The left’s seething outrage over Elon Musk’s election involvement conveniently ignores the $40+ million flood of Soros cash backing their own candidate in Wisconsin’s record-breaking Supreme Court race.
At a Glance
- Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race shattered records as the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history, exceeding $90 million in spending
- While media obsessed over Elon Musk’s $21 million support for conservative candidate Brad Schimel, they downplayed liberal billionaire George Soros backing Susan Crawford
- Crawford’s victory preserves a liberal court majority with power to redraw congressional districts that could potentially flip Republican House seats
- The race exemplifies the left’s strategic focus on capturing state courts to accomplish what they can’t achieve through legitimate legislation
- Voter ID was overwhelmingly approved in the same election but received minimal media coverage
Hypocrisy On Full Display: Media’s Selective Outrage Over Campaign Money
Have you noticed how the mainstream media suddenly develops an acute allergy to campaign spending but only when it comes from certain donors? Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race just gave us a master class in this selective outrage syndrome.
The contest between liberal Susan Crawford and conservative Brad Schimel shattered records as the most expensive judicial race in American history, with spending surpassing an eye-watering $90 million. But if you consumed mainstream news coverage, you’d think Elon Musk was the only billionaire writing checks while Crawford’s campaign was funded by grassroots Girl Scout cookie sales.
The reality? Crawford and her supporters dumped over $40 million into securing her victory, while liberal media outlets conveniently glossed over substantial financial backing from leftist mega-donors like Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and, of course, the ever-present George Soros.
Instead, networks like ABC News framed the entire race as a referendum on Musk’s political influence, creating a David versus Goliath narrative that conveniently ignored the Goliaths on their own side. When Democrats spend millions to influence judicial races, it’s “protecting democracy.” When Republicans do it, suddenly it’s “buying the courts.”
Elon Musk, the billionaire puppet master, is at it again, blatantly trying to buy votes in Wisconsin like some goddamn oligarch drunk on power. His America PAC is dangling $100 bribes in front of voters to sign a petition against so-called "activist judges" just days before the… pic.twitter.com/EKirBLELii
— P a u l ◉ (@SkylineReport) March 24, 2025
Why This Race Actually Matters
Beyond the media’s obsessive Musk coverage lies the actual significance of this race. While leftists celebrated Crawford’s victory with predictable sanctimony about “democracy,” the real prize is something far more cynical – partisan redistricting power. With Crawford’s win, liberals maintain their 4-3 majority on Wisconsin’s highest court, positioning them to potentially redraw congressional districts in a way that could eliminate Republican House seats in a chamber where the GOP majority currently hangs by the thinnest of threads.
“Well, the reason tonight’s elections are so important is that the judge race will decide whether the Wisconsin district, districts get redrawn. They’re kind of trying to gerrymander Wisconsin to remove two Republican seats. And as you know, the House is currently Republican by a razor thin margin, which means that losing this judge race has good chance of causing Republicans to lose control of the House”, says Musk
This isn’t just about Wisconsin – it’s about national control. Musk recognized this when he described the race as potentially determining “the fate of Western civilization.” While that may sound hyperbolic to some, consider what’s actually at stake: control of the House means control over federal spending, oversight of the Biden administration, and the legislative agenda for the entire country. The left’s long game of weaponizing state courts to achieve what they can’t through legitimate legislative processes continues to pay dividends, and they’re betting big on judicial activists to deliver the policies voters consistently reject at the ballot box.
The Double Standard Is The Standard
The most nauseating aspect of this entire spectacle was watching Democrats clutch their pearls over Musk’s campaign contributions while their own side funneled tens of millions through various PACs and the Wisconsin Democratic Party. Crawford’s victory speech included the laughably ironic claim that “justice does not have a price, our courts are not for sale” – delivered after her side spent over $40 million to secure her seat. The hypocrisy is so thick you could slice it and serve it at a Democratic fundraiser.
“Across the country, state supreme court elections have been getting more attention, and more money, as people increasingly realize that these courts are deciding some of the highest stakes legal fights today. But even with the growing attention on these races nationally, what is happening in Wisconsin is unlike anything any other state has seen”, says Douglas Keith.
Let’s not forget that Crawford previously represented Planned Parenthood – a detail that received minimal media scrutiny compared to the endless coverage of Musk’s involvement. And while major networks breathlessly reported on Musk’s every move in the race, they virtually ignored another significant outcome from the same election day: Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment requiring voter ID. Funny how protecting election integrity doesn’t merit the same wall-to-wall coverage as billionaire boogeyman stories when the results don’t fit the preferred narrative.
The Real Threat To Judicial Independence
The Wisconsin race exposes a dangerous reality about our judicial system: activist judges are increasingly seen as political operatives in robes, deciding cases based on partisan outcomes rather than constitutional principles. When major parties and their billionaire backers pour unprecedented amounts into judicial races, they expect returns on that investment in the form of favorable rulings.
The difference is that conservatives generally want judges who will apply the law as written, while progressives openly celebrate judges who will creatively “interpret” the constitution to achieve their preferred policy outcomes.
This Wisconsin race should sound alarm bells for anyone who values constitutional governance. When courts become nothing more than another political battlefield – and judges are selected for their willingness to deliver partisan victories rather than their fidelity to the law – we all lose. The difference is that conservatives acknowledge the problem exists on both sides, while progressives pretend only the other team’s money is corrupting.
Until voters demand better from both parties and the media starts applying consistent standards to judicial campaign financing, expect more record-breaking spending and more partisan judicial decisions thinly disguised as “justice.”
