On what ground did Wisconsin courts dismiss the legal challenge to Elon Musk's million-dollar giveaways?

Question

Elon Musk is reported to have given million-dollar checks to two Wisconsin voters, in a giveaway which (at least, as initially offered) required people to vote in the Wisconsin State Supreme Court election in order to be eligible to win.

According to Wisconsin statute 12.11, anyone who

Offers, gives, lends or promises to give or lend [...] anything of value [...] to, or for, any elector, or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector to: [...]

2. Vote or refrain from voting.

is in violation of the statute. To me, this seems quite straightforward: Musk's original (now-deleted) tweet reportedly offered million-dollar checks on the condition of voting. Even if Musk argues that the giveaway was actually made on a different condition as expressed in his later tweet, the original tweet makes an offer which itself seems to fall afoul of the statute, whether or not the offer is fulfilled.

However, according to the Guardian, a challenge by the State Attorney General was unanimously rejected by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court after also being rejected by two lower courts.

What is the legal basis for this challenge being rejected by the three courts?

Answer 1

Here's the quick rundown.

First, Judge Andrew Voigt for the circuit court for Columbia County, where the suit is originally filed in, refuses to hear the case. An emergency appeal is filed with the 4th District Court of Appeals in Madison.

The three judge panel for said Court of Appeals then rejects the appeal on jurisdictional and technical grounds:

...this court’s writ jurisdiction is limited to our supervisory authority over circuit courts. We conclude that the petition fails to show that the Attorney General is entitled to any form of relief that this court is permitted to provide. Therefore, we deny the petition ex parte under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.51(2) (2023-24).

More specifically, they concluded that the only relief they could have offered was to order the circuit court to hear the case, but this action was not requested by the AG anywhere. As they could offer no relief, there's nothing they could do.

AG Kaul then appeals to the state Supreme Court, who issued a unanimous rejection, but did not provide any reasoning. It is worth noting that in the appeals court decision (linked above) they specifically point out that the State Supreme Court has broader writ jurisdiction here than they do, so it was possible that, while the Appeals Court could not provide any of the requested relief, the Supreme Court could. As no reasoning was provided, we do not know the exact basis for the Supreme Court's logic. If I were to hazard a guess: they felt that the Appeals Court had acted and ruled correctly in deciding they were powerless to provide any of the requested relief, and chose not to press their potential power to do so on an emergency appeals basis.

The big question, then, is: why did the original circuit court refuse the case? Of this I'm not currently sure (I'm thinking it's a discretionary action that may also not require an explicit reasoning), and am currently having trouble finding anything other than reactions to the news largely devoid of meaningful information. All I know so far is what the appeals court says of the AG's petition:

The petition alleges that the circuit court “refused to hear the motion for a temporary restraining order prior to the event on Sunday.” However, the petition does not provide any details about an alleged refusal, such as the manner in which any refusal was communicated to the petitioner or any reasoning that the court provided. And, the petition does not allege that the circuit court denied the motion.

Answer 2

Musk originally offered the payment in exchange for voting in the election. When the Wisconsin AG sued him over this, he changed the offer to be for signing a petition voicing opposition to "activist judges". The revised tweet is:

To clarify a previous post, entrance is limited to those who have signed the 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

Signing a petition is not the same as voting in the actual election, so this new offer doesn't technically violate the law against bribing people to vote or not vote.

I've been trying to find the text of the ruling of the circuit court that upheld this, but Google hasn't been helpful (it just returns lots of news stories). The AG appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but they refused to hear the appeal so the lower court's ruling stood and Musk handed out the checks.

Answer 3

However, according to the Guardian, a challenge by the State Attorney General was unanimously rejected by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court after also being rejected by two lower courts.

What is the legal basis for this challenge being rejected by the three courts?

It's not entirely clear why the challenge was "rejected," but the nature of the challenge is significant. It was a request for a restraining order enjoining Musk from continuing to offer the payments and from making the payments (thanks to zibadawa timmy for the link).

