Gizmodo57%

Elon Musk Could Still Face Criminal Charges for Trying to Bribe Voters in Wisconsin 45%

By Matt Novak66%

7/14/2026, 5:55:34 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 40.4% saturation with 254 hits. Analysis detected 1,390 faulty-reasoning hits from 629 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.4% and a BS Rank of 45% (12,201 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.70% of the article peer group.

Elon Musk escaped consequences in 2024 after he handed out $1 million checks to swing state voters in highly publicized events intended to sway the presidential election. 
The richest person on Earth got away with the galling attempts at bribery after Pennsylvania dropped its case against him. 
But there's still a chance Musk's attempt at swinging a state Supreme Court election in Wisconsin with the same tactic could result in criminal charges. 
The Wisconsin Elections Commission has referred two complaints to the Brown County District Attorney's office after it found Musk may have violated the law when he cut $1 million checks to voters in Wisconsin in 2025, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. 
The commission made the referrals during a session on July 10 that was not open to the public, according to the Journal-Sentinel, with a final vote of 5-1. 
The referrals allege that there's probable cause Musk violated state law "by making a social media post that offered one million dollars to individuals who voted in the 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court Election in order to induce them to vote in that election," according to a copy of the motion seen by the newspaper. 
The election pitted Republican-backed Brad Schimel against Democratic-backed Susan Crawford who were fighting to hold a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. 
The election broke a record for the most money ever spent on a state judicial race, with over $100 million invested by powerful people like Musk. 
The SpaceX CEO spent at least $3 million of his own money on the race while groups affiliated with him, like America PAC and Rebuilding America’s Future, spent at least $19 million more, according to the Associated Press. 
But it wasn't just money for TV ads or the kinds of things that campaigns typically do to help their preferred candidate win. 
Musk handed out $1 million checks to two people in Wisconsin, trying a move that he previously deployed in swing states for the 2024 presidential election between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. 
Musk supported Trump in that election and was rewarded with the opportunity to decimate the federal government, taking a chainsaw to the federal workforce (more than 300,000 got the boot) and unlawfully dissolving programs like USAID. 
The Attorney General of Wisconsin, Josh Kaul, filed a lawsuit before Musk personally visited Wisconsin in 2025 in an attempt to stop him from handing out the $1 million checks, something the erstwhile trillionaire advertised on his social media platform X. 
But the courts rejected that lawsuit. 
Musk's original tweet announcing he would be visiting the city of Green Bay was deleted and revised, presumably because it would have run afoul of the state's bribery laws. 
“On Sunday night, I will give a talk in Wisconsin,” the now-deleted tweet from 2025 read. 
“Entrance is limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court election. 
I will also personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote. 
This is super important.” 
After deleting that tweet, Musk created a new one and sought to "clarify" what he meant, writing: “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.” 
Crawford won the Wisconsin Supreme Court race by 10 points but liberals believe it's important Musk not be allowed to continue his campaign of bribery in future elections. 
But it remains to be seen whether criminal charges will be brought against Musk and what kind of consequences he could ultimately face for such blatantly unethical acts. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic7.3%This article: 5.1%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 4.3%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 2.5%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Matt Novak: 3.3%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect19.9%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 2.5%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Matt Novak: 2.0%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias13.0%This article: 40.4%Matt Novak: 14.2%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias40.4%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Matt Novak: 5.8%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error10.5%This article: 6.5%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias6.5%This article: 4.5%Matt Novak: 1.5%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.7%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Matt Novak: 1.4%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 5.6%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.1%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 3.8%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Matt Novak: 5.5%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Matt Novak: 0.7%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 10.2%Matt Novak: 3.1%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion10.2%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 2.3%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.3%Matt Novak: 4.0%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.5%Matt Novak: 3.3%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.5%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.6%Matt Novak: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading4.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.6%Matt Novak: 1.2%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote8.6%This article: 2.5%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 28.8%Matt Novak: 25.0%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice28.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 1.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 14.3%Matt Novak: 7.7%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias14.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Novak: 2.4%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

629 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers24%attributed speech481writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Elections Commission • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWisconsin Elections Commission • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageAssociated Press • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Kaul • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Josh Kaul

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words28% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+76.7 ptsWriter: 23.3%Josh Kaul: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-18.7 ptsWriter: 18.7%Josh Kaul: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-11.2 ptsWriter: 11.2%Josh Kaul: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Josh Kaul: 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.