Connect with us

Business

Elon Musk defeated in Wisconsin Supreme Court race after spending almost $25 million to back losing candidate

Published

on



Judge Susan Crawford preserved liberals’ narrow majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court Tuesday by defeating conservative Brad Schimel, but in a way the real loser of the election was billionaire Elon Musk.

Musk and his affiliated groups sunk at least $21 million into the normally low-profile race and paid three individual voters $1 million each for signing a petition in an effort to goose turnout in the pivotal battleground state contest. That made the race the first major test of the political impact of Musk, whose prominence in President Donald Trump’s administration has skyrocketed with his chaotic cost-cutting initiative that has slashed federal agencies.

Crawford and the Democrats who backed her made Musk the focus of their arguments for holding the seat, contending he was “buying” the election, which set records for the costliest judicial race in history.

“Today Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections and our Supreme Court,” Crawford said in her victory speech. “And Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price, our courts are not for sale.”

Trump endorsed Schimel as the race turned into a proxy fight over national political issues. The state’s high court can rule on cases involving voting rights and redistricting in a state likely to be at the center of both next year’s midterm elections and the 2028 presidential contest.

But Musk’s involvement dialed those dynamics up to 11: “A seemingly small election could determine the fate of Western civilization,” the billionaire said Tuesday in a last-ditch call to voters on his social media site X. “I think it matters for the future of the world.”

Notably, America PAC, the super PAC backed by Musk, spent at least $6 million on vendors who sent door-to-door canvassers across the state, according to the non-partisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. It was a reprise of what the group did across the seven most competitive presidential battleground states, including Wisconsin, which were carried by Trump in November.

But the end results this time were not good for Musk. Despite the millions he spent on Schimel, as of late Tuesday night the Supreme Court candidate was losing by four percentage points more than the other Republican-backed statewide candidate, Brittany Kinser, who also fell short in her bid for superintendent of public instruction.

Musk’s court race defeat wasn’t only because of crushing Democratic margins in deep blue cities like Madison and Milwaukee. Crawford’s margins were higher in places where the Musk-backed group America PAC had been active, including Sauk County, just north of Madison, which Crawford was carrying by 10 points after Trump won it by less than 2 points in November.

In Brown County, the home of Green Bay where Musk headlined a campaign rally with 2,000 people on Sunday, Crawford beat Schimel. Trump won the county by 7 percentage points last year.

Overnight, Musk posted on his X platform that “The long con of the left is corruption of the judiciary.” In another comment, he seemed to take solace from voters’ approval to elevate the state’s photo ID requirement from state law to constitutional amendment. The platform was rife with criticism from Trump opponents for his involvement in the race.

“Please send @elonmusk to all the close races!” Jon Favreau, former speechwriter for President Barack Obama, wrote.

“Elon Musk is not good at this,” J.B. Pritzker, Illinois’ Democratic governor and a billionaire himself who donated to support Crawford, posted on X.

Voters definitely had Musk on their minds.

“There’s an insane situation going on with the Trump administration, and it feels like Elon Musk is trying to buy votes,” said Kenneth Gifford, a 22-year-old Milwaukee college student, as he cast his ballot on Tuesday. “I want an actual, respectable democracy.”

Others may not have had their vote decided by the billionaire but were all-too aware of the money pouring into their state.

Jim Seeger, a 68-year-old retiree who previously worked in communications and marketing, said he voted for Schimel because he wants Republicans to maintain their outsized majority in Wisconsin’s congressional delegation, which could be at risk if Crawford wins and the court orders the maps redrawn. But, he added, he was disappointed the election had become a “financial race.”

“I think it’s a shame that we have to spend this much money, especially on a judicial race,” Seeger said as he voted in Eau Claire.

Wisconsin’s Democratic Attorney General, Josh Kaul, sued to bar Musk from making his payments to voters if they signed a petition against “activist judges.” The state Supreme Court unanimously declined to rule on the case over a technicality.