The nature of the petition to the appeals court is also significant: it was not an appeal of any decision by the lower court but rather a petition for a "supervisory writ" directing the lower court to issue the temporary restraining order. And this petition was not filed because the lower court simply "refused to hear the case" but because it refused to hear the case "prior to the event on Sunday" (the first petition was filed on Friday). This information comes from the order of the appeals court (thanks again to zibadawa timmy for the link).

The docket (thanks to Dale M for the link) shows that the case was voluntarily dismissed on April 1st, presumably because the petition for injunctive relief was moot: the acts that the attorney general sought to enjoin had already occurred.

None of this constitutes a decision that Musk's behavior was lawful, and none of it precludes a civil suit or criminal prosecution against Musk for violating Wisconsin election law.

Answer 4

Most Likely Due To Jurisdiction Issues, Prior Case Law, First Amendment Rights And How Contract Law Works

To me, this seems quite straightforward: Musk's original (now-deleted) tweet reportedly offered million-dollar checks on the condition of voting.

His statement on Twitter wouldn't meaningfully constitute a legally binding contract, because it doesn't offer anywhere to 'accept' or 'sign' in any meaningful capacity. For example, if a man bombastically says to a group of friends 'A million bucks says you can't do it', it does not automatically constitute a legally binding contract; at best it is an 'offer'. An offer can be withdrawn at any time, so long as he hasn't accepted anybody wanting to accept that particular offer.

What is the legal basis for this challenge being rejected by the three courts?

We can learn more insights by examining the case in Pennslyvania where judge Angelo Foglietta explains his reasoning (in this case it relates to if it counts as a lottery but we learn a crucial detail from it):

Musk had repeatedly explained online and at rallies that those chosen to receive $1 million during the 18-day giveaway were being asked in return to be spokespeople for America PAC, the judge wrote.

The PAC's treasurer "testified credibly when he stated that those selected to earn the one million dollars were selected by the organization in a multi-step process that involved looking at their public posts on social media and meeting them in person before the town hall events to make sure their personality would be a good fit for the role," the judge wrote.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-1m-swing-state-sweepstakes-was-never-a-lottery-2024-11?op=1

The actual legal contract, as the judge saw it, contractually offered something else that isn't voting, testified on legal record: the person works for Elon Musk's PAC, and it involved speaking at 'town hall events'. Statute 12.11(3)(a) explicitly states it does not prohibit someone from stating their personal political preferences, so spokespeople would have been fine.

Also consider free speech rights re: First Amendment. Elon Musk does not reside in Wisconsin; a thorny issue of whether or not Wisconsin could prohibit such speech for a man not resident in the State. Payments weren't made by Elon Musk, but by a PAC, meaning he might not have even entered the State to become liable in terms of jurisdiction at the time he wrote the post. It would have a chilling effect if one State's laws could impact another State's (or all States') laws and citizens, and may violate Interstate Commerce if it interferes with how some businesses (or PACs) work.

Section 441b's prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. Justice Anthony Kennedy, Citizens United v FEC

We have case precedent Citizens United v. FEC decided by SCOTUS which found restrictions on political spending for corporations and unions by the FEC were deemed to be violations of the First Amendment. Whilst this 'only' covers corporations and the FEC, it expanded rights to include corporate entities (read: PACs). Whilst we don't know for absolutely sure, if Musk had appealed to SCOTUS (he can afford high powered lawyers), odds are overturning parts of Wisconsin law would have been a very likely outcome.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/

Elon Musk likely didn't want a legal battle (expensive/time consuming), and Wisconsin likely didn't want to set the precedent that their laws might be in violation of the Constitution (which would explain why the Supreme Court declined to comment). So rather than fighting a man rich enough to defend himself in court, they probably erred on the side of caution and let it pass.

Unfortunately this answer is speculative, but with the judges not disclosing their reasoning, given the evidence available, it seems like a reasonable interpretation.