927
Susan Crawford wins Wisconsin Supreme Court race, defying Elon Musk
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
927 points (100.0% liked)
News
36043 readers
2840 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
People who got money to vote should be named and shamed.
it should be illegal. that's bribery
It's already illegal. Unless the rich do it, of course.
Pisses me off they get no accountability. when if you or I did it we would be locked up imminently.
We face legal justice. They face vigilante justice.
All we need is someone willing to pull the trigger and skilled enough to hit their target.
And willing to die in prison or be executed. That makes the numbers much smaller.
Yet not zero.
Unless I have the law wrong, he skirted the law. He didn't pay anyone to vote (although he originally said he was), he technically only paid them to sign a petition. The law afaik only says you can't pay people to vote (regardless of who, in Wisconsin you straight up cannot pay people to vote at all), you can pay them to sign a petition.
However I would argue that by first announcing that the money would go only to people who voted and then subtly changing it later is still totally a form of bribery. People absolutely voted for a chance at that money because of his original statement and didn't know it changed. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he'll be 100% fine because of technicalities (aka he's rich as shit and is completely untouchable)
Well you can read it here, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's four liberal and three conservative justices unanimously declined to hear the case, without elaborating further.
He paid people to vote, that's just very clearly what he did.
It was a pledge to vote, not legally binding. A lot of desperate people these days, and I can't say I wouldn't try to scam elon out of a million bucks if given the opportunity. "Sure sure, I'll totally vote how you want Mr Musky sir. Make sure you spell my name right on the check now."
Yeah my internet history alone would eliminate me from that running.
The winners are "pre selected". Thats how his bullshit workaround works. Its been admitted. But for the uninformed, it sounds like a lottery.
It isnt.
even if a communist or anarchist or whatever tried to play the game and if it were a true lottery, you would be committing a far worse disservice by keeping quiet at this point.
Stay quiet and maybe get a million. Its the democrat way if you look at our current dem politicians... do you really want to be like them right now?
Every lottery run by private business is not a lottery but transfer of money from gullible to someone's friends and family.
Could buy a lotta drones 🌻
Understandable.
Even so, the point of such laws is to be as impartial as possible. That's not possible once people start accepting stuff. Doesn't matter if they can still technically not vote.
It's not because it's guaranteed to sway votes, but because it could.
I almost guarantee he canceled those checks the second she won.
no doubt.
Some of those people probably took the money and voted Democrat anyway.
If someone was trying to bride me for a vote I'd take their money and still vote for whoever I wanted.
What's he going to do? Look over my shoulder and verify who I voted for?
Still, it probably has a chilling ef fect. Voting Dems becomes like a secret you have to keep rather than something you should shout from the roofs - less likely to make that post on social media, put up a sticker or a sign, tell your friend and family etc.
It's not legally binding though. You could absolutely shout from the rooftops how you got Elon's money and now you're voting Dem, and encourage people to do the same. If enough people brag openly about doing it, it would be terribly humiliating for Elon.
Point taken.
I think he is skirting the law by having the payments be for signing a petition tangential to a vote, but not directly about voting. It's scummy to say the least, and if you did sign, you'll probably get spam calls and mail for the rest of your life. At least in this case, the outcome was that Elon didn't get his preferred candidate to win, he's wasting money paying people to get on his mailing list, and now when Tesla's Wisconsin case gets to the state supreme court, Crawford will be on the court
From here: