A judge in Pennsylvania ruled on October 4, 2024, that Elon Musk’s $1 million-per-day sweepstakes, run via his pro-Trump political action committee (PAC), America PAC, could continue until Election Day. The decision came despite allegations that the sweepstakes constituted an “illegal lottery” aimed at influencing votes.
Musk’s daily million-dollar giveaway was devised to appeal to and mobilize voters in pivotal swing states. By offering a sizable monetary reward, Musk’s team sought to persuade people to sign a petition supporting free speech and gun rights, potentially amplifying backing for pro-Trump ideals.
Judge Angelo Foglietta of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania, dismissed the arguments put forth by District Attorney Larry Krasner. This followed a vigorous, day-long hearing in a packed Philadelphia courtroom characterized by fiery debate.
Krasner’s team portrayed Musk’s political staff as individuals participating in a deceptive plot, while Musk’s team counter-argued that the district attorney was violating constitutional rights. The judge’s decision responded to Krasner’s urgent motion to immediately halt the sweepstakes, although a broader case remains to ascertain if Musk’s giveaway infringes upon state gaming laws.
During the trial, Krasner stated that his office planned to seek compensation from Musk or his super PAC on behalf of the “victims” of what he depicted as an illegal lottery that deceived Philadelphians, in future stages of the case.
Krasner, a progressive Democrat, initiated the lawsuit a week prior. Regardless of the ongoing legal battles and a warning from the Justice Department about possible infringements of federal election laws, Musk’s daily payouts from his pro-Trump super PAC persisted.
Musk and his legal team dismissed Krasner’s lawsuit as a ploy for publicity, suggesting it was spurred by Krasner’s opposition to Musk’s support for Trump.
Following the ruling, Krasner’s spokesperson, Dustin Slaughter, told CNN that significant facts had emerged during the hearing, urging people to stay updated as the case advances. Musk’s lawyers confirmed in court that the super PAC’s winners are not chosen at random.
Chris Gober, Musk’s lawyer, contended that there is no “prize” since winners are not determined by chance, suggesting the contest does not qualify as a lottery. Gober argued that the so-called “prize” is actually remuneration for serving as a spokesperson for the super PAC. Recipients are chosen based on their suitability for this spokesperson role, thereby “earning” the million dollars as compensation for representing America PAC.
John Summers, a lawyer for Krasner, interpreted this as an outright admission of guilt. Krasner, while testifying, labeled it one of the most disingenuous arguments he had ever encountered.
In publicizing the giveaway, Musk announced they would be “awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition” supporting the Constitution. Krasner countered that this was political advertising disguised as a lottery. Chris Young, Musk’s political adviser, provided further clarification on the giveaway’s structure during the hearing.
Young clarified that their aim was exclusively to compensate registered U.S. citizens who were voters, thereby avoiding the risk of disbursing funds to foreign nationals or individuals with harmful intentions. He added that some participants who were unregistered voters were given a subsequent chance and encouraged to verify their registration status.
The legal battle has spread to other states, with additional lawsuits filed in Texas and Michigan. Jacqueline McAferty, a voter from Arizona, lodged a class-action lawsuit in Texas on Election Day, alleging that the advertised “random” drawing deceived her. The suit claims that Musk’s team manipulated the contest to increase traffic to his social media platform X and to collect valuable personal data.
The case also raises deeper issues about the impact of wealth in swaying elections. America PAC’s substantial financing, bolstered by Musk’s $120 million donations, allowed the PAC to carry out extensive canvassing operations across swing states, leading to questions about the legitimacy of such high-value, unconventional election strategies.
