Elon Musk's Petition 'Illegal Vote Buying'—Election Law Expert

Leading legal experts are raising concerns about the legality of Elon Musk's initiative to give away $1 million per day to registered voters in key battleground states. This effort, funded by Musk's America PAC, aims to support former President Donald Trump's campaign, particularly by promoting a petition that advocates for the protection of free speech and the right to bear arms.

The giveaway targets registered voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Eligible participants can sign the petition, enter the $1 million lottery, and claim $100 before the offer expires on October 21, the final date for voter registration. At a recent event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Musk awarded the first $1 million check to a local voter, expressing his intention to garner support from over one million voters in these critical states.

However, several legal experts have voiced concerns that this effort may violate federal election laws. Richard Hasen, a professor at UCLA School of Law, has gone as far as to label Musk's actions as "clearly illegal." Citing 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c), Hasen explained that it is unlawful to offer financial incentives for voter registration or participation in elections. He further pointed to the Department of Justice's election crimes manual, which explicitly prohibits offering items of value, including lottery entries, in exchange for voting-related activities.

Hasen’s argument is that Musk’s offer, which is only available to registered voters in swing states who sign a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments, directly violates these provisions. He noted that this type of behavior is exactly what federal law aims to prevent, emphasizing the potential for severe legal consequences, including fines and imprisonment.

Other legal scholars share similar concerns. Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance lawyer, and Derek Muller, an election law expert from Notre Dame, agree that Musk’s giveaway could be interpreted as an inducement for voter registration. Both warn that limiting the offer to registered voters raises significant legal red flags, with Fischer suggesting that the conditioning of the prize on registration might "arguably violate the law."

Michael Kang, a law professor at Northwestern University, echoed these concerns, noting that while Musk's actions aren't identical to paying someone to vote, they come close enough to raise questions about legality. David Becker, founder of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, went further, emphasizing that the giveaway's timing and targeting of voters in key states could be viewed as an attempt to sway the election outcome.

Despite these concerns, not all experts are convinced that Musk's actions are illegal. Jill Wine-Banks, a legal analyst for MSNBC, believes that while Musk's behavior may be ethically questionable, it might not meet the legal definition of a violation. She argues that incentivizing petition signatures doesn't necessarily cross the same legal lines as paying for voter registration or voting itself.

Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Brad Smith defended Musk, arguing that because the giveaway is tied to signing a petition rather than directly registering to vote, it falls within legal bounds. 

Adding to the debate, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro expressed his worries on NBC’s Meet the Press, questioning the ethical implications of Musk's approach, particularly his financial influence on the state's electorate.

As legal scrutiny intensifies, the fate of Musk’s voter giveaway remains uncertain, and it will likely be up to the courts to determine whether it crosses the line into criminal territory.