Elon Musk’s $30 Million Bet in Wisconsin Goes Up in Flames: Stephen Colbert Delivers the Ultimate Roast

In a jaw-dropping twist that has left political circles and entertainment media buzzing, Elon Musk’s $30 million gamble to influence the Wisconsin state Supreme Court race has backfired spectacularly. The election, which saw Susan Crawford, a progressive candidate, defeat Musk-backed Brad Schimel by an overwhelming 10-point margin, has opened up an entirely new chapter in the ongoing debate over money in politics—and no one has capitalized on this more than Stephen Colbert.

Musk, the billionaire known for Tesla, SpaceX, and now his billion-dollar social media empire, spent a small fortune to sway the election in Wisconsin. Yet despite his lavish financial efforts, his candidate was crushed at the polls, and Colbert wasted no time using the moment as a springboard for a brilliant roast that took shots at Musk’s failed political power play.

“Spending all that money just to watch the whole thing burst into flames,” Colbert quipped. “Now he knows what it’s like to buy a Tesla.”

A jab at Musk’s electric vehicle company, this remark ignited roars of laughter and viral reactions. But beneath the humor, there’s a deeper question: Can money truly buy political influence, or does the public still hold the power to reject billionaire-backed political games?

Let’s break down Musk’s high-stakes gamble, the roast heard around the world, and what this defeat means for the future of billionaire-driven politics.

The Gamble: Musk’s $30 Million Play for Political Power

It all started with a bold move from Elon Musk. Known for shaking up industries like tech and space exploration, Musk turned his attention to state-level politics in Wisconsin, a critical battleground state. Musk and his affiliated groups poured over $20 million into supporting Brad Schimel, a conservative candidate who aligned with Musk’s right-leaning views. To ensure the outcome, Musk took it a step further—handing out $1 million checks to Wisconsin voters just days before the election, hoping to buy influence with voter incentives.

But Musk’s gamble—one of the largest political donations by a single individual—backfired spectacularly. Despite his financial investment and direct involvement, Schimel was trounced by Susan Crawford, a liberal candidate, who secured a decisive victory by a 10-point margin.

The outcome not only stunned Musk’s camp, but it also sent shockwaves through the political world, showing that even the most powerful billionaires aren’t always able to dictate election results.

Colbert’s Roast: “Now He Knows What It’s Like to Buy a Tesla”

As the election results rolled in, Stephen Colbert—ever the master of political satire—didn’t waste a second before launching into a brilliant and biting roast of Musk.

During his late-night monologue, Colbert gleefully celebrated Crawford’s victory and mocked Musk’s failed intervention:

“Spending all that money, spending all that cash, just to watch the whole thing burst into flames,” Colbert laughed. “Now he knows what it’s like to buy a Tesla.”

The joke was a sharp punchline, riffing on Musk’s infamous electric vehicle company, Tesla, which has faced repeated criticisms over its performance issues and product recalls. Colbert’s quip wasn’t just an attack on Musk’s failed political gamble, but also a reminder of the technical glitches and high-profile controversies surrounding Musk’s much-lauded electric car brand.

The moment was an instant classic—perfectly capturing the essence of Colbert’s ability to mock the powerful while using humor to shed light on deeper societal issues. The crowd erupted in laughter, but the backlash against Musk’s expensive gamble was far from over.

The Bigger Picture: Money Doesn’t Always Buy You Influence

At the heart of the controversy lies an important lesson about the role of money in politics. Musk’s $30 million loss underscores a fundamental truth: No matter how deep your pockets are, you can’t always control the will of the people.

While Musk’s wealth and financial clout are unparalleled, this defeat reveals the limits of financial influence in democracy. Despite spending millions to sway the election, Musk’s candidate was crushed at the polls. In fact, the 10-point victory for Crawford was seen as a direct rejection of Musk’s attempts to buy a Supreme Court seat.

This loss in Wisconsin sends a clear message: Billionaire influence in elections may be powerful, but it is not invincible. It’s a reminder that democracy still holds power over money, and no amount of financial muscle can guarantee political success.

The Fallout: Is This the Beginning of the End for Musk’s Political Involvement?

Despite the defeat, Elon Musk is unlikely to back down from his political involvement. Known for his bold moves and unapologetic stance, Musk will no doubt continue to use his platform and wealth to advocate for the issues he cares about. But this public loss could signal a shift in how his influence is viewed.

Musk’s failure to sway the Wisconsin election may prompt him to rethink his approach to political engagement. Instead of leveraging his wealth to directly buy influence, he may need to focus on building grassroots support and shifting public opinion through different avenues. In the age of digital media, Musk’s influence is still potent, but this defeat highlights the importance of public trust and grassroots movements in political success.

This is more than just a personal loss for Musk—it’s a wake-up call for other billionaires who have used their financial power to dominate elections. The lesson? Money isn’t the only thing that drives political outcomes. Public sentiment, values, and authentic connections are just as, if not more, important.

What’s Next? The Changing Role of Billionaires in Politics

The election in Wisconsin isn’t just a one-off—it marks the beginning of a larger conversation about the growing role of billionaires in shaping political discourse. While Musk’s financial power was not enough to sway voters in this race, his influence still remains significant. This high-profile loss raises the question: Should billionaires be allowed to play such a significant role in elections?

Some argue that Musk’s involvement is simply a sign of the times—a world where the rich and powerful have the ability to shape the political narrative. Others believe that his failure shows the limits of financial control in democratic elections and highlights the growing need for election reform and transparency.

This high-stakes battle between corporate influence and public will is far from over. With Musk’s loss, the spotlight shifts to the broader impact of billionaire-backed candidates and their ability to buy elections. As the role of money in politics continues to evolve, we may see a greater push for campaign finance reform, ensuring that the power of money doesn’t undermine the democratic process.

Conclusion: A Defeat That’s Bigger Than Musk

In the end, Stephen Colbert’s roast of Elon Musk wasn’t just about Musk’s personal loss; it was about a larger cultural and political shift in how we view the influence of billionaires on elections and public policy. Musk’s $30 million failure in Wisconsin is a sobering reminder that money can’t always buy influence, and no amount of financial clout can substitute for the power of the electorate.

The future of billionaire involvement in politics will undoubtedly be shaped by this moment. The $30 million loss in Wisconsin is more than just a personal setback for Musk—it’s a defining moment in the ongoing battle over the role of money in democracy.

Will this failure mark the end of Musk’s political ambitions? Or will it be the catalyst for a more strategic approach to influencing change? The next chapter in this saga is unfolding, and the stakes have never been higher.