Category Archives: vote buying

“Cards Against Humanity says it will pay Trump critics to prepare to vote.”

Tim Balk for the NYT:

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….

The website it pretty funny.

Share this:

“Elon Musk’s PAC offers $47 payouts to refer swing state voters to sign petition”

NBC News:

Elon Musk’s pro-Trump America PAC is offering people $47 if they successfully get one registered swing-state voter to sign a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution. 

“Easy money,” Musk said in a post about the initiative.

The payout offer appears to be a way to financially encourage voter registration of individuals who might prefer Republican candidate Donald Trump in swing states. Paying individuals directly to register to vote is illegal, but America PAC’s petition appears to skirt laws that forbid certain types of election-related payments, paying referrers of registered voters instead. Both Musk and America PAC have vocally encouraged swing-state voter registration ahead of the mandatory deadlines. A representative of America PAC declined to comment.

The monetary offer was widely shared on X, Musk’s social media platform.

Over the weekend, X repurposed the account handle “@america,” which used to belong to a different account, for Musk’s America PAC. It is labeled as an official X organization. The account has since promoted the pro-Constitution petition, swing-state voter registration and the $47 offer. 

“I’ve not seen anything like this,” said Dr. Richard Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law and an NBC News election law analyst. “He has mobilized the platform to be in Trump’s corner in a way that is far more blatant and direct than anything we’ve seen from any other social media platform or traditional media platform.”

Hasen said he doesn’t think that Musk has broken any campaign finance laws and is within his free speech rights to steer X in the direction of his political preferences, as long as he discloses his connections with Trump. 

“The law prohibits paying people to vote, to register to vote, to vote in a particular way or not to vote in a federal election. And this is none of those things,” Hasen said. ….

Share this:

“Johnson’s ‘intuition’ clashes with data on illegal voting”

The Hill: The numbers, agreed on by both left- and right-of-center institutes, speak for themselves:

“The Brennan Center study from the 2016 general election showed an estimated 30 incidents of suspected — not confirmed — noncitizen votes out of 23.5 million, which is 0.0001 percent of the votes cast. So the Speaker’s intuition is incorrect,” she told The Hill.

That’s a conclusion that’s also been reached by the libertarian Cato Institute, with one of its experts calling the claims one of the “most frequent and less serious criticisms” relating to migration.”

Share this:

“Close mayoral race wasn’t bought with cinnamon rolls, court rules”

WaPo:

The political row embroiling the British Columbia village of Pouce Coupe had been baking for months. At the center: six cinnamon rolls that a candidate alleged had been used to butter up voters during the tight mayoral race in October.

The 800-resident village has been “the subject of several political firestorms well out of proportion to its size,” British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Ward K. Branch lamented in his ruling last week — one that tossed out former mayor Lorraine Michetti’s request to overturn the election results.

A month after losing to Danielle Veach by a five-vote margin, 84-79, Michetti filed a petition seeking to unseat her opponent and disqualify her from holding office for at least seven years. According to the court document, tensions in Pouce Coupe had boiled over after Veach hosted a “Tea and Talk” campaign event at a local pizza place.

The Sept. 18 affair was billed by Veach as a way for voters to “enjoy tea or coffee with a delicious cinnamon bun and ask questions, get to know me, and my plans for working towards bettering our community.” According to court documents, Veach spent 44.50 Canadian dollars on the drinks and pastries and then gave the restaurant a tip of 50 Canadian dollars, a total amount equal to about $70.

Those refreshments, however, would later become the basis for Michetti’s petition, in which she claimed the food giveaway amounted to buying votes and had “resulted in [Veach] winning the election.”

Branch, the judge, was then left to decide whether the snacks ran afoul of electoral rules that specifically prohibit “offer[ing] incentives to an elector to vote or not to vote, or to vote for a particular candidate.”…

During a four-day hearing, witnesses, some of whom had attended the “Tea and Talk,” told the court that cinnamon rolls and coffee weren’t enough to influence their votes. One of them, Lisa Saffran, said she found the suggestion “totally ridiculous.” By the end, Branch wound up siding with their assessment, ruling that “the simple drinks and buns provided here did not cross [the] line.”

