Elon Musk likely broke law by promising voters $1 million payouts, Wisconsin Elections Commission says 21%

By Scott Bauer8% Associated Press60%

7/15/2026, 7:41:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,464 faulty-reasoning hits from 699 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.3% and a BS Rank of 21% (17,280 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.00% of the article peer group.

Billionaire Elon Musk likely broke Wisconsin law when he promised to hand out $1 million checks to voters in the 2025 state Supreme Court election, a bipartisan panel has found. 
The Wisconsin Elections Commission last week referred two complaints to the Brown County district attorney’s office, which can choose to bring criminal charges over violating the state law against election bribery. 
Prosecutors have 40 days to report back to the commission. 
Musk, the founder of SpaceX and CEO of Tesla, was deeply involved in the effort to flip majority control of the highest court in battleground Wisconsin. 
The tech titan and groups he supported spent at least $20 million on the candidate backed by Republicans, Brad Schimel. 
However, he lost by 10 percentage points to Democratic-backed candidate Susan Crawford. 
A month after the lopsided loss, Musk announced that he would be spending far less on political campaigns. 
Spending on the election topped $100 million, making it the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history. 
The complaints, which are confidential under state law, were brought by voters in Milwaukee and Green Bay, which is in Brown County. 
Musk handed out checks at a rally there just days before the election. 
The Wisconsin Elections Commission, consisting of three Democrats and three Republicans, voted 5-1 in closed session on Thursday to refer the complaints to the district attorney, the commission’s spokesperson Emilee Miklas said. 
Brown County District Attorney David Lasee, a Republican, did not immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday. 
The motion approved by the elections commission said it found probable cause that Musk broke Wisconsin law by making a social media post offering $1 million to people who voted in the Supreme Court election “in order to induce them to vote in that election.” 
Spokespeople for Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 
Musk gave $1 million checks to 3 Wisconsin voters 
Three Wisconsin voters received checks from Musk, including two who got them in person at the Green Bay rally. 
Two weeks before the election, Musk’s political action committee, America PAC, offered $100 to voters who signed a petition in opposition to “activist judges,” or referred someone to sign it. 
Crawford’s win kept liberals in control of the state Supreme Court, and their majority grew to 5-2 after Democratic-backed candidate Chris Taylor’s victory this year . 
Musk’s spending on the 2025 race has already resulted in one lawsuit filed by a government watchdog group, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which seeks to prohibit him from ever again offering cash payments in the state. 
That lawsuit is pending in Brown County. 
It alleges that Musk and two groups he funds violated prohibitions on vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries and that his actions were an unlawful conspiracy and public nuisance. 
Attempts to stop Musk failed in 2025 
Wisconsin’s Democratic attorney general sued to stop Musk from handing over the checks to two voters, but was rejected by state courts. 
Musk’s attorneys argued in legal filings in 2025 that Musk was exercising his free speech rights with the giveaways and any attempt to restrict that would violate both the Wisconsin and U.S. constitutions. 
The payments are “intended to generate a grassroots movement in opposition to activist judges, not to expressly advocate for or against any candidate,” Musk’s attorneys argued in court filings. 
Musk’s political action committee used a nearly identical tactic before the 2024 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. 
A judge in Pennsylvania said prosecutors failed to show the effort was an illegal lottery and allowed it to continue through Election Day. 
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. 
Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. 
This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press. 
Elon Musk likely broke law by promising voters $1 million payouts, Wisconsin Elections Commission says is a post from Wisconsin Watch , a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. 
Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.8%Scott Bauer: 4.2%Wisconsin Watch: 2.1%Confirmation Bias27.8%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Scott Bauer: 2.5%Wisconsin Watch: 2.2%Availability Heuristic5.3%This article: 3.7%Scott Bauer: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 2.6%Scott Bauer: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Hindsight Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Scott Bauer: 5.4%Wisconsin Watch: 3.8%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.1%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Scott Bauer: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 2.5%Optimism Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.0%Scott Bauer: 7.1%Wisconsin Watch: 5.3%Negativity Bias32.0%This article: 4.1%Scott Bauer: 1.2%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 3.7%Scott Bauer: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Scott Bauer: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 1.1%In-Group Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Scott Bauer: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Halo Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Scott Bauer: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.9%Recency Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Scott Bauer: 0.4%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Ad Hominem2.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 30.3%Scott Bauer: 3.4%Wisconsin Watch: 3.1%Appeal to Authority30.3%This article: 3.1%Scott Bauer: 0.6%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Scott Bauer: 2.7%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.7%Scott Bauer: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Bandwagon3.7%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 4.5%Wisconsin Watch: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.7%Scott Bauer: 1.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.5%Begging the Question4.7%This article: 8.6%Scott Bauer: 1.5%Wisconsin Watch: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.7%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 1.6%Wisconsin Watch: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.3%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.0%Scott Bauer: 1.0%Wisconsin Watch: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.2%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.9%Scott Bauer: 1.8%Wisconsin Watch: 0.6%Unattributed Quote1.9%This article: 5.7%Scott Bauer: 1.9%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection5.7%This article: 14.9%Scott Bauer: 1.4%Wisconsin Watch: 1.3%Biased Writer Voice14.9%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.9%Wisconsin Watch: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.9%Scott Bauer: 1.1%Wisconsin Watch: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Scott Bauer: 0.0%Wisconsin Watch: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Scott Bauer: 1.4%Wisconsin Watch: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.1%

699 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers27%attributed speech511writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWisconsin Elections Commission • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageEmilee Miklas • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Elections Commission • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageMusk’s attorneys • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMusk’s attorneys • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Watch • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageThe Associated Press • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Emilee Miklas

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words17% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.4 ptsWriter: 20.4%Emilee Miklas: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Emilee Miklas: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.8 ptsWriter: 7.8%Emilee Miklas: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Emilee Miklas: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Emilee Miklas: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.