Renowned author Stephen King made waves on Saturday by seemingly targeting billionaire Elon Musk over his controversial social media claim regarding a $1 million promise. Musk, a staunch supporter of conservative politics and a backer of President Trump, announced he would distribute $1 million to two people who signed a petition pertaining to the Wisconsin Supreme Court election. This pledge has stirred considerable debate across various social platforms and among political circles.
The upcoming April 1 election will determine the judicial control of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, with implications impacting key issues such as abortion rights and redistricting. The decision could swing the court from its current liberal 4-3 majority to a conservative stance and is being closely watched as a measure of public opinion on Trump’s presidency so far.
Musk, known as the richest individual globally, declared on Friday via X, formerly Twitter, an incentive-laden proposal involving $1 million rewards for two Wisconsin residents who support his cause against “activist” judges. As part of this campaign, Musk also offered $100 rewards for signature endorsements, amplifying the stakes on the political field. A Sunday rally preceding Tuesday’s election is expected to see Musk handing over these financial pledges.
Stephen King, who consistently critiques both Musk and Trump through his notable online presence, issued a subtle yet piercing response. While not naming Musk directly in his Friday post on X, King’s commentary was unmistakably directed toward Musk’s Wisconsin strategies. The author wrote, “Retweet this if a.) you’re from Wisconsin, or b) your vote is not for sale, or c.) both,” suggesting disapproval of Musk’s financial inducements.
Musk’s critics have voiced their concerns, alleging that his actions trespass legal boundaries. Despite these allegations, a Wisconsin judge declined intervention against Musk’s payment scheme on Saturday. State Attorney General Josh Kaul presented a motion citing the billionaire’s infringement of election laws, which the judge did not uphold. Kaul promptly lodged an appeal to seek further judicial review.
The billionaire has extended substantial financial support to conservative candidate and former state Attorney General Brad Schimel, facing off against the liberal contender, Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford. Musk’s financial involvement, notably surpassing $19 million, has catapulted this tightening race into the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history. Collectively, nearly $80 million has flooded the campaigns, marking the judicial contest with unparalleled financial influence.
Recent surveys signal a potential edge for Crawford, translating polling efforts into a tangible lead. A SoCal Strategies poll conducted late March positioned Crawford with a 50 to 42 advantage over Schimel, affirming trends noted earlier by RMG Research in February. As the race intensifies, the electorate’s choices are becoming clearer, reflected in a narrowing pool of undecided voters.
On X, Musk reiterated on Friday his intentions to address Wisconsin’s audience, emphasizing eligibility restricted to those backing his petition. The billionaire reiterated commitment to dispelling $1 million in favor of two petition adherents, transforming them into spokespersons advocating against perceived judicial activism.
Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler condemned Musk’s maneuvers as election bribery, portraying the move as a “chainsaw attack” on democratic processes. Wikler’s written statement decried Musk’s actions as a deliberate attempt to corrupt Supreme Court positioning, thereby threatening legal standards. Kaul indicated post-Saturday’s judicial ruling that an escalation to the state Court of Appeals remains under active pursuit, while Musk forges ahead with his planned Sunday assembly.
The unfolding scenario reverberates through political spectra, highlighting the combined potency of wealth, influence, and strategic alliances. While Stephen King’s understated social media retort might seem an artistic interjection at first glance, it strategically underscores a broader narrative examining wealth’s role within electoral contexts and its resonance within democratic dialogues. The final outcome remains unpredictable, as Musk’s contentious offer continues to animate public discourse, entwined with political stakes poised to influence Wisconsin’s judicial landscape significantly.
