Elon Musk's Post-Wisconsin Defeat Reaction: 'Fraud, Fraud. I Will Not Accept This Outcome'

In a stunning twist to Wisconsin’s high-stakes Supreme Court race, tech billionaire Elon Musk has refused to accept the results of Tuesday’s election, where liberal candidate Susan Crawford defeated his conservative-backed choice, Brad Schimel. Musk, who spent more than $21 million in an effort to sway the election in Schimel’s favor, took to social media to air his frustrations.

“The long con of the left is corruption of the judiciary,” Musk declared on X (formerly Twitter) early Wednesday, as he refused to acknowledge Crawford’s victory.

Musk's investment in the race was immense, both in financial backing and personal involvement. Musk, a key ally of former President Donald Trump, had poured millions into advertising and promotional efforts to boost Schimel, going so far as to personally hand over $1 million checks to two Wisconsin voters just days before the election.

Despite his significant influence and the heavy spending, Musk’s candidate failed to win, prompting the billionaire to cry foul.

Musk’s financial influence in the race was unprecedented. The total spending for the election, which saw over $90 million from all parties, was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.

Musk’s own contribution of $21 million was a key factor in the overwhelming financial resources backing Schimel. In addition to direct donations, Musk funded a controversial petition drive through America PAC, the political action committee he established to support Trump, that promised voters $100 for signing petitions and even handed out $1 million checks to a select few. 

This aggressive spending strategy was meant to convince voters that Schimel’s victory would align with their values, but ultimately, it didn’t work.

The race’s enormous cost was indicative of the stakes involved. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has significant influence over the state’s legal landscape, including decisions on abortion, voting rights, and redistricting.

Musk, who has been a vocal critic of liberal ideologies, framed the election as a referendum on the future of the nation’s judiciary. Leading up to the vote, he insisted that the results could “determine the future of civilization.”

However, despite Musk’s substantial financial backing and vocal support, voters in Wisconsin chose to elect Crawford, the liberal candidate, to the state’s highest court. This victory preserved the liberal majority on the court, which now remains at 4-3. It also signaled a rejection of Musk’s attempts to buy influence in local elections.

Musk’s reaction to his candidate’s defeat has sparked controversy. While Crawford celebrated her win by emphasizing the importance of a judiciary that is not for sale, Musk’s post-election statements were laced with accusations of fraud and corruption. “I do not accept this outcome,” Musk wrote on X, questioning the legitimacy of the results and claiming that the left had orchestrated a “long con” to corrupt the judicial process.

This response has drawn sharp criticism from political observers and figures across the spectrum. Critics argue that Musk's refusal to accept the election outcome undermines the democratic process and casts doubt on the integrity of Wisconsin’s voters.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) responded to Musk's remarks by calling out his refusal to accept defeat, emphasizing that the results reflected the will of the people and should be respected.

Musk’s reaction also reveals his broader discontent with the current political landscape. As a billionaire with extensive financial resources, Musk has frequently used his wealth to influence policy debates and support candidates who align with his personal views.

However, this defeat in Wisconsin signals the limits of such influence, particularly when it clashes with the interests and values of voters.

Susan Crawford’s victory has far-reaching implications, not just for Wisconsin, but for the larger political landscape in the United States. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has been at the center of several high-profile legal battles, including issues related to abortion rights and gerrymandering.

With Crawford’s election, the court will maintain its liberal majority, which is poised to shape decisions on these and other crucial matters in the years to come.

Crawford, who ran a campaign focused on judicial integrity and independence, positioned herself as the antithesis of the money-driven politics that Musk and his allies embodied. In her victory speech, she declared, “Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price, our courts are not for sale.”

Her words resonated with voters who felt that Musk’s financial clout represented an attempt to undermine the democratic process by buying a seat on the state’s highest court.

Crawford’s campaign made Musk’s involvement a focal point, calling out the billionaire’s attempts to influence the election with his vast wealth. In a state known for its political battleground status, the race quickly turned into a referendum on the role of money in politics and the outsized influence of wealthy donors in shaping electoral outcomes.

Musk’s involvement in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race is part of a broader pattern of political engagement, particularly with right-wing candidates and causes. Musk has been a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, having contributed to Trump’s political action committees and expressed admiration for the former president’s business-oriented approach to governance.

Musk’s political activity also extends to issues such as voting rights and abortion, with Musk using his wealth and platform to push for conservative policies that align with his views on government and business.

However, Musk’s defeat in Wisconsin serves as a reminder that even the wealthiest individuals cannot always dictate electoral outcomes. Despite Musk’s claims that the stakes of the Wisconsin race were “the future of civilization,” voters ultimately chose to keep the court under liberal control.

This result underscores a growing skepticism about the ability of billionaires like Musk to shape public policy purely through financial means.

Musk’s post-election remarks have sparked backlash from many who view his refusal to accept the results as a dangerous precedent. His claims of fraud without evidence mirror similar rhetoric from other high-profile figures, including Trump, who have questioned the legitimacy of elections they did not win.

Critics argue that Musk’s actions are part of a broader strategy by wealthy individuals to undermine the democratic process by challenging election results when they do not go in their favor.

In addition to the backlash from Democrats, Musk’s reaction has drawn criticism from conservatives who have previously aligned with him. Some have expressed concern that his behavior could alienate potential supporters and tarnish his political influence.

Musk’s attempts to bypass democratic processes by using his vast wealth to influence elections have sparked debate about the role of money in American politics and the ethical implications of such efforts.

Musk’s defeat in Wisconsin raises important questions about the future of political influence in America. As the wealth gap continues to widen and billionaires like Musk play an increasingly prominent role in elections, the question of whether money can—or should—determine the outcomes of democratic processes is more pressing than ever.

Musk’s post-election behavior suggests that he may continue to use his wealth to influence future elections, but the Wisconsin race serves as a reminder that voters still hold the power to reject outside interference.

For Wisconsin, the victory of Susan Crawford ensures that the state’s Supreme Court will maintain its liberal majority, a crucial factor in shaping the future of legal decisions on matters like abortion, voting rights, and redistricting. With the eyes of the nation on Wisconsin, the election outcome sends a clear message about the importance of protecting judicial independence and resisting the influence of big-money donors in the political process.

In the aftermath of his failed attempt to buy a Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin, Elon Musk’s response—accusing the left of corruption and refusing to accept the results—has sparked intense debate about the role of money and power in American politics. While Musk may not accept the outcome, the election has demonstrated that democracy can still prevail, even in the face of overwhelming financial influence. As Wisconsin voters have made clear, justice is not for sale.