Were payments received by Wisconsin voters from Elon musk voting payments
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
Yes, Wisconsin voters did receive payments from Elon Musk's voting payment program. Multiple sources confirm that Elon Musk handed out $1 million checks to Wisconsin voters during the state's spring 2025 election period [1] [2] [3]. Specifically, sources report that two to three Wisconsin voters received $1 million payments [1] [2] [3], with recipients being designated as spokespeople for Musk's political group [3].
Additionally, Musk's political action committee offered $100 payments to Wisconsin voters who signed a petition against "activist judges" [4] [5]. One confirmed recipient was a Green Bay man who received $1 million for signing the petition [5]. The $100 payments were offered to any registered Wisconsin voter who signed the petition [5].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks crucial legal and political context surrounding these payments:
- Legal challenges were actively pursued - Wisconsin's Attorney General sued Elon Musk to block the payment offers, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court was asked to intervene but declined the request [3] [5].
- Broader national scope - Wisconsin was just one of seven battleground states where Musk's political action committee operated this payment system [6] [7], suggesting a coordinated national political strategy rather than Wisconsin-specific activity.
- Ongoing litigation - Multiple lawsuits have been filed claiming Musk defrauded voters by misleading them about the nature of the $1 million lottery system [8] [6] [7]. Voters in these lawsuits allege they were induced to sign petitions under false pretenses.
- Political motivations - The payments were tied to a petition specifically targeting "activist judges" [4] [5], indicating this was part of a broader political campaign strategy rather than simple voter payments.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question, while factually answerable, presents the issue in an oversimplified manner that could mislead readers:
- Framing as simple "voting payments" obscures the fact that recipients were required to sign political petitions and serve as spokespeople [3] [5], making these more complex political arrangements than straightforward vote-buying.
- Omits legal controversy - The question doesn't acknowledge that these payments are the subject of active lawsuits alleging fraud and illegal election practices [8] [6] [7], which is crucial context for understanding the legitimacy and legality of these transactions.
- Missing the petition requirement - The question implies direct payments for voting, when sources show payments were tied to signing specific political petitions rather than simply voting [4] [5].
The question would benefit from acknowledging the legal disputes and the specific conditions attached to these payments to provide a more complete picture of this controversial political activity.