Elon Musk on March 30 handed out a million dollar check to two votes in Wisconsin and promised smaller payments to others who help elect a conservative candidate to the state’s Supreme Court.
As Elon Musk is the CEO of Tesla and a top advisor to the US President, he says he was only looking to spark enthusiasm in a tight race between two judges. This has made this race the most expensive judicial race to date.
This is important because while there are ethical dilemmas with any CEO or wealthy individual pouring money behind a candidate while also serving as an advisor to the president, it introduces an idea that is anti democratic: those who win are those who have the money. Thus creating a representation system fueled by monetary incentive but also taking steps to stray from public opinion to remain in line with what can be almost described as a bribe. Paying people to vote a certain way makes your vote a function of monetary compensation rather than belief. In this system, those who control the government are those who can afford to.
Furthermore, this does a good job highlighting the flaw of our court system. Courts are an important institution in maintaining markets and are meant to serve as this countermajoritarian facility. Here, the Court is directly fueled by partisan agendas rather than the non partisan goals it claims to have.
2 comments:
Elon Musk’s actions on March 30, where he handed out a million-dollar check to two voters in Wisconsin and promised smaller payments to others, certainly raise concerns about the intersection of money, politics, and democracy. While Musk claims to be sparking enthusiasm in a tight race for the state’s Supreme Court, the broader implications of his actions are troubling. First, there’s the question of ethical conduct. As the CEO of Tesla and a top advisor to the President, Musk holds significant influence in both the business and political spheres. Secondly, his involvement in funding a partisan judicial race brings into sharp focus the potential conflicts of interest that arise when influential individuals like Musk actively shape the political landscape, especially when the courts' decisions could affect their business interests. Finally, Musk’s actions draw attention to the disturbing trend of money dominating politics and elections. The stakes are high for the integrity of the judicial system and the broader democratic system that many Americans believe is at risk when wealth becomes the deciding factor in elections and public policy.
This whole scene of events is definitely fascinating. Prior to the voting I could have definitely seen how some people would have voted for Judge Schimel for the chance to win the lottery in voting for him. Now that the results have been released and Judge Crawford won by what appears to be about 10% it just makes me wonder what will come next. Will Musk push even more of his chips into the pot to achieve his agenda or will this sense of bribery not be seen again? At the end of the day, seeing this happen may signal some sort of distress call to protect the integrity of the judicial system and democracy as we know it to be.
Post a Comment