For the second time in a year, Elon Musk appears to be trying to bribe voters — and election law experts say it’s probably illegal.

Musk offered Thursday to “personally hand over” a total of $2 million to two individuals who have already voted in the closely watched Wisconsin Supreme Court race. (It’s unclear whether the payment is conditional on voting for Musk’s preferred candidate.)

Following threats of potential legal blowback, however, he said that the recipients of the $1 million reward would instead be chosen on the basis of their ability to be effective spokespeople for a petition against “activist judges.” His PAC has also offered $100 to anyone who signs the petition.

The stakes are high: The election will determine the court’s ideological balance — and potentially the future of abortion rights, electoral maps, and unions in the critical battleground state.

It’s the second time in two years that control of the court has been up for grabs. It’s also the second time that Musk has promised cash rewards to voters, and last time, he didn’t face any repercussions. Here’s what we know.

When was the last time Musk tried something like this?

In 2024, Musk’s PAC orchestrated a $1 million daily giveaway to registered voters in battleground states. The PAC initially said the recipients would be selected randomly in a lottery that the Philadelphia district attorney argued was a violation of state election law. Election law experts also argued that it violated federal law prohibiting cash payments for registering to vote or casting a ballot, including as part of a lottery.

So, are Musk’s payments legal?

In a blog post Friday, election law expert Rick Hasen, a professor at UCLA Law, said probably not. He pointed to Wisconsin state law, which states that paying voters to turn out is a crime. There is also a federal prohibition on vote-buying, but that doesn’t kick in when there are no federal candidates on the ballot, and it’s not clear that Trump’s Department of Justice would even prosecute Musk if it could, Hasen wrote.

Still, it’s alarming that the richest man in the world could be trying to buy votes in a highly contested and consequential election — and that at least one state court has already greenlighted a similar scheme before. Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said in a statement Friday, “Musk can have his day in court, but he cannot buy the court.”

NINA MOINI: Well, there’s a pretty important and pretty expensive Supreme Court race happening in Wisconsin next week. The two candidates, conservative Judge Brad Schimel and liberal Judge Susan Crawford, are going to face off April 1. Both have raised millions of dollars and garnered attention from some prominent names in politics, including Elon Musk, who’s department of governmental efficiency has slashed funding for government jobs and cuts thousands of federal jobs so far. So joining me now is Matt Smith. He’s the politics director of WISN 12 News in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He’s also a Minnesota Native who grew up in Esko, just south of Duluth. Thanks for being on with us today, Matt.

MATT SMITH: Thank you for having me. It’s good to chat this afternoon.

NINA MOINI: It’s so interesting to learn about our neighbors in Wisconsin. Obviously, so much of what happens across state borders affects all of us when we share a border, and really, the country at large. So a lot of people might not be following this election, though, very closely. Can you tell us why this race is getting so much national attention?

MATT SMITH: It’s pretty wild how much attention it’s received, both here in the state and now across the country. So let’s start at home, in Wisconsin. Control of the state Supreme Court is at stake. Right now, liberals hold a 4 to 3 majority on the state Supreme Court. Justice is retiring Ann Walsh Bradley, who’s been on the court for 30 years. She’s a liberal justice. So that puts in balance now whether conservatives or liberals will control the court.

Two years ago, liberals took over control of the court after 15 years of conservative dominance. And we’ve seen things like the abortion law before the courts, redistricting here at the statewide level, ballot drop boxes have been reinstated. So a lot of this race has focused on some of these key issues here in the State of Wisconsin, legislatively, but it’s exploded, nationally.

NINA MOINI: Yeah, tell me about some of the attack ads and just some of the involvement and the feelings around everything that’s happening.

MATT SMITH: It’s crazy. Record spending. This now, again, has become the most expensive judicial race ever in the country, nationwide, here in Wisconsin. And we’re seeing this play out on TV, like 100% political campaign. You turn on any local station at this point, you are inundated with TV ads of a political nature. And to be quite honest, a lot of these attack ads and political ads have nothing to do with what a Supreme Court justice has done.

Whether it be the campaigns themselves or these outside groups, they’ve really focused on the past records of both of these judges. They both have been circuit court judges in the past. They both have heard criminal cases before. So a lot of this has been talking about their sentences. Are they tough on crime? Are they weak on crime? And it’s really morphed into a political campaign, completely removed from what a state Supreme Court Justice actually does.

NINA MOINI: What’s the reaction from voters that you go out and talk to about this level of attention on this race?