Musk swooped into the race shortly after Trump’s inauguration. Republicans were pessimistic about being able to win the seat. They lost a longtime conservative majority on the state high court in 2023, and Democrats have excelled in turning out their educated, politically tuned-in coalition during obscure elections such as the one in Wisconsin.

Musk duplicated and expanded on some of the methods he used in the final weeks of last year’s presidential race, when he spent more than $200 million on Trump’s behalf in the seven swing states, including Wisconsin.

This time, in addition to the $1 million checks, Musk offered to pay $20 to anyone who signed up on his group’s site to knock on doors for Schimel and posted a photo of themselves as proof. His organization promised $100 to every voter who signed the petition against liberal judges and another $100 for every signer they referred.

Democrats were happy to make Musk a lightning rod in the race.

“People do not want to see Elon Musk buying election after election after election,” Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said Monday. “If it works here, he’s going to do it all over the country.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Foreign college students are now losing their visas and being ordered to leave over misdemeanor crimes or traffic infractions

Published

on



A crackdown on foreign students is alarming colleges, who say the Trump administration is using new tactics and vague justifications to push some students out of the country.

College officials worry the new approach will keep foreigners from wanting to study in the U.S.

Students stripped of their entry visas are receiving orders from the Department of Homeland Security to leave the country immediately — a break from past practice that often permitted them to stay and complete their studies.

Some students have been targeted over pro-Palestinian activism or criminal infractions — or even traffic violations. Others have been left wondering how they ran afoul of the government.

At Minnesota State University in Mankato, President Edward Inch told the campus Wednesday that visas had been revoked for five international students for unclear reasons.

He said school officials learned about the revocations when they ran a status check in a database of international students after the detention of a Turkish student at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. The State Department said the detention was related to a drunken driving conviction.

“These are troubling times, and this situation is unlike any we have navigated before,” Inch wrote in a letter to campus.

President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to deport foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, and federal agents started by detaining Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a green-card-holder and Palestinian activist who was prominent in protests at Columbia last year. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last week students are being targeted for involvement in protests along with others tied to “potential criminal activity.”

In the past two weeks, the government apparently has widened its crackdown. Officials from colleges around the country have discovered international students have had their entry visas revoked and, in many cases, their legal residency status terminated by authorities without notice — including students at Arizona State, Cornell, North Carolina State, the University of Oregon, the University of Texas and the University of Colorado.

Some of the students are working to leave the country on their own, but students at Tufts and the University of Alabama have been detained by immigration authorities — in the Tufts case, even before the university knew the student’s legal status had changed.

Feds bypass colleges to move against students

In this new wave of enforcement, school officials say the federal government is quietly deleting foreigners’ student records instead of going through colleges, as was done in the past.

Students are being ordered to leave the country with a suddenness that universities have rarely seen, said Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.

In the past, when international students have had entry visas revoked, they generally have been allowed to keep legal residency status. They could stay in the country to study, but would need to renew their visa if they left the U.S. and wanted to return. Now, increasing numbers of students are having their legal status terminated, exposing them to the risk of being arrested.

“None of this is regular practice,” Feldblum said.

At North Carolina State University, two students from Saudi Arabia left the U.S. after learning their legal status as students was terminated, the university said. N.C. State said it will work with the students to complete their semester from outside the country.

Philip Vasto, who lived with one of the students, said his roommate, in graduate school for engineering management, was apolitical and did not attend protests against the war in Gaza. When the government told his roommate his student status had been terminated, it did not give a reason, Vasto said.

Since returning to Saudi Arabia, Vasto said his former roommate’s top concern is getting into another university.

“He’s made his peace with it,” he said. “He doesn’t want to allow it to steal his peace any further.”

Database checks turn up students in jeopardy

At the University of Texas at Austin, staff checking a federal database discovered two people on student visas had their permission to be in the U.S. terminated, a person familiar with the situation said. The person declined to be identified for fear of retaliation.

One of the people, from India, had their legal status terminated April 3. The federal system indicated the person had been identified in a criminal records check “and/or has had their visa revoked.” The other person, from Lebanon, had their legal status terminated March 28 due to a criminal records check, according to the federal database.

Both people were graduates remaining in the U.S. on student visas, using an option allowing people to gain professional experience after completing coursework. Both were employed full time and apparently had not violated requirements for pursuing work experience, the person familiar with the situation said.

Some students have had visas revoked by the State Department under an obscure law barring noncitizens whose presence could have “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Trump invoked the law in a January order demanding action against campus antisemitism.

But some students targeted in recent weeks have had no clear link to political activism. Some have been ordered to leave over misdemeanor crimes or traffic infractions, Feldblum said. In some cases, students were targeted for infractions that had been previously reported to the government.

Some of the alleged infractions would not have drawn scrutiny in the past and will likely be a test of students’ First Amendment rights as cases work their way through court, said Michelle Mittelstadt, director of public affairs at the Migration Policy Institute.

“In some ways, what the administration is doing is really retroactive,” she said. “Rather than saying, ‘This is going to be the standard that we’re applying going forward,’ they’re going back and vetting students based on past expressions or past behavior.”

The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities is requesting a meeting with the State Department over the issue. It’s unclear whether more visas are being revoked than usual, but officials fear a chilling effect on international exchange.

Many of the association’s members have recently seen at least one student have their visas revoked, said Bernie Burrola, a vice president at the group. With little information from the government, colleges have been interviewing students or searching social media for a connection to political activism.

“The universities can’t seem to find anything that seems to be related to Gaza or social media posts or protests,” Burrola said. “Some of these are sponsored students by foreign governments, where they specifically are very hesitant to get involved in protests.”

There’s no clear thread indicating which students are being targeted, but some have been from the Middle East and China, he said.

America’s universities have long been seen as a top destination for the world’s brightest minds — and they’ve brought important tuition revenue and research breakthroughs to U.S. colleges. But international students also have other options, said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, an association of international educators.

“We should not take for granted that that’s just the way things are and will always be,” she said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Global recession on the cards

Published

on



  • In today’s CEO Daily: Geoff Colvin on the effect of Trump’s tariffs on corporate profits.
  • The big story: Forecasters eye a global recession.
  • The markets: Worst since Covid in 2020.
  • Analyst notes from JPMorgan, Wedbush, UBS, and Oxford Economics on the risk of economic contraction under the new global trade rules.
  • Plus: All the news and watercooler chat from Fortune.

Good morning. Today’s worldwide economic chaos, sparked by President Trump’s new tariffs, may be shocking, but it isn’t new. A similar story played out eight years ago, in Trump’s first term as president. A look at what he did, and the repercussions that followed, is instructive for business leaders, investors, and consumers. And it is by no means encouraging.

Unlike in his current term, Trump back then didn’t immediately launch a trade war. He devoted his first year as president to easing business regulation and getting a historic tax cut through Congress. CEOs were jubilant. But then, in January of his second year, he showed why he had declared himself Tariff Man. He imposed tariffs on China and then quickly broadened tariffs to more countries. The party was over. Specifically:

Tariffs helped a few U.S. companies but also injured thousands of others. For example, Trump imposed tariffs on imported steel—great for the handful of U.S. steelmakers but a painful cost increase for the thousands of U.S. manufacturers that use steel. Expand the steel example across the economy and the result was a hard punch to profits. During Trump’s first year in office (2017), before he imposed tariffs, U.S. corporate profits rose 8%. In the following five quarters, with tariffs, profits lurched into reverse, shrinking 1.5%, annualized.

Stock prices got whacked. From Trump’s 2016 election until tariffs began in January 2018, the S&P 500 rose at a 27.3% annualized pace. But with tariffs added, the S&P rose at just 3.8% annualized (January 2018 to November 2019).

