A Pennsylvania judge ruled on October 4, 2024, that Elon Musk’s political action committee (PAC), America PAC, could continue its $1 million-per-day giveaway through Election Day. The decision was made despite objections that the pro-Trump PAC’s sweepstakes was an “illegal lottery” aimed at manipulating votes.
The objective of Musk’s daily $1 million voter incentive was to garner and activate voters in vital swing states. By offering a substantial cash reward, the intention was to persuade individuals to sign a petition supporting free speech and gun rights, thereby potentially bolstering pro-Trump sentiment.
Judge Angelo Foglietta of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas rejected the arguments put forth by District Attorney Larry Krasner. The ruling came after a day-long, intense hearing in a packed Philadelphia, Pennsylvania courtroom filled with impassioned discussions.
Krasner’s team accused Musk’s political staff of engaging in a dishonest scheme. In contrast, Musk’s team charged the district attorney with violating constitutional rights. The judge’s verdict dealt with Krasner’s urgent motion to immediately stop the sweepstakes, though a more comprehensive case is still pending to ascertain if Musk’s giveaway violates state gambling laws.
During the hearing, Krasner declared that his office planned to seek restitution from Musk or his super PAC for the “victims” of what he termed an illegal lottery that deceived Philadelphia residents, in subsequent stages of the case.
Krasner, a progressive Democrat, had filed the lawsuit a week prior. Despite ongoing legal battles and a warning from the Justice Department about possible contraventions of federal election laws, the daily giveaways from Musk’s pro-Trump super PAC carried on.
Musk and his legal team dismissed Krasner’s lawsuit as a stunt for publicity, suggesting it was driven by Krasner’s opposition to Musk’s endorsement of Trump.
After the ruling, Krasner’s spokesman, Dustin Slaughter, told CNN that substantial truths had come to light during the hearing and urged people to stay updated as the case advances. In court, Musk’s lawyers acknowledged that the winners of the super PAC’s sweepstakes are not chosen at random.
Chris Gober, Musk’s attorney, contended that there is no “prize” as winners are not selected by chance, arguing that the contest does not constitute a lottery. Gober asserted that the so-called “prize” is actually compensation for acting as a spokesperson for the super PAC. Winners are chosen based on their suitability for this role, effectively “earning” the million dollars as payment for their representation of America PAC.
John Summers, a lawyer for Krasner, described this as a full admission of liability. Krasner, while testifying, labeled it as one of the most disingenuous arguments he’d ever heard.
Musk had promoted the giveaway by stating they would be “awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition” endorsing the Constitution. Krasner argued that this was political marketing masquerading as a lottery. During the hearing, Chris Young, Musk’s political advisor, provided further insight into the structure of the giveaway.
Young clarified that the goal was only to reward registered U.S. citizen voters, thereby eliminating the risk of giving funds to foreign nationals or individuals with harmful intentions. He added that some participants who were not registered voters were given a second chance and encouraged to confirm their registration status.
The legal battle has spread to other states, with additional lawsuits in Texas and Michigan. Jacqueline McAferty, an Arizona voter, filed a class-action lawsuit in Texas on Election Day, alleging that the advertised “random” drawing was misleading. The lawsuit contends that Musk’s team used the contest to increase traffic to his social media platform X and collect valuable personal details.
The case also draws attention to broader concerns about the impact of wealth on electoral influence. The significant funding of America PAC, supported by Musk’s $120 million contributions, enabled the PAC to conduct extensive campaigning operations across swing states. This has raised questions about the integrity of such high-value, unconventional election strategies.