MATT SMITH: So, listen, we’re just coming off of November, right?

NINA MOINI: Yeah.

MATT SMITH: I think folks in Western Wisconsin can appreciate just how much Wisconsin was targeted in November. The same thing is happening now. So there’s two stories here. First, when you go out and talk to voters, they’re saying, man, I’m sick of these TV ads. Get them off my TV. But at the same time, in the polling, we’re seeing that a majority of voters say they now want Supreme Court candidates to talk about the issues, like abortion, like redistricting, like voting issues.

So you have this mix of a judge should not be talking about cases that could come before them, but at the same time, it’s morphed into a political campaign. And you have voters out there saying, well, I guess we want to know what a judge thinks about abortion, or redistricting, or what have you.

NINA MOINI: Tell me a little bit about the role of Elon Musk that we mentioned earlier and some of the bigger names. What’s been standing out to you there?

MATT SMITH: So there’s a ton of money coming in from all sides. Let’s start with the Elon Musk. It was just recently reported that Elon himself has donated about $3 million to the state Republican Party. And then the state Republican Party funnels that money to Brad Schimel’s campaign. On the flip side of that, two super PACs tied to Elon Musk have spent nearly $20 million on TV ads, on get out the vote efforts, think mailers, think door to door operations.

So there is a ton of money invested from Elon Musk himself. He just held an event on X last weekend with Brad Schimel, officially endorsing him. That came off the endorsement from President Trump for Brad Schimel. On the flip side, we’re seeing millions of dollars from liberal donors, like George Soros, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.

They’re doing the same thing. They’re sending their millions to the state Democratic Party, which is then funneling the money to Susan Crawford’s campaign. That allows the way this process and the way Wisconsin law operates, it allows this money to go to the state parties, an unlimited amount of money, and then be funneled to the campaigns.

NINA MOINI: I’m curious for you– I mean, since you’re a political director, I’m assuming you’ve been doing this for a while. I wonder just what it’s like to cover this case for you and the changes in different election cycles over the years. What are your reflections?

MATT SMITH: Yeah, it’s crazy. And it’s almost like a nonstop political universe in the State of Wisconsin, being a battleground state. And we’re going to have a state Supreme Court election every year for the next couple years. And depending on who wins this one, it could flip back and forth in terms of the balance of the court.

We hosted WISN, the only debate between the two candidates a couple of weeks ago. And it was an hour-long debate. And we talked a lot about judicial issues, but you’re also talking about the state of the race. You’re talking about campaign money. You’re talking about abortion. You’re talking about voter ID. You’re talking about a lot of hot button issues that have really become political and polarizing in a state like Wisconsin that is 50-50.

And it’s really going to come down to turnout on Tuesday. In terms of a spring election, we’re seeing record early voting across the state in blue counties, in red counties. There is a ton of interest in this race. And election officials anticipate this could be record turnout for a spring election here in Wisconsin.

NINA MOINI: And there is so much interest, in part, because of the implications for outside of Wisconsin, and as it pertains to the courts, and the actions of the Trump administration. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

MATT SMITH: Yeah. No matter what side you talk to at this point, they see it as a litmus test on the first 100 days of the Trump administration. And Democrats are really testing out this anti-Elon Musk strategy. And if that would work here in the State of Wisconsin, they would look to replicate that in other states, especially as we quickly head into talk of the midterms already.

And you’re seeing Democrats so heavily focused on Elon, less on Trump because, here in Wisconsin, at least, the recent polling is showing that Trump is more popular than Elon Musk. So they’re going hard after Elon Musk. And Republicans are embracing it. Brad Schimel is embracing the Trump endorsement.

What Republicans need and what the Schimel campaign needs is for Republican voters, Trump voters, who may have only voted for Trump and have sat out other elections, they need those voters to show up to the polls in order for Brad Schimel to win, because Democrats have had an advantage in spring elections here in Wisconsin in recent years. So, I mean, it’s a ground game. It’s all about turnout. These candidates are crisscrossing the state in these final hours ahead of Tuesday. They’re doing bus tours. I mean, it’s a 100% political campaign and operation at this point.

NINA MOINI: Well, Matt, we really appreciate you stopping by Minnesota Now and filling in your neighbors. Good luck with next week. Another busy one for you, I suppose.

MATT SMITH: Absolutely. Thanks for having me. Great chatting this afternoon.

