A Wisconsin special prosecutor has declined to file election bribery charges against Elon Musk regarding $1 million payments offered during a 2025 state Supreme Court election. La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke (D) stated in a letter released Tuesday that no charges would be brought because no one was actually paid in exchange for voting. The decision follows a previous referral from a bipartisan state elections panel that found probable cause of a law violation.
The investigation centered on Musk’s actions in March 2025, when he announced he would hand out two $1 million checks to individuals who attended a town hall and had voted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. Musk later deleted the initial social media post and replaced it with a statement saying the money was for spokespeople who signed a petition against activist judges. Despite the giveaway, the candidate Musk supported, Brad Schimel, lost the election to Susan Crawford.
Gruenke, who was appointed as a special prosecutor due to a conflict of interest in the Brown County District Attorney’s office, concluded that the incident was a "simple case of a poorly worded statement that was corrected." He noted that even if the original post were viewed as a bribe, a jury would likely not convict Musk given the subsequent correction and the fact that no money was distributed as a reward for voting. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) had previously sued Musk to stop the payments, but a lower court declined to block them.
The concrete day-to-day impact for Wisconsin citizens is that the precedent allows for similar high-dollar "spokesperson" or petition-based giveaways in future election cycles without the immediate threat of criminal bribery charges. This could lead to an increase in large financial incentives during political campaigns, provided they are structured as payments for advocacy or petition signatures rather than direct rewards for casting a ballot. The decision essentially establishes a legal safe harbor for donors to use large sums of money to attract attention to specific causes during active voting periods.
The knock-on effects include a likely end to the specific legal challenges brought against Musk in this matter, though Attorney General Kaul had previously asked the state's highest court to intervene. This sets a precedent for how Wisconsin's 1849 election bribery laws are interpreted in the modern era of social media-driven political engagement. Moving forward, the focus shifts to whether the state legislature or the courts will seek further clarification on what constitutes "something of value" in exchange for political participation. No further court dates or deadlines for this specific criminal inquiry were reported.
What happens next: The prosecutor's decision marks the end of the criminal referral from the Wisconsin elections panel. While the criminal investigation has concluded without charges, the status of the civil litigation initiated by Attorney General Kaul in the state's top court was not detailed in the latest report. Musk’s legal team has not yet issued a response to the prosecutor's decision.