“I find that Mrs. Veach’s purpose for supplying the very limited refreshments here was simple human decency and politeness, particularly given that it was an early weekend morning gathering,” Branch concluded.

Share this:

Georgia: “A pro-Herschel Walker gas giveaway fuels Democratic outrage”

AJC:

A long line of cars formed at a Chevron gas station south of downtown Atlanta on Saturday as word spread that a political action committee was handing out $25 vouchers. Now the pro-Herschel Walker group’s giveaway is fueling a different sort of backlash.

The initiative by 34N22 was designed to highlight rising gas prices, a top issue for Republicans hoping to capitalize on inflation and economic uncertainty to unseat U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock.

Motorists in the heavily Democratic area were handed vouchers — a combined $4,000 worth — along with flyers promoting Walker, a former football player who is now the Republican nominee. Outside the gas station, volunteers held signs declaring “Warnock isn’t working.”

Democrats and voting rights groups quickly criticized the stunt, questioning how offering fuel vouchers to support a political candidate could be allowed in a state that bans groups from distributing refreshments to waiting voters in line to cast ballots.

“This is illegal,” declared LaTosha Brown, a cofounder of Black Voters Matter.

The PAC referred to a memo from attorney Kory Langhofer that asserted the program was “entirely lawful and permissible” because the vouchers were given without any condition, such as a requirement to vote for Walker or appear in an advertisement.

“Warnock’s campaign is upset about 34N22′s community outreach program, not because of any earnest legal concerns, but because they don’t want the public to know Warnock has contributed to record gas prices and the pain Georgians are feeling at the pump,” wrote Langhofer, whose experience includes serving as a lawyer for Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign.

A long line of cars formed at a Chevron gas station south of downtown Atlanta on Saturday as word spread that a political action committee was handing out $25 vouchers. Now the pro-Herschel Walker group’s giveaway is fueling a different sort of backlash.https://ba7de72ef77caf95a9613837183bc722.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

The initiative by 34N22 was designed to highlight rising gas prices, a top issue for Republicans hoping to capitalize on inflation and economic uncertainty to unseat U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock.

Motorists in the heavily Democratic area were handed vouchers — a combined $4,000 worth — along with flyers promoting Walker, a former football player who is now the Republican nominee. Outside the gas station, volunteers held signs declaring “Warnock isn’t working.”

Democrats and voting rights groups quickly criticized the stunt, questioning how offering fuel vouchers to support a political candidate could be allowed in a state that bans groups from distributing refreshments to waiting voters in line to cast ballots.

“This is illegal,” declared LaTosha Brown, a cofounder of Black Voters Matter.

“Meanwhile, also in Georgia, giving out water to those waiting to cast a ballot is considered illegal voter influence,” said state Sen. Michelle Au, a Johns Creek Democrat.

The PAC referred to a memo from attorney Kory Langhofer that asserted the program was “entirely lawful and permissible” because the vouchers were given without any condition, such as a requirement to vote for Walker or appear in an advertisement.

“Warnock’s campaign is upset about 34N22′s community outreach program, not because of any earnest legal concerns, but because they don’t want the public to know Warnock has contributed to record gas prices and the pain Georgians are feeling at the pump,” wrote Langhofer, whose experience includes serving as a lawyer for Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign….

Several legal experts told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution the program appears permissible so long as the voucher was given to anyone regardless of voter registration status or as a basis to pledge their vote for a candidate.

One attorney said it was no different than a campaign handing out merchandise, so long as the option is afforded to all. Another indicated the greater problem is whether it crosses ethical boundaries.

“The real question is here is whether handing out cash on behalf of a candidate or a candidates’ supporters is ethical,” said Anthony Kreis, a Georgia State University law professor.

“Winks and nudges with cash in hand may not technically be vote buying, but it’s a sign of a deeply unhealthy democracy that’s more fit for the early 19th century than 2022.”

Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California-Irvine School of Law, said the initiative also doesn’t appear to break federal rules but that it underscores a greater flaw in the state’s elections code.

