LA CROSSE, Wis. — A special prosecutor announced Tuesday he will not file criminal charges against billionaire Elon Musk over allegations he improperly interfered in Wisconsin’s 2025 Supreme Court election, concluding he could not secure a conviction despite the Wisconsin Elections Commission’s earlier referral for possible bribery violations.
La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke, appointed as special prosecutor after the Brown County district attorney sought outside review of the case, announced his decision Tuesday. The Wisconsin Elections Commission had voted 5-1 to refer possible bribery violations to the Brown County district attorney, who subsequently requested a special prosecutor be appointed to handle the matter.
In his written decision, Gruenke concluded that no direct exchange of payment for votes had occurred. “Nobody was paid anything of value for voting or promising to vote,” Gruenke wrote. He went on to explain why he believed pursuing charges would ultimately fail even if a jury viewed Musk’s initial actions unfavorably. “Even if I could convince a jury that the original post was still a bribe, I do not believe a jury would convict Elon Musk of a crime after considering the intent, the second post, and the fact nothing of value was even given to anyone for voting.”
The case centered on a series of social media posts and public statements Musk made in March 2025, during his time as an adviser to President Donald Trump, in connection with a Wisconsin Supreme Court campaign event supporting candidate Brad Schimel. During that period, Musk offered $100 payments to people who signed a petition opposing what he described as “activist judges,” and separately handed out two $1 million checks to attendees during a campaign event tied to the race.
The controversy that prompted the elections commission’s referral stemmed specifically from the wording of an initial social media post Musk shared ahead of that event. “On Sunday night, I will give a talk in Wisconsin. Entrance is limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court Election. I will personally hand over two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote,” Musk’s account posted at the time.
That post was removed within roughly 12 hours of being published. Musk’s account subsequently posted a revised clarification altering the stated eligibility requirement for attending the event and receiving the payments. “To clarify the previous post, entrance is limited to those who have signed a 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,” the follow-up post read.
That distinction, between the original post explicitly tying the payments to having voted in the election and the subsequent clarification tying eligibility instead to signing a petition, became central to Gruenke’s legal analysis in declining to pursue charges. By reframing the payment eligibility around petition signatures rather than voting directly, the revised messaging appears to have provided Musk with a defensible position that his actions did not constitute a direct exchange of payment specifically for casting a ballot, a distinction Gruenke’s decision suggests would have made securing a bribery conviction difficult given how a jury would likely weigh the sequence of the two posts alongside Musk’s stated intent.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court race that prompted the controversy took place amid a broader period of intense national political and financial attention on the state’s judicial elections, reflecting the high stakes both major parties have placed on Wisconsin’s closely divided top court in recent years. Musk’s high-profile involvement in the race, including his substantial personal financial contributions and public appearances on behalf of Schimel’s campaign, drew significant scrutiny at the time given his prominent role advising the Trump administration.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission’s decision to refer the matter for potential bribery review, followed by the appointment of a special prosecutor and the resulting monthslong investigation, reflects the seriousness with which state election officials initially treated the allegations, even as the case ultimately concluded without criminal charges being filed. Gruenke’s detailed written explanation for declining prosecution suggests the case involved a genuine, substantive legal analysis of the relevant Wisconsin bribery and election law statutes, rather than a more cursory dismissal of the allegations.
As of this report, neither Musk nor representatives for his various business or political interests had issued a public statement specifically responding to Gruenke’s decision. The case’s conclusion closes out one specific avenue of potential legal exposure tied to Musk’s involvement in Wisconsin’s 2025 judicial election, though it remains one of several instances in recent years in which Musk’s substantial political spending and public statements around individual elections have drawn scrutiny from state election officials and prosecutors across multiple jurisdictions.
Gruenke’s decision not to prosecute does not constitute a formal finding that Musk’s conduct was appropriate or fully compliant with Wisconsin election law, but rather reflects his professional judgment, as the appointed special prosecutor, that the available evidence would not support securing a criminal conviction given the specific legal standards required to prove bribery under the circumstances presented by the case, including the timing and content of Musk’s two social media posts and his subsequent public actions during the campaign event itself.
Discussion about this post