CEOs reversed their view of Trump. Immediately after Trump won in 2016, bosses raised their confidence as measured by the Conference Board, and confidence varied slightly up and down around that new level during Trump’s first year in office. But soon after he declared his trade wars, CEO confidence plunged to levels not seen since the worst days of the financial crisis in 2008-09.

Note that Trump is executing his main economic policies in the reverse order he followed in his first term. Back then he got the tax bill done first, then turned to tariffs. Now, having declared a historic trade war, he will spend much of 2025 on that tax bill, many elements of which are scheduled to sunset on December 31. He will try to keep that bill’s tax cuts and even cut taxes further. If he succeeds, he might regain his currently ebbing support from business leaders, investors, and consumers. But that’s a big “if” and a big “might.” — Geoff Colvin

More news below.

Contact CEO Daily via Diane Brady at diane.brady@fortune.com

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Amazon’s venture arm the Alexa Fund is dialing in on AI startups because the technology ‘is only going to get more relevant’

Published

on



Alexa, do you have time for an elevator pitch?

The Alexa Fund, which began in 2015 as a way to seed new startups in Amazon’s then-burgeoning voice ecosystem, is widening its net beyond its namesake platform. The tech giant’s venture arm recently announced several new hardware- and AI-centric investment areas, along with four startups it’s backing as part of that expanded scope.

The announcement follows Amazon’s long-awaited overhaul of its Alexa platform with a slew of new generative AI features. It also comes after Amazon pushed into the foundation model game for the first time with the new family of Nova models it announced last December.

Alexa Fund Director Paul Bernard said Alexa’s expanded capabilities offer more avenues for startups to engage in the platform, although that’s not the fund’s sole focus anymore.

“Our mission is not really about advancing Alexa’s cause, per se, like we start with making bets on these themes that have applicability for many parts of Amazon,” Bernard told Tech Brew. “At the same time, Alexa is getting more capabilities. Alexa has ears, Alexa has eyes, Alexa has screens. And so the applicability of these technologies to Alexa is relevant, and is only going to get more relevant.”

The Alexa Fund will cover five new areas:

  • On-the-go: Bernard said this category spans new devices and sensors beyond smartphones, as well as conversational AI and other AI-related mobile products that set the stage for an app-free future, where “customers are removed from the constraints of iOS and app stores.”
  • Generative media: “There will be an AI YouTube, there will be an AI Netflix, and we’re interested in things happening in that area,” Bernard said.
  • Specialized AI experts: This includes AI agents and chatbots focusing on domains like education, health and wellness, and travel.
  • Next-generation architecture: Bernard wants to explore what might come after the current generation of transformer-based models.
  • Robotics: Eventual generalized robots and other physical embodiments of AI.

Along those lines, the fund announced new investments in NinjaTech, an AI agent-based assistant platform; AI media generation studio Hedra; Ario, an AI organization assistant for parents; and HeyBoss, a code-free app development platform.

In addition to funding, Alexa Fund also offers founders access to Amazon’s resources, including APIs and software developer kits (SDKs) and partnership opportunities with Amazon businesses. But with a company as vast as Amazon, there’s not necessarily a guarantee that other parts of the company won’t be competing with a given startup.

“Amazon’s a big company, and oftentimes teams at Amazon don’t know what other teams at Amazon are doing. There’s certain things that are self-evident…areas where Amazon is so focused on a product or an experience where it doesn’t make sense for us to be an investor. In most areas, though, it’s very ambiguous, and especially in the world of AI, where so many of these things are going to combine and work together in some complementary way,” Bernard said.

“You’d be surprised at the sophistication of founders in understanding the world is complex and that things are very fluid, and they need to make their own calculations about the virtues of working with us as a fund that has a demonstrated track record of bringing value to our companies.”

Amazon is far from the only tech company using a venture arm to back companies that might complement its AI goals. Salesforce expanded its AI investment fund to $1 billion last September, OpenAI backs a variety of different AI startups, and Cisco rolled out its own $1 billion AI fund last June, among many other similar efforts.

This report was written by Patrick Kulp and was originally published by Tech Brew.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.