“If gas giveaways as part of campaigns are legal under Georgia law but it is a crime to give voters water standing in line to vote, you might ask Georgia legislators what it is they hope to accomplish with the water ban,” he said.

Share this:

Talk About Incentives for Voting: Major Porn Site Issues Release Saying It Will Be Available on Election Day Only to Those Who Voted

Release via email:

 Pornhub, the premier online destination for adult entertainment, today announced “Give A F**k, Get A F**k,” a campaign to encourage American users to vote. On Election Day, Pornhub will be reserved only for those who have voted in the United States.

“Roughly 43 percent of eligible voters – equal to 100 million people – didn’t vote in the 2016 U.S Presidential Election, according to turnout estimates from the U.S. Elections Project. We want to encourage people to do their civic duty this year by casting their ballot and having their voice heard,” said Corey Price, Vice President, Pornhub.

Leading up to the campaign officially launching on Nov. 3, Pornhub will be running a social campaign with an assortment of high-profile models – including Pornhub Brand Ambassador Asa Akira, Domino Presley, Natassia Dreams, Janice Griffith, Lance Hart, Soverign Syre and Lotus Laine – posting videos encouraging people to get out and vote and also teasing them that “if they don’t give a f***, they don’t get a f**k.” When the campaign officially kicks off on Nov. 3, Pornhub users in the United States will be greeted by an overlay page which will appear over the Pornhub website from 10 a.m. EST to 9 p.m. EST reminding them to vote before entering the site that day.  

It is not clear if proof of voting would be required to enter the site, which would be illegal.

Share this:

“Election Day Giveaways Steer Toward the Right Side of the Law”

Bryon Tau for the WSJ:

Some of America’s largest corporations have finally gotten the memo that election-season giveaways requiring proof of voting are actually illegal under federal law.

It’s an issue that recurs with every election: Companies ranging from national brands to small businesses see an opportunity to both promote themselves and a civic cause by offering discounts or freebies to people with an “I Voted” sticker.

But such giveaways run afoul of federal prohibitions on providing incentives or inducements to vote—a longstanding anticorruption measure designed to facilitate clean elections. Such prohibitions are rarely if ever enforced against corporations offering discounts or freebies to voters doing their civic duty, but they remain on the books.

This year many national chains are keeping their giveaways on the right side of the law by making them available to voters and non-voters alike….

Rick Hasen, a law professor at University of California, Irvine, and perhaps the foremost chronicler of such lawbreaking in recent election cycles, appeared surprised at how many national chains have gotten the message.

“I feel like now I can retire. Looks like all of these Election Day giveaways do *not* require proof of voting (such proof runs into the federal law against inducements to vote, but have been common in earlier elections),” he wrote on Twitter this week.

Share this:

“Ex-congressman from Abscam scandal faces new vote-buying charges”

WaPo:

An ex-congressman once convicted as part of the infamous Abscam investigation in the 1980s is facing new corruption charges for allegedly bribing a Philadelphia elections official to stuff ballot boxes.

Michael “Ozzie” Myers, who was famously caught on a hidden FBI microphone years ago declaring “money talks in this business and bulls— walks,” was charged with conspiring to violate voting rights, bribery of an election official, falsification of records, voting more than once in the same election and obstruction of justice.

Prosecutors say Myers, 77, conspired to bribe a former election division judge, who has already pleaded guilty in the case….

Myers allegedly bribed the local elections judge to illegally add votes for Democratic candidates in primary elections. Myers has worked for years as a political consultant to judicial candidates, and the indictment alleges that he paid bribes to deliver more votes for his clients, as well as other candidates he favored.

Share this:

“Free gas drawing only for those who pledge support for Prop. 6? Backers now say no, anyone can enter.”

SD Union Tribune:

The campaign supporting Proposition 6, the November ballot measure to repeal a California gas-tax increase, on Sunday promoted a statewide event sure to be popular — a drawing for a free tank of gas for those who promise to support the measure.

But such giveaways are generally not allowed under state and federal law, and the news release was re-sent without the explicit requirement for people to support the measure to enter the drawing.

