Topline
Elon Musk’s pro-Trump super PAC continued its $1 million daily prize giveaway to registered voters in swing states who agreed to sign a petition on Thursday, despite reportedly being warned by the Justice Department that the prizes may be violating federal law.
Elon Musk awarded Kristine Fishell with a $1 million check during the town hall at the Roxain … [+]
Key Facts
The Musk-backed America PAC announced on X it had given away $1 million to a man from Wisconsin and another from Michigan on Thursday.
The PAC’s X account announced a daily winner of the million-dollar prize every day from Saturday to Tuesday, but no winner had been announced on Wednesday.
It is unclear if one of the two winners announced on Thursday was originally set to get their reward on Wednesday.
Wednesday’s announcement pause, however, coincided with a report of America PAC being warned by the DOJ that the scheme may be illegal.
Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We’re launching text message alerts so you’ll always know the biggest stories shaping the day’s headlines. Text “Alerts” to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.
News Peg
Citing anonymous sources, CNN reported Wednesday that the DOJ’s public integrity division—which investigates potential election crimes—sent a letter to America PAC “in recent days” warning its $1 million giveaway to voters may violate federal law.
Key Background
America PAC—which according to Federal Election Commission filings is almost entirely funded by Musk—is giving away a $1 million prize each day to a random person who has signed a petition on their website “pledging [their] support for the First and Second Amendments.” To be eligible for the prize, the person will need to be a registered voter in one of the seven key battleground states. The giveaway has drawn criticism and triggered concerns from legal experts who point to federal election law, which says anyone who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting,” could face up to a $10,000 fine and five-year prison sentence. Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has also criticized the giveaway, saying Musk is free to express his views, but “when you start flowing this kind of money into politics, I think it raises serious questions that folks may want to take a look at.” Musk, who has endorsed former President Donald Trump and announced the giveaway at a Trump rally, has pushed back, saying the winner “can be from any or no political party and you don’t even have to vote”.
How Much Has Musk Donated To America Pac?
Elon Musk has poured more than $118 million of his fortune into bankrolling the pro-Trump PAC, FEC filings released on Thursday showed. Between Oct. 1st and 16, Musk donated $43.6 million to the PAC. The latest contribution is in addition to the $75 million in donations made by Musk during the three-month period ending on September 30.
Forbes Valuation
According to our estimates, Elon Musk’s net worth is $269.8 billion—making him the world’s richest person. The billionaire’s net worth rose by $26 billion on Thursday, fueled by a surge in Tesla’s stock price.
Further Reading
DOJ Reportedly Warns Elon Musk His $1 Million Voter Giveaways May Be Illegal (Forbes)
Elon Musk Is Now Trump’s 2nd-Biggest Financial Backer: Donates Nearly $120 Million To Super PAC (Forbes)
Interview with Legal Analyst Sarah Trent on Elon Musk’s $1 Million Voter Giveaway
Editor: Thank you for joining us today, Sarah. With Elon Musk’s America PAC continuing its $1 million daily prize giveaway to voters in swing states, despite warnings from the Justice Department, what’s your take on the legality of this initiative?
Sarah Trent: Thank you for having me. This giveaway raises significant legal concerns under federal election law. The statutes prohibit any payment for voter registration or voting, which suggests that offering cash prizes in exchange for voter engagement could be seen as coercive.
Editor: The PAC defends the giveaway, stating that winners don’t need to be affiliated with a political party or even vote. How does this argument hold up against the legal framework?
Sarah Trent: While they assert that participants are not required to vote, the context is crucial. The very act of offering substantial financial incentives to a specific group—registered voters in battleground states—implies a potential violation of the law intended to prevent election manipulation. The DOJ’s warning highlights this concern.
Editor: The Justice Department reportedly sent a letter expressing these concerns. What might the implications be if the PAC continues its giveaway despite these warnings?
Sarah Trent: If they proceed, they could face legal action from the DOJ, which might include investigations into whether this constitutes an illegal scheme. The stakes are high, not just for Musk but for the PAC’s operations overall. Depending on the outcome, there could be serious ramifications, including fines or reshaping campaign funding regulations.
Editor: Elon Musk has not publicly addressed the DOJ’s warning. How might his silence affect public perception and the PAC’s operations?
Sarah Trent: His silence might be interpreted as disregard for legal guidance, which could alienate potential supporters. However, as a high-profile figure, Musk may continue to attract attention to the PAC regardless. It’s a double-edged sword; his reputation for pushing boundaries can generate both support and scrutiny.
Editor: Lastly, do you believe we could see a shift in how political financing is approached if this case catches federal attention?
Sarah Trent: Absolutely. If this initiative leads to legal consequences, it could prompt a reevaluation of how monetary incentives are used in political campaigns. The legal landscape surrounding campaign finance is already complex, and cases like this may encourage more stringent regulations to ensure fair electoral processes.
Editor: Thank you, Sarah, for your insights on this important issue. It’s certainly a topic that warrants close attention as we move closer to the elections.
Sarah Trent: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial for voters to stay informed on how such developments may impact the electoral process.
Strong>Thank you, Sarah, for sharing your insights on this issue. Given the complexities surrounding this giveaway, it seems there are still many unanswered questions regarding its legality.
As we continue to monitor this situation, particularly with the backdrop of ongoing legal and political developments, it will be essential to see how both the PAC and the DOJ respond. Your expertise helps shine a light on the potential ramifications of these actions, not just for Musk or America PAC, but possibly even for future campaign finance practices.
We appreciate your time and knowledge today, Sarah. Thank you for joining us!
