Tech billionaire Elon Musk promised on October 19 to donate $1 million to a randomly selected registered voter who signed a petition supporting freedom of speech and gun rights before the November 5 election day. This has sparked discussions among legal experts on the legality of Musk’s actions.
Elon Musk, named the richest person globally by Forbes, is the founder of electric car company Tesla and rocket launch company SpaceX, as well as the boss of the popular social media platform X.
After former President Trump survived an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania in July, Musk started fully supporting Trump’s campaign to return to the White House.
In recent months, Musk has played an increasingly active role in Trump’s campaign activities, launching a pro-Trump super PAC called “America PAC” and funding it with $75 million.
The goal of “America PAC” is to drive voter registration in key battleground states. Musk announced on X platform that he would provide $47 to individuals who refer others to register to vote and sign the PAC’s petition supporting the Constitution. This reward amount was later increased to $100.
The online petition of “America PAC” calls for support for the First and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which protect freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
At a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on October 19, Musk announced that he would donate $1 million daily to a randomly selected registered voter who signed the “America PAC” petition before the election day on November 5. He surprised a participant named John Dreher by presenting him with the first $1 million check that day, and issued another check on October 20.
Signing the petition is a prerequisite for attending events hosted by Musk’s organization.
During a campaign event in Pennsylvania on October 20, Trump was asked about Musk’s $1 million donation initiative, to which Trump responded, “I haven’t been tracking that.” Trump praised Musk’s contributions to America and said Musk “is my friend.”
Josh Shapiro, former Pennsylvania attorney general and Democratic governor, expressed concerns about Musk’s daily $1 million donation plan on October 20, saying it was “deeply troubling,” and suggested law enforcement should look into it.
In an NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, Shapiro stated, “I think the real issue is how he’s spending this money in this campaign, how dark money is flowing, not only into Pennsylvania but apparently into the pockets of Pennsylvanians now. That’s deeply troubling.”
While differences in political views between Shapiro and Musk did not initially raise suspicions about the cash rewards, Shapiro remained concerned about Musk’s approach.
Shapiro said, “Musk is obviously entitled to express his views. He’s been very, very clear that he supports Donald Trump. I don’t. Obviously, we have different opinions, and I don’t deny that. Right? But when you start putting this kind of money into politics, I think that’s going to raise serious questions.”
Musk’s issuance of the first $1 million check raised discussions on the legality of such cash payments, with legal experts offering contrasting opinions.
Rick Hasen, law professor at UCLA and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, declared Musk’s payments as “clearly illegal” under federal law, referring to a statute that penalizes payments for voter registration or voting.
Hasen noted that Musk’s PAC only offers payments to registered voters, not the general public, suggesting the program might be illegal.
He further explained that the essence of the issue lies in creating a lottery where only registered voters are eligible to participate, potentially violating the law.
Hasen pointed out that election law aims to prevent the bribery of voters, and individuals do not need to specify which candidate to vote for to violate the law. The scheme could incentivize or reward individuals in various ways related to voter registration or voting.
Federal authorities could opt to prosecute or issue a warning to Musk to stop paying registered voters in this manner, according to Hasen.
Hasen later told the Associated Press that if Musk’s actions were solely about paying individuals to sign petitions, it might just be a waste of money but not illegal. However, the exclusive eligibility of registered voters to participate in the giveaway could make the activity unlawful.
Competitive campaign finance lawyer Brendan Fischer mentioned that Musk’s $1 million donation was approaching legal boundaries due to the requirement for voter registration as a condition for qualifying for the $1 million check.
Fischer explained in an email to AP, “If every petitioner in Pennsylvania were eligible, there probably wouldn’t be cause for concern, but payments contingent on voter registration might run afoul of the law.”
Michael Kang, election law professor at Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, asserted that nearing the election day, it would be hard to prove that this effort was not meant to encourage voter registration.
Kang told the AP, “While somewhat distinct from outright paying for voting, it’s enough to raise questions given the proximity to the election.”
Daniel Weiner of the Brennan Center for Justice considered the campaign boosting activities “suspicious” in a legal sense but fell in the gray area. The fundamental issue revolves around whether signing the petition is a pretense for driving voter registration.
Brad Smith, professor at Capital University Law School and former chairman of the FEC, believed Musk was likely in the clear, as the gap between signing the petition and registering to vote is substantial.
Smith expressed, “The fact that money might be an incentive doesn’t mean it’s payment for a specific activity.”
The $1 million donation could be interpreted as Musk using his wealth to influence the fiercely competitive presidential election between former President Trump and current Vice President Harris.
However, Smith indicated Musk might have valid reasons beyond voter registration, such as collecting names of potential supporters for his ventures.
On October 20, Musk condemned the media for encouraging his assassination along with Trump’s in a post on X platform. He accused the mainstream media of pushing for violence through critical coverage and included a screenshot of a Der Spiegel article labeling him as the “second enemy” alongside Trump’s image.
Musk shared a video link on X platform featuring similar remarks he made at a rally in Pennsylvania on October 19.
In the video, Musk remarked, “In any case, this significantly increases the risk of my assassination. Engaging in politics is not something I want to do. I have no desire to die. But the stakes are so high that I truly have no choice but to do it—I feel I have no other option but to do so.”
On July 13, at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, then-President Trump survived an assassination attempt. Musk began openly supporting Trump’s presidential campaign efforts shortly after. Just two months later, on September 15 in Palm Beach, Florida, another individual was arrested for attempting to assassinate Trump outside his golf course, raising concerns about political violence.