NINA MOINI: Take care. That was Matt Smith, the politics director of WISN 12 News in Milwaukee.

The Gold Nugget was the first exotic dance club filmmaker Paige McKenna had ever visited.

“I was extremely uncomfortable,” she told WPR’s “Wisconsin Today.” “I remember having an overwhelming sense of anger for the men that were in there. I felt very protective of the women on stage. But I also came up with opinions of the women before I even talked to them or got to know them.”

McKenna, confronted with her own snap judgement about the women dancing on stage, decided to break down and explore these feelings in what would become her second documentary, “GOLD.” 

The film focuses on the Gold Nugget in Spread Eagle, Wisconsin, and follows five dancers with ties to the club, including its owner Miss Dusty. 

“I wanted to learn more about that world,” McKenna said. “I was very curious about women in this industry and why they choose the paths they do.”

McKenna and Miss Dusty, who requested to be referred to by the stage name she used when she was a dancer, both spoke to “Wisconsin Today” about stereotypes regarding exotic dancers, the making of the film and what they hope audiences take from it. 

When McKenna first approached Miss Dusty with her idea for the documentary, Miss Dusty was reluctant to participate. 

“She was very reserved, and I don’t blame her at all,” McKenna said. “I remember we had lunch together, and [Dusty] didn’t look me in the eye the whole time. At that moment, I thought, ‘Well, this is going to be a little more difficult than I had expected.’”

Miss Dusty said she hesitated to share her story on camera because she felt she didn’t do anything special. But while McKenna was interviewing the dancers at the club, she said it became clear Miss Dusty ran her club differently than others — by empowering her dancers, demanding respect from patrons and encouraging the dancers’ sobriety. 

Perhaps most importantly, Miss Dusty wants all the women that work for her to take what they need from their job at the Gold Nugget. And then leave.

In the film, Miss Dusty says she wants the women who work there to be financially and emotionally independent.

“I tell the girls, ‘Make something of yourself. Be something. While you’re young and with no kids, go ahead. Have fun. Do what you gotta do,” she says. “But make plans for the future. Whatever it is you desire. But work at something better than what you have.’” 

Because of her own experience as an exotic dancer in the ‘90s, Miss Dusty said she understands why some women do this work. 

“When I first started, I had very low self esteem,” Miss Dusty told “Wisconsin Today.” “I didn’t think I was much of anything. But as time went on, I discovered a power I didn’t know I could have. In my [first] marriage, whatever he said, I did. So to be able to walk away from that control was very empowering. I was able to get in the habit of telling men, ‘no.’”

In the film, a dancer named Aubrey notes that while many of the women have experienced trauma or have a painful past, that isn’t always the case. However, she says, all of the dancers experience some judgement or contempt, often from strangers both during and outside of work.

“Let’s say hypothetically, these girls have gone through so much trauma. Is that really what you’re going to do to somebody who’s gone through so much trauma — beat them down? What kind of person are you to talk down to somebody who’s gone through so much,” Aubrey says in the film.

McKenna told “Wisconsin Today” she was asked several times by people who learned about “GOLD” if she was a dancer, too.

“Nobody asked if I was a nun when I did my last film, which was about a nun,” McKenna said, referring to “Seeds of Life,” her debut film, which was accepted by 14 different film festivals and won several awards in the U.S. and Canada.

Getting into film festivals with “GOLD,” McKenna said, has been “much more difficult.”

“[Maybe] people are still really fearful about talking about the sex industry,” McKenna told “Wisconsin Today. “I’m not sure what the reason is for our many rejections so far, but we really have gotten a lot. We actually got disqualified from a film festival that had invited us to apply because of the [partial] nudity. Yes, it can be uncomfortable at times throughout the film, but a lot of the issues that are dealt with are issues that any of us can go through.”

For McKenna, the point of the film is to remind audiences that exotic dancers do not deserve judgement, abuse or disrespect, and to encourage people to reflect internally on the real reasons they might look down on someone they don’t know.

“I have so much to learn,” McKenna said. “I have so many of my own judgments to take out of my head. It’s not fair to the women for me to come up with my own story of how their life has gone. Who am I to do that?”

Regardless of how “GOLD” is received, McKenna values the connections she has made with the film.

“At least I have cultivated the sisterhood with Dusty and with the women. They’ve trusted me to tell their stories, and I can’t think of anything that’s more fulfilling than that,” she said.

The film will be shown twice at this year’s Beloit International Film Festival from March 28 to April 6.