08/26/2026
Let us start by saying that Elon Musk is a corrupt oligarch whose intentions here were almost certainly not to comply with the law. His DOGE actions were criminal in the eyes of many in the legal community, but will never be reviewed because it is within the sound discretion of the DOJ. He also builds really ugly electric trucks and appears to be the world's worst father. In other words, the guy completely sucks, and this post is in no way intended to defend him.
That being said, this was the correct decision. The statute is poorly-worded and so rarely enforced that we do not even have a standardized jury instruction for the required elements (we still have an adultery jury instruction, despite the fact that attempting to prosecute it would be transparently unconstitutional). This means whichever court heard this case would interpret the elements on the fly, possibly even for the first time. It is also entirely possible that section 12.11(1m)(a)2 is facially unconstitutional, since it penalizes efforts to encourage people to vote—a constitutional right that our own governments spend money encouraging citizens to engage in. Since no cases annotated to the statute address this subsections constitutionality, the first step would be asking our appellate courts to throw the prosecution out entirely as unconstitutional...and it wouldn't be a weak argument. It would be different if Elon were promising cash for voting for a specific candidate, but that wasn't the case here.
And DA Gruenke is correct: the statutory elements require an intent to induce people to vote. This means that his poorly-worded first statement and the efforts to backtrack the conditions and comply with the law twelve hours later would absolutely be relevant to determining whether Elon had the requisite intent to violate our law. If there is a question on this issue it is the very definition of reasonable doubt. In Wisconsin, our ethical code allows prosecutors to charge an offense on probable cause alone. The American Bar Association disagrees. The national model standard for charging decisions requires evidence before charging that would constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The higher standard is absolutely appropriate to apply in the majority of cases because the average innocent person accused of a crime isn't the world's first trillionaire. And those people lose EVERYTHING, even if they are acquitted. This was an ethical response to an emotionally-charged allegation, and it was the correct response. Not that we wouldn't have enjoyed the hell out of this trial, but our judicial system was never intended as entertainment.
So what's left? The Wisconsin Elections Commission could petition the county with jurisdiction—here, Brown County—to hold a "John Doe" hearing where a judge could order the State to file criminal charges if the judge believes probable cause is established. But discretion and practicality also apply, at least to a certain extent, where we would expect the vast majority of judges to side against prosecution. This isn't a matter of a rich guy buying his way out of trouble. It's an issue of constitutionality and intent. The legislature can conceivably fix these problems with future amendments, but right now the law is a mess.
https://www.news8000.com/news/politics/elections/la-crosse-county-da-declines-to-charge-elon-musk-in-election-bribery-case/article_67eda656-c36a-4a5f-a5c3-5f34cd57083f.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawT7FeNwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMXFYWExDanlmSFR2ZmJFZkNzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeXqXatV0QpsCWq4gpV5MtQrwEpd9pgYLn0HYpK6DHLE_AtNUdgRfgKsqmQhw_aem_KoSqidFeOfvJ8_qx6YyiSA
LA CROSSE, Wis. (WKBT) — La Crosse County District Attorney Tim Gruenke announced Tuesday he will not file criminal charges against Elon Musk following a Wisconsin Elections Commission referral that
