Later in the hearing, Musk political adviser Chris Young provided new details about how the giveaway operated.
“Our intent all along is to only provide compensation to registered voters and US citizens, and avoid any chance that we are somehow providing funds to foreign nationals or someone with ill-intent,” Young said.
Young, the super PAC’s treasurer, said the group received plenty of sign-ups from people who weren’t registered to vote – and those people “received a follow-up opportunity and were encouraged to check their registration status,” Young testified.
The Justice Department has warned the pro-Trump group that its sweepstakes might violate federal election laws that make it a crime to offer cash or prizes to induce people to register to vote.
“The testimony does suggest the PAC saw the sweepstakes as an inducement to get voters to register, which would run afoul of federal law,” said Derek Muller, a CNN contributor and election law scholar who teaches at the University of Notre Dame. “This testimony could be used if the Department of Justice later brought charges in federal court.”
Tech billionaire Elon Musk’s pro-Trump political group awarded two additional $1 million prizes to swing-state voters Thursday night, despite warnings from the Justice Department that the daily giveaways could violate election laws.
Musk’s group announced Saturday that it would use a lottery to award $1 million each day until the Nov. 5 electionto a registered voter who signs a petition to support free speech and the right to bear arms. Only voters registered in seven swing states — Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and North Carolina — are eligible for the prizes. Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Donald Trump, whom Musk supports, remain locked in tight races in all those battleground states, polls show…
According to America PAC’s website, it had awarded a winner of a $1 million prize each day since Saturday but did not announce a winner on its websiteWednesday, the day the Justice Department letter was first reported by the 24 Sight newsletter. Two winners were announced Thursday night.
Senator Tom Cotton claims DOJ is engaged in targeting those on the right by going after Elon Musk’s PAC for vote buying with his contest that requires voter registation. He argues that RuPaul and Michele Obama both are running contests that would violate the same law. But he’s wrong. Both of these contests explicitly state that voter registration is not required.
Elon Musk’s super PAC didn’t announce a winner for its “daily” $1 million giveaway to registered swing state voters on Wednesday, the same day news broke that the Justice Department warned Musk’s group that its sweepstakes might be illegal.
The pro-Trump group, America PAC, had publicly named a winner every day since Saturday, when Musk announced that he would award $1 million every day to people who sign his petition. The petition is in support of the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution, but importantly, only registered voters in the battleground states can sign the petition and are therefore eligible for the money.
CNN reported Wednesday afternoon that the Justice Department had sent a warning letter to the super PAC, notifying it that the lottery might violate federal law against offering incentives such as cash or prizes to induce voter registration, people briefed on the matter told CNN.
The Justice Department’s head of election crimes sent a warning letter to Elon Musk’s America PAC Monday, alerting it that it was a crime to knowingly offer anything of value to register to vote or vote, a person familiar with the warning letter told 24sight News.
Robert Heberle, the head of the Justice Department’s election crimes branch, wrote in the brief warning letter to America PAC lawyer Chris Gober, that offering anything of value to influence voting was in violation of U.S. law barring payments to sway votes.
The warning letter did not specify any immediate legal action, according to the person familiar with the DOJ warning to Musk, but it did spell out the penalties for breaking U.S. voting laws, including possible imprisonment of up to five years.
Former Republican lawmakers, advisers and Justice Department officials have called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate tech billionaire Elon Musk for awarding cash prizes to voters in swing states if they sign his political organization’s petition, according to a letter obtained by The Washington Post and sent to Garland on Monday.
The letter argues that the large prizes set up by Musk, a vocal supporter of Republican nominee Donald Trump, violate federal voting laws that prohibit paying people to register to vote.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on Sunday said that tech mogul Elon Musk’s plan to give money to registered voters in Pennsylvania is “deeply concerning” and “it’s something that law enforcement could take a look at” during an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”
Shapiro’s comments come one day after Musk in Pennsylvania announced that he would give away $1 million per day until Election Day to registered voters who signed a petition circulated by his super PAC “in favor of free speech and the right to bear arms.”
The super PAC has made signing the petition a prerequisite for attending rallies headlined by Musk, and on Saturday he surprised one rally attendee by giving away the first $1 million check onstage.
Shapiro, a Democrat, made clear on Sunday that his political differences with Musk, who has endorsed former President Donald Trump and pledged to use millions of dollars to turn out Pennsylvania voters for the former president via his super PAC, are not driving his skepticism of these cash prizes.
“Musk obviously has a right to be able to express his views. He’s made it very, very clear that he supports Donald Trump. I don’t. Obviously we have a difference of opinion,” Shapiro said, adding, “I don’t deny him that, right, but when you start flowing this kind of money into politics, I think it raises serious questions.”…
Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project and an NBC News Election Law Analyst, called the payments “clearly illegal” in a post on his website Saturday night.
He pointed to a federal law, 52 U.S.C. 10307(c), which says that any individual who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
Hasen told NBC News on Sunday that Musk’s PAC is only offering the payments to registered voters, not the general public at large, which is what could make the scheme illegal.
“Essentially what you’re doing is you are you are creating a lottery. You’re creating a lottery where the only people eligible to participate in the lottery are people who register to vote, or are registered to vote, and that’s illegal,” Hasen said.
He noted that the general intent behind election laws prohibiting bribery is to prevent people from buying votes, but “you don’t have to say you have to vote for a particular candidate in order to be breaking this law … it can be to either incentivize people to register or vote, or it can be to reward them,” Hasen told NBC News on Sunday.
Hugo Lowell: “Elon Musk says on stage at a town hall that America PAC will be awarding $1 million every day until the election to a registered Pennsylvania voter who has signed his petition. Musk awarded the first $1 million this evening to someone at the town hall, bringing the guy onto the stage and handing him a jumbo check, lotto-style. Musk is essentially incentivizing likely Trump voters in PA to register to vote: Petition is to support for 1A and 2A, so basically R voters. But they also have to be registered to vote, so if they weren’t already, they would do it now.”
Though maybe some of the other things Musk was doing were of murky legality, this one is clearly illegal. See 52 U.S.C. 10307(c): “Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both…” (Emphasis added.)
See also the DOJ Election Crimes Manual at 44: “The bribe may be anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances, and welfare benefits such as food stamps. Garcia, 719 F.2d at 102. However, offering free rides to the polls or providing employees paid leave while they vote are not prohibited. United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132, 1136 (7th Cir. 1972). Such things are given to make it easier for people to vote, not to induce them to do so. This distinction is important. For an offer or a payment to violate Section 10307(c), it must have been intended to induce or reward the voter for engaging in one or more acts necessary to cast a ballot.… Moreover, payments made for some purpose other than to induce or reward voting activity, such as remuneration for campaign work, do not violate this statute. See United States v. Canales 744 F.2d 413, 423 (5th Cir. 1984) (upholding conviction because jury justified in inferring that payments were for voting, not campaign work). Similarly, Section 10307(c) does not apply to payments made to signature-gatherers for voter registrations such individuals may obtain. However, such payments become actionable under Section 10307(c) if they are shared with the person being registered.” (Emphases added.)
I’d like to hear if there’s anyone who thinks this is not a clear case of a violation.
UPDATE: Musk said at his rally that one had to be a petition signer to be eligible for the $1 million prize. (“So– we really want to try to get as many people as possible to sign this petition. So. I have a surprise for you [crowd cheers] which is that we’re going to be awarding a million dollars, randomly, to people who have signed the signed the petition every day from now until the election.”) I’ve also learned that to get the $100 bounty one also must be a petition signer. And who can sign the petitions? Only registered voters in swing states, which is what makes it illegal. See the screen shots of the offers below:
Federal law has long prohibited providing payments or making expenditures to induce voting, whether or not those inducements are limited to those who might vote for a particular candidate. The Department of Justice’s election crimes manual explains that the law has been interpreted broadly: “The bribe may be anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances, and welfare benefits such as food stamps.” And it explains the reason for the prohibition: “Those who choose to vote have a right not to have the voting process diluted with ballots that have been procured through bribery; and that the selection of the nation’s leaders should not degenerate into a spending contest, with the victor being the candidate who can pay the most voters.”
In the past, these prohibitions have tripped up civic-minded companies like Ben & Jerry’s, which in 2008 wanted to offer free ice cream to people who showed “I voted” stickers. After I pointed out the likely illegality of the scheme, Ben & Jerry’s shifted to providing free ice cream to everyone, and not just voters (a sure win for ice cream lovers under the legal voting age). Similarly, efforts to give free pizza at polling places cannot be limited just to voters, so if you are hungry—but already voted, plan to on Election Day, or are not eligible—you might want to hit up an early voting line (except in Georgia)….
Musk appears to have finally crossed the line Tuesday night, when he wrote on X that: “Tomorrow night through Monday, I will be giving a series of talks throughout Pennsylvania. If you’d like to attend one of my talks, there’s no attendance fee. You just need to have signed our petition supporting free speech & right to bear arms & have voted in this election.” He followed up with a post stating: “To clarify, you need have voted in Pennsylvania.”
Musk knows that he’s offering something of value—note his reference to “no attendance fee.” Tech entrepreneurs often give talks for money, and a ticket to see him is a thing of value under the federal law. It’s only being offered to those who voted, and therefore it appears to cross the legal line.
It would be kind of like if Taylor Swift said there’s no attendance fee to come to one of her concerts, but you have to have voted to get in. Concert tickets, lecture tickets, they are all things of value (even if some people may well prefer Swift over Musk if given a choice).
Violations of federal law can lead to imprisonment for a year or more or other penalties. We don’t know if Musk realized he’s breaking the law, but the simplest thing is for him to follow the Ben & Jerry’s strategy and open up his lectures to voters and nonvoters alike….
This is likely illegal, because in a federal election one cannot give anything of value in exchange for someone agreeing to turn out to vote. It is not necessary to offer that a person vote for or against a particular candidate. Here is the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. section 597. Just like one cannot give out free ice cream or car washes or concert tickets, one cannot give out free admission to hear a speech by a tech entreprenuer.
I explore the details of all of this in my California Law Review article, Vote Buying. See also this recent Q and A with me about this subject in The Guardian (before the latest controversy broke, and where I explained that Musk’s earlier $47 payment offer to sign a petition did not appear to violate federal law).
Cards Against Humanity, the irreverent party game that has needled Donald J. Trump and his allies for years, has inserted itself into the presidential campaign.
The card game, which asks players to match words and phrases to create what is often crude humor, is promising to pay up to $100 to reluctant Democratic-leaning voters if they publicly mock the former president and make a plan to vote.
The company said it started issuing payments on Tuesday, after it had created a vulgarity-laced website to recruit potential voters who sat out the 2020 election.
The payment recipients do not need to prove that they voted for Vice President Kamala Harris or that they voted at all, under the terms of the program….
The website for the program, which carries a moving banner with phrases like “This Could Actually Swing the Election,” asserts that the program is “exploiting a legal loophole to pay America’s blue-leaning non-voters.”
The federal legal code says that it is a violation to pay, or to offer to pay, anyone to vote. It is also illegal to accept such payments.
A spokeswoman for Cards Against Humanity, Maria Ranahan, said in an email that the program was “completely legal.”
“We’re not asking nor paying people to pledge or promise to vote (or not vote), or even to register to vote, all of which would be illegal,” she said. “Whether people actually use the plans they make is entirely up to them — we’ll have paid up regardless.”
Legal experts were divided on the issue.
Jessica Levinson, who teaches election law at Loyola Law School at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, said the company was making a flimsy distinction. “I do not think this is legal,” she said, adding, “Making a plan to vote sounds like saying, ‘I’m paying you to vote.’”
Richard Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, said he thought that the program was “very close” to breaking the law but that it did not because of the “fine print,” referring to the program’s terms of services, which say that failing to vote does not affect participants’ eligibility for payments….