Share this:

Ostensibly To Avoid Laws Against Vote Buying, Lyft and Uber Offer Only One-Way Free Transportation to the Polls

Clark.com:

Much has been made recently about the good deed being offered by two of America’s most popular ridesharing services. Uber and Lyft have both announced that they are going to give voters in the midterm elections rides to the polls on Tuesday, November 6.

But what Uber and Lyft aren’t saying, at least not as loud, is that those free rides to the polling stations are one way. In other words, once you take one of these companies up on their offer, they won’t take you back home — for free, at least….

Team Clark reached out to Lyft, as well, about the free rides. A Lyft spokeswoman replied via email that free or discounted transportation back from the polls could be construed as a gift for voting.

“The ride only covers the way there. Voting is every citizen’s right, which means there are a number of regulations in place to protect against voter fraud or buying someone’s vote. There are strict rules against gifts or incentives, and providing free or discounted transportation back from the polls falls into that category,” she wrote.

The question of whether return trips are illegal is one I have not seen before. The federal prohibition on vote buying. The relevant statute, among other things, makes it a crime for one who willfully “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting.” The statute has long been interpreted to allow payments for transportation to the polls. As one court explained:

In United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132, 1136 (7th Cir.1972), the court classified providing transportation to the polls as “assistance rendered by civic groups to prospective voters,” rather than payment, and held that § 1973i(c) does not proscribe “efforts by civic groups or employers to encourage people to register.” The United States Department of Justice appears to agree with this analysis.

[T]he concept of “payment” does not reach things such as rides to the polls or time off from work which are given to make it easier for those who have decided to vote to cast their ballots. Such “facilitation payments” are to be distinguished from gifts made personally to prospective voters for the specific purpose of stimulating or influencing the more fundamental decision to participate in an election.Craig C. Donsanto, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 18 (5th ed. 1988).

The distinction between “facilitative” programs and “gift” programs seems based in part on historical factors which preceded the passage of most voting rights legislation. See Day-Brite Lighting v. State of Missouri, 342 U.S. 421, 424-25, 72 S. Ct. 405, 407-08, 96 L. Ed. 469 (1952) (upholding state law requiring employer to allow employees four hours of paid leave on election day in order to vote); 111 Cong.Rec.S. 8986 (daily ed. April 29, 1965) (Section 1973i(c) does not prohibit the “practice that has been recognized and has been accepted by both political parties and all organizations with respect to helping to transport people who do not have means of transportation to the polls in order to cast their ballots”). See also Parsley v. Cassady, 300 Ky. 603189 S.W.2d 947, 948 (1945) (upholding candidates’ contribution of cars and trucks to assist in voter transportation as reasonable due to bad roads and wartime exigencies); Watkins v. Holbrook, 311 Ky. 236223 S.W.2d 903, 903-04 (1949) (upholding disbursement of money to provide for transport to polls to “get out the vote”).

Perhaps more importantly, this distinction reflects the difficulty in balancing the need to minimize undue pecuniary influence in elections with the desire to encourage and facilitate maximum political participation…..

I think a good faith argument could be made that the exemption for transportation to the polls includes a return trip. Indeed, most groups that offer rides to the polls (on buses or otherwise) offer a round trip. I wonder whether this is just a way for Lyft and Uber to save some money. Hard for me to believe they’d be in legal jeopardy for offering round trip transportation. Would be great to find a way to test this.

(Thanks to Matt Weil for asking the question.)

 

Share this:

“Saxbys plans to give away free lattes for voting. That’s a nice idea — but also illegal.”

Billy Penn:

While the locally owned coffee chain’s altruism is admirable, it’s also illegal under federal law.

“In elections in which federal candidates are on the ballot, no one can offer any kind of benefit or reward for voting,” UC Irvine law and political science professor Rick Hasen told Politico in 2010. “The simple way to deal with this is to open up the event to all comers — voters and nonvoters alike.”

Hasen confirmed to Billy Penn by email that Saxbys offer does run afoul of federal law: “Tell them free lattes for all!”

A spokesperson for Saxbys said they were looking into our question.

Share this: