are spending big to return a pro-corporate majority to power. 

In a 2023 report that I authored for People’s Parity Project Action, we found that the state Supreme Court had ruled for corporations or employers in most of the cases where individuals were on the other side. The report commented on the stakes of that year’s election: “Instead of the reactionary justices who’ve put corporations over workers, [Wisconsinites] could have a majority that gives everyone a fair shot.”

In the weeks after our report was released, around the time of the spring 2023 election, the high court ruled for workers or consumers in several cases. Later that year, Judge Janet Protaseiwicz was sworn in, forming a progressive, pro-democracy majority. 

Around a year ago, this new majority ruled along ideological lines in a case that impacted workers across the state. The appeal involved unemployment insurance for Catholic Charities and some affiliated charities that help the poor and people with disabilities find jobs. The nonprofit employers tried to argue that they were exempt from the unemployment insurance system under the “ministerial” exception, which applies to employers that are both controlled by a religious organization and “operated primarily for religious purposes.” 

The court ruled 4–3 that the organizations aren’t “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The justices examined the activities of the groups (job training, help with daily living activities, etc.) and concluded that they aren’t religious. As the court notes, the smaller charities weren’t even receiving funding from Catholic Charities and were primarily funded through government contracts. 

The majority emphasized that the unemployment statute has always been interpreted broadly to cover as many workers as possible, ever since the state became the first to set up such a system in 1932. The statute says that unemployment compensation addresses an “urgent public problem” by sharing the burdens of unemployment. 

This ruling meant that dozens of Catholic Charities workers and all of its sub-organizations’ employees — the people who help people in need find jobs — can get unemployment benefits if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The Freedom from Religion Foundation noted that a ruling in favor of Catholic Charities would have jeopardized unemployment insurance for thousands of workers at “religiously-affiliated hospitals and colleges.” 

Justice Rebecca Bradley, whose dissent was partially joined by the other conservatives, began with a Bible verse and an invocation of “Jesus Christ himself.” She argued for deferring to an employer’s stated motivations to determine if its workers are ministerial. 

Bradley also argued that the majority’s ruling violates the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The case is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has expanded the First Amendment rights of religious employers at the expense of their workers. Though this case implicates the First Amendment, most cases involving workers only involve state law. This means that the Wisconsin Supreme Court gets the final say. 

Right now, billionaires and corporations are spending big to end the pro-worker majority and put the state Supreme Court’s power back in the hands of right-wing justices who will rule in their favor. With Musk-aligned groups pouring in at least $12 million, spending in the race is on track to break the record for spending in a U.S. judicial election — a record set in 2023 in Wisconsin, the election that changed control of the court. 

The pro-corporate majority that presided over the state for a decade-and-a-half first came to power in 2008. In that year’s election, corporate interests deliberately targeted a justice who had ruled against the manufacturers of dangerous lead paint. This majority was mired in conflicts of interest and bitter interpersonal conflicts. In 2010, they adopted an ethics rule that was literally written by a corporate-funded group that backed the conservative justices. A few years later, they shut down a campaign finance investigation into big business groups that had spent millions to get them elected. 

For billionaires and corporations, the stakes are clear in this year’s high court election. Wisconsin judges are ruling on cases affecting voters, workers, and people facing criminal charges. 

In one case, Musk’s Tesla car company is currently appealing a judge’s decision to deny it an exemption to a state law that prohibits car companies from owning car dealerships. Musk’s company wants to open four dealerships throughout the state — at a time when those dealerships are facing hundreds of protests in states around the country. If a Tesla customer sues the company, Musk would probably prefer that a pro-corporate judge hear the case. 

With the court’s current majority in power, workers and consumers actually have a shot at justice. The justices have made progress in protecting democracy. They finally struck down gerrymandered election districts and overturned a prior ruling that barred the use of ballot drop boxes. 

Musk and his wealthy friends want to take all of that away. But in Wisconsin, the voters decide who sits on their state’s highest court. 

Spending by candidates and outside groups combined will break records again in this year's Wisconsin Supreme Court race. (Getty Images)

Spending in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race could be two times as high as the record-breaking $51 million spent in the last election for a seat on the state’s highest court, and outside spending is dwarfing what the candidates themselves have raised so far this year.

