The Trump administration’s dismantling of key election security networks, built over eight years, leaves election offices vulnerable. Significant cuts to CISA, including the layoff of cybersecurity specialists and the cancellation of information-sharing initiatives, have severely weakened the nation’s ability to detect and respond to election threats. Simultaneously, the disbanding of key FBI task forces focused on foreign interference and domestic threats further compromises election security. These actions, justified by the administration as necessary to address unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, have alarmed state officials and raised concerns about the integrity of future elections. State-level efforts to fill the void are underway, but face significant challenges.
Read More
A lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party challenges President Trump’s executive order aiming to seize control of election administration from states. The Democrats argue the order is unconstitutional, exceeding the President’s authority and potentially disenfranchising voters. The order seeks to restrict mail-in voting, control the Election Assistance Commission, and mandate stricter voter registration requirements. Legal experts warn the order could significantly disrupt elections and suppress voter turnout. The lawsuit alleges the order stems from Trump’s unfounded claims of voter fraud.
Read More
Elon Musk accused George Soros of sending operatives to a Wisconsin event where Musk distributed $1 million checks to voters supporting conservative Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel. This action, heavily criticized online, mirrors accusations conservatives level against Soros regarding election influence. Musk’s contribution of nearly $20 million to Schimel dwarfs Soros’s $2 million contribution to Schimel’s opponent. Critics highlighted the irony of Musk’s accusations, given his own substantial spending in elections, prompting widespread accusations of hypocrisy on social media.
Read More
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent decision to reject an attempt to block Elon Musk’s $1 million giveaway has sparked a firestorm of controversy. The ruling, which allows Musk’s substantial financial contributions to proceed, has left many questioning the integrity of the electoral process and the influence of wealth in politics. The sheer scale of the donation – a million dollars – is staggering in its potential impact on a local election, leaving many feeling that the playing field has been tilted dramatically.
The court’s decision has ignited a wave of outrage among those who see it as a blatant endorsement of election interference.… Continue reading
Wisconsin’s Attorney General has initiated legal action against Elon Musk concerning his controversial offer of cash incentives tied to voting outcomes in the state. This bold move comes in response to Musk’s actions, which many perceive as a blatant attempt to influence the election through financial means. The implications of this legal challenge are far-reaching, potentially setting a significant precedent for future cases involving wealthy individuals and their influence on electoral processes.
The legal action underscores the gravity of the situation and the determination of Wisconsin authorities to uphold the integrity of the election. It’s a direct challenge to Musk’s assertion that he can operate outside the bounds of established laws simply because of his immense wealth.… Continue reading
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit on Friday seeking to prevent Elon Musk from distributing $1 million in funds to voters before the state’s upcoming Supreme Court election. The lawsuit aims to halt the distribution, citing concerns about potential election interference. The action comes less than a week before the crucial election. The attorney general argues Musk’s actions could violate campaign finance laws.
Read More
Elon Musk’s recent offer of a $1 million lottery to anyone who voted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race appears to directly violate Wisconsin’s laws against vote buying. This isn’t a subtle or indirect influence; it’s a blatant attempt to incentivize participation in the election with a substantial monetary reward. The sheer scale of the prize, coupled with the lack of any stated requirement to vote for a specific candidate, raises serious questions about the legality and ethical implications of his actions.
The concern isn’t merely about the potential for widespread abuse. The act itself appears to be a clear violation of established statutes designed to prevent the distortion of electoral processes through bribery or similar inducements.… Continue reading
President Trump’s sweeping executive order seeks to dramatically expand federal control over elections, potentially disenfranchising millions of voters. The order attempts to restrict voter registration, punish states allowing late-arriving ballots, and utilize federal databases to review state voter rolls, ostensibly to combat rare instances of non-citizen voting. This action is expected to face immediate legal challenges, with several Democratic officials already vowing to sue. The order also directs changes to voter registration procedures and voting system certifications, significantly altering the EAC’s role. Critics argue the order is a politically motivated attempt to suppress voter turnout.
Read More
Numerous Canadians and other foreign nationals face arbitrary detention and deportation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including recent incidents involving a Canadian actress and several European travelers. These detentions, ranging from unfounded accusations to visa errors, have prompted calls for Canadians to avoid U.S. travel. The strained U.S.-Canada relationship, further complicated by President Trump’s rhetoric, exacerbates this situation. This escalating tension underscores the urgent need for Canadian government intervention to protect its citizens’ rights.
Read More
Elon Musk’s America PAC is spending over $14 million in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race, offering $100 to registered voters who sign a petition opposing “activist judges.” This tactic, similar to one used in the 2020 presidential election, skirts legal lines regarding payment for voting, prompting debate among election law experts. The April 1st election will determine the court’s majority and impact rulings on abortion, unions, and gerrymandering. The race, already exceeding $76 million in spending, features significant contributions from both conservative and liberal mega-donors, targeting voters through the collected petition information.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood