Wisconsin's bipartisan Elections Commission voted 5-1 to refer complaints against Elon Musk to prosecutors, concluding he likely violated state election bribery law by offering million-dollar checks to voters during the 2025 state Supreme Court race.
The Brown County district attorney now has 40 days to decide whether to pursue criminal charges against one of the richest men on the planet for conduct that, if proven, amounts to paying people to show up at the polls.
The complaint centers on a post Musk made on X offering $1 million to people who voted in Wisconsin's Supreme Court election. The commission's approved motion stated it found probable cause that the offer was made "in order to induce them to vote in that election," a direct violation of the state's anti-bribery statute, AP News reported.
Three Wisconsin voters ultimately received $1 million checks from Musk. Two of them got the money in person at a Green Bay rally. His America PAC also distributed smaller prizes ranging from $20 to $100 to people who signed a petition, as Breitbart detailed.
Musk later tried to reframe the payments. In a post on X, he wrote:
"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."
That clarification did not satisfy Wisconsin officials. The commission forwarded two separate complaints to the Brown County DA, setting the stage for a potential criminal prosecution that would test the boundaries of election law against billionaire political spending.
The Wisconsin referral is not the only legal front Musk faces over his PAC's million-dollar giveaways. Before the 2024 presidential election, two civil fraud lawsuits landed against Musk and America PAC on Election Day itself, filed by an Arizona woman and a Michigan attorney. Both plaintiffs alleged the $1 million daily giveaways were deceptively marketed as random drawings when they were actually targeted toward Republican supporters, National Review reported.
That claim gained teeth during a Pennsylvania court hearing, where Musk's own lawyer, Chris Gober, made a striking admission:
"The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance. We know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow."
The statement directly contradicted Musk's earlier public framing of the program as a random sweepstakes. At the time of those lawsuits, nine of the 14 winners were registered Republican voters. At least three of the remaining five appeared to support Trump.
Musk is no stranger to courtroom battles. A federal judge recently upheld a $150 million fraud verdict against him in a Twitter stock case, adding to a string of legal fights that have followed the billionaire across multiple jurisdictions.
Musk poured at least $20 million into the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, backing conservative candidate Brad Schimel. America PAC alone spent more than $6.6 million on the election. The stakes were enormous: a Schimel victory would have flipped the court from a 4-3 liberal majority to a conservative one, with potential ripple effects through the 2026 midterms and beyond.
Schimel lost by 10 percentage points.
That lopsided defeat raised uncomfortable questions about whether the massive spending, and the controversial giveaway strategy, accomplished anything beyond generating legal exposure for Musk. Wisconsin's election landscape has drawn intense scrutiny in recent years, including an episode where FBI agents showed up at a top Milwaukee County election official's home seeking an interview.
Before the commission acted, Wisconsin's Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul had already filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court to block the $1 million giveaway. Kaul cited a state law prohibiting offering anything of value to influence voting behavior, the Washington Examiner reported.
Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chairman Ben Wikler put it bluntly:
"Elon Musk has committed a blatant felony by offering money for votes in order to help Brad Schimel."
That language is, of course, a political accusation rather than a legal finding. No criminal charges have been filed, and Musk has not been convicted of anything. The commission's referral establishes probable cause, not guilt. The Brown County DA will decide whether the facts warrant prosecution.
The question of what constitutes illegal inducement versus lawful political engagement is not as simple as critics make it sound. Political organizations routinely offer incentives tied to civic participation, from free merchandise to event access. Musk's defense will likely hinge on whether the payments were conditioned on the act of voting itself or on signing a petition, a distinction with real legal weight under Wisconsin's bribery statute.
Musk's legal entanglements have multiplied across several fronts. He recently settled an SEC disclosure lawsuit for $1.5 million without admitting wrongdoing in a separate Twitter stock matter. Whether these cases reflect genuine legal exposure or a coordinated effort by political opponents to weaponize the courts against a prominent conservative ally is a question that divides observers sharply along partisan lines.
The civil fraud lawsuits from Arizona and Michigan add another layer. Robert Alvarez, the plaintiff in one of those suits, alleged in his complaint that the giveaway pattern spoke for itself:
"A closer look at the recipients of the $1 million prize show a clear pattern: that the selection not only is not random, but is a targeted process that eliminates anyone who is not a Republican or vocal supporter of Donald Trump."
Whether that targeting, if proven, constitutes fraud or simply reflects a political organization choosing its own spokespeople is another open legal question. The broader fight over election integrity and the boundaries of political spending continues to generate friction across swing states. Federal authorities have also clashed with state officials over voter data, as seen when a Biden-appointed judge shut down a DHS citizenship database after 67 million voter records were scanned.
The Brown County district attorney holds the next card. Within 40 days, that office must decide whether to open a criminal case against Musk under Wisconsin's election bribery statute. A decision to prosecute would mark an extraordinary step: criminal charges against a sitting senior adviser to the president over conduct tied to a state judicial election.
A decision not to prosecute would not end the matter. The AG's civil lawsuit remains active, and the federal-level fraud claims from Arizona and Michigan are proceeding on their own tracks. Musk faces legal pressure from multiple directions, in multiple courts, across multiple states.
The disputes over who controls election authority and where the line falls between political speech and illegal inducement are not going away. If anything, the Musk referral sharpens them.
When a bipartisan commission votes 5-1 that a billionaire likely broke the law by handing out million-dollar checks at a rally, the system is supposed to do exactly one thing: send it to a prosecutor and let the law work. That part, at least, happened.