The race, between Dane County Judge Susan Crawford and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel, will determine whether the Court maintains a 4-3 liberal majority that flipped two years ago or reverts to a conservative majority that was in place for more than a decade previously.

“We’re watching money just flood from out of state into Wisconsin,” said Nick Ramos, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, in a briefing Monday about campaign finance trends with two weeks to go before Election Day April 1. “It would not be crazy to say that this race could be double what the last Supreme Court race was, especially with the trends and especially with the track that we’re on.”

Crawford is ahead in fundraising by the campaigns themselves, raising $7.36 million. Among her donors, 35 have given the maximum Wisconsin allows an individual to donate to a single candidate, $20,000.

Schimel’s campaign has raised $4.93 million. There are 47 donors who have given him the maximum allowed under Wisconsin law.

The Court race is officially nonpartisan, but over the last couple of decades candidates have divided along partisan as well as ideological lines. Crawford’s campaign has received $3 million from the Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s Political Action Committee (PAC), and the Wisconsin Republican Party PAC has given $1.68 million to Schimel’s campaign.

Independent expenditures, however, have so far favored Schimel over Crawford by roughly 3 to 1. Independent expenditures, which explicitly favor or oppose a candidate, are spent by groups outside the campaigns.

Independent groups supporting Crawford have spent $7.79 million on pro-Crawford or anti-Schimel advertising — as much as her campaign has raised so far. But independent groups’ spending on Schimel’s behalf is almost three times that: $21.45 million.

With 15 days until Election Day, the independent expenditure total in the 2025 race is more than twice what it was at the same point in the 2023 state Supreme Court contest: $29.24 million compared with $14.4 million.

“Credit” for the trend goes to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case that unleashed corporate and union spending on campaigns and to a 2015 rewrite of state law that brought on “this wild west of campaign spending here in Wisconsin,” Ramos said.

The data also shows the outsized influence of billionaires on state politics, he said. Among the biggest spenders in the race are groups funded by Elon Musk and Richard Uihlein, Wisconsin Democracy Campaign reports. 

The top two biggest-spending independent groups favoring Schimel are linked to billionaire Musk: America PAC, spending $6.53 million so far, and Building America’s Future, spending $4.54 million, according to the Democracy Campaign.

Three other pro-Schimel organizations have been funded by Uihlein, owner of the office supplies company Uline: Fair Courts America, Americas PAC IEO, and American Principles Project PAC. Another Uihlein organization, Restoration PAC has also contributed to the American Principles Project PAC, according to the Democracy Campaign.

Launched 30 years ago, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign tracks political spending in the state. The nonpartisan organization also promotes campaign finance reform as well as voting rights and access, along with other pro-democracy policies.

Ramos said voters shouldn’t let the immense sums that a few are plowing into the race discourage them from going to the polls or to believe their vote won’t matter. “At the end of the day, money does not vote, people do, and your power and your voice is that vote,” he said. 

Early voting starts Tuesday in Wisconsin, and the Democracy Campaign is taking part in campaigns to encourage people to vote early and “for folks to just continue to be civically engaged,” Ramos added. 

The Democracy Campaign also tracks spending on issue ads — advertising that does not include direct messages to vote for or against a candidate, but highlights information that paints candidates in a favorable or unfavorable light.

Issue ad spending is more difficult to track, and donors behind issue ad spending aren’t required to be disclosed under Wisconsin law. Total issue ad spending data will probably not be available until the summer, said Molly Carmichael, the Democracy Campaign’s communications director.

“Phony issue ads flood our airwaves with disinformation and, somehow, have even less reporting requirements than other forms of spending,” said Ramos. “It’s another part of our unregulated, unruly money in politics problems we’re going to need to clean up.”

One set of issue ads in the Court race has come under scrutiny for masquerading as a pro-Crawford campaign while it’s funded by a conservative group with ties to Musk.

The Facebook and Instagram ads as well as related text messages “are labeled as coming from a group called Progress 2028 and are made to look like authentic messages of support” for Crawford, the Associated Press reported March 5. But records for the ads showed they were underwritten by a conservative PAC for which Musk is a major contributor, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The ads describe Crawford as a “progressive champion,” the AP reported, while they focus “on hot-button issues” and use language “that potentially diminishes her standing with moderate or conservative voters.”

High court spending dwarfs superintendent race

Spending in the hotly contested race for the office of state superintendent is just a fraction of the money being spent on the state Supreme Court race. That election will choose the person to head the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI).

Incumbent Jill Underly has raised $139,495 as of Monday, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Kinser, a former charter school leader and school choice lobbyist, has raised more than double that, $316,316.

As with the high court race, the DPI contest is officially nonpartisan, but each candidate has been favored by one particular political party. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has given Underly $56,118 from its PAC. The Republican Party has given Kinser $2,500.

Kinser has also benefited more from independent expenditures, with $40,518 spent to promote her or oppose Underly. Independent spending in favor of Underly or opposing Kinser has been about half as much, $23,177.

Elon Musk and President of Argentina Javier Milei speaking at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland. | Photo by Gage Skidmore

Fresh from spending nearly $300 million to influence the 2024 elections, the richest person in the world has set his sights squarely on Wisconsin. Elon Musk is apparently not content with taking a chainsaw to the lives of thousands of hard-working federal employees engaged in providing health care to rural American children and veterans, with slashing Medicaid for millions of our most vulnerable citizens, with cutting projects seeking desperately needed cures for cancer, Ebola and other deadly diseases and with eviscerating foreign assistance that thousands of people all over the world rely on for survival. Musk is now also carpet bombing Wisconsin with millions of dollars for negative ads and cash infusions to influence the outcome of the upcoming April 1 election to fill an open seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

After 30 years of distinguished service, the Court’s most senior justice, Ann Walsh Bradley announced her retirement last year.  Now, with the fast-approaching election to determine her successor in just a matter of days, voters will decide the ideological composition of the majority on the court and therefore the future direction of Wisconsin and quite possibly the nation.   

In January, when Musk announced he was invading our state, he falsely proclaimed on Twitter: “Very important to vote Republican for the Wisconsin Supreme Court to prevent voting fraud.” He’s wrong on all counts. In the first place, candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court don’t run for election with party labels. Our judicial elections are nonpartisan – at least they are  supposed to be. Secondly, voting fraud does not occur in our state because we have long had strong safeguards in place to prevent it. Voting fraud is a complete and total non-issue in Wisconsin and a distraction from real and serious attacks on democracy such as ongoing voter suppression proposals and laws that already make it more difficult to vote here than previously.

But the unelected Musk, whose craving for national attention and power rivals that of his partner Donald Trump, has a direct financial interest in a matter that could end up before the state’s high court.  Wisconsin is one of nearly half the states in the nation that prohibit auto manufacturers from being able to directly sell their vehicles to the public because it would provide those manufacturers with a competitive advantage over independent dealers. Musk’s car company, Tesla, has sought and been refused an exemption to the law by state courts, most recently in December. A sympathetic Wisconsin Supreme Court influenced by Musk’s heavy spending in the current election – already well over $12 million and rising — is in his crosshairs as well as enhanced overall political influence and power beyond our state. 

In a campaign that is already the most expensive judicial election anywhere in the nation in U.S. history, Musk may end up as the single largest campaign spender through his “Building America’s Future” Super PAC and other avenues to influence the outcome in Wisconsin with his limitless out-of-state millions. How much will he spend? No one knows. But it is very important that Wisconsinites know that Musk has quickly emerged as the single most dominant source of campaign cash and political influence in this election and in our state.  

It will be up to Wisconsinites to decide if they approve or not of this unelected richest person in the world buying control of our highest court while at the same time continuing his unprecedented destruction of so many vital national services and safeguards Wisconsinites depend on. 

The voters of Wisconsin can prevail over Musk and his millions by turning out in force – by returning their absentee ballots in time to be counted, or by showing up and voting early in person or at their polling place on the first day of April – Election Day.  At the ballot box, each of us still has more voice and control over our destiny than even the richest person in the world who can’t vote here and who knows and cares little or nothing about Wisconsin other than as a place for him to sell more Teslas and ruin more lives.

On the evening of March 6 Musk’s multimillion dollar Space X Starship exploded in the skies over the coast of Florida shortly after it was launched.  Thank goodness no lives were lost but it was nonetheless a spectacular failure.  The April 1 Wisconsin Supreme Court election could be  another spectacular failure for Musk and his gargantuan bankroll.  It is entirely in the hands of Wisconsin voters to decide.