Just two years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court race shattered records as the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history, with over $51 million spent. At the time, many saw this level of spending as an anomaly—an exception rather than the new norm. But as we enter 2025, it is evident that the 2023 election was not an outlier but a precedent. Scholars predict that national spending will reach new levels on April 1. With this being said, the public must acknowledge that the integrity of our courts is being compromised by excessive political spending.
The upcoming election will determine who replaces Justice Ann Walsh Bradley on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, with Judge Brad Schimel and Judge Susan Crawford vying for the seat. Although Wisconsin’s judicial elections are structurally nonpartisan, the reality reveals the opposite. The court currently holds a narrow 4-3 liberal majority, and the winner of this election will either maintain that balance or flip the court back to a conservative majority. Given the stakes—decisions on abortion, union rights, election law, and congressional districting—the race has become a battleground for megadonors seeking to steer judicial outcomes in their favor.
Two of the most influential figures contributing to this election are Elon Musk and George Soros, each pouring millions of dollars into their preferred candidates. Musk, through his affiliated group Building America’s Future, has already funneled at least $1.6 million into pro-Schimel television ads, while another Musk-backed PAC is spending an additional $1 million on canvassing operations aimed at mobilizing conservative voters. This isn’t just about ideology. It’s about power. Musk’s involvement in judicial races follows his estimated $250 million investment in Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, solidifying him as a key figure in Trump’s political strategy. With Tesla currently suing Wisconsin over a state law that prevents manufacturers from owning dealerships, Musk has a clear interest in ensuring a conservative-leaning court that may rule in his favor.
On the other side, George Soros has contributed $1 million to back Susan Crawford, reinforcing the trend of billionaires wielding outsized influence over judicial races. This dynamic is not new—Soros has long been active in funding progressive legal efforts. But while Musk and Soros operate on opposite ends of the political spectrum, their actions raise the same concern: Our judicial process, meant to be impartial, is becoming an extension of political warfare commanded by the wealthiest of our society.
Under Wisconsin law, individuals cannot contribute more than $20,000 directly to a Supreme Court candidate, but political parties and independent groups can receive unlimited donations. This loophole allows figures like Musk and Soros to indirectly steer elections.
The implications of judicial elections resembling political races rather than fair, independent processes extend far beyond Wisconsin. If judicial seats can be bought, the integrity of our courts is at risk. The judiciary is supposed to serve as a check on power, but what happens when those in power control the courts themselves? Musk’s influence over Trump—though not formally acknowledged or defined—is an example of this risk. By financing Trump’s campaign and now targeting judicial races, Musk is positioning himself as an architect of legal and political structures that could favor his business interests. This is not a baseless concern; it is a reality that undermines public trust in the courts.
Money in politics is nothing new, but judicial elections should be different. The courts are meant to be a safeguard against corruption and political manipulation, yet they are increasingly becoming the product of it. As Wisconsin nears another record-breaking election, we must ask ourselves: How much longer can we afford to let billionaires dictate the future of our legal system?
