Musk Giveaway pushing the boundary

By: Asa Montreaux

A new petition promoting support for First and Second Amendment freedoms has drawn criticisms due to its prize structure. The petition offers $1 million prizes to participants chosen at random from those who sign. However, to be eligible to sign, individuals must be registered voters in specific states.

This has raised concerns, as federal law prohibits offering financial incentives to encourage voter registration. Critics argue that conditioning participation on voter registration, while promising large prizes, could conflict with these regulations. 

Elon Musk has poured more than $118 million dollars of his personal funds into funding the pro-Trump PAC, FEC filings released on Thursday showed. From October 1st and 16, Musk donated $43.6 million to the PAC. This amount adds to the  $75 million in donations made by Musk during the three-month period ending on September 30.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat and former state attorney general, said that the giveaway was “deeply concerning” and deserved legal scrutiny.

In response to a post claiming Musk was “paying to register Republicans,” Musk said winners “can be from any or no political party and you don’t even have to vote.” However leaving it only open to registered voters is suggesting it is a payoff for their vote, and it is Musk’s stated intention to garner more votes for the Republican party, and to get “key votes in swing states”. These wing states are very important to the overall election result, and try influence said result is potentially election interference.

On this past Sunday, the second day of the sweepstakes, the super PAC reframed its messaging around the giveaway, describing the money now as payment for a job. In social media posts, the group said winners would be “selected to earn $1M as a spokesperson for America PAC” – and subsequently posted pro-Trump testimonial videos featuring the winners. It is unlikely that the framing of a sign-up as a work task will deter the Department of Justice from investigating. According to most sources nothing will happen between now and when the election takes place, in less than two weeks, however this kind of voter influence is contrary to the principle of fair and unbiased elections. This kind of behaviour will not be allowed in the future. The actions of Kanye West and Howard Schultz during their Presidential bids were universally found to be unfair practices, and this is the farthest a candidate/key supporter has gone to try and buy an election win.

The real question is can voters see through this petty attempt, and make a good decision for the future of the country? And one might note that the second amendment involves the right to bear arms. Was this not an arbitrary, unimportant process to go through to secure a place in a lottery? Or was this a clear reach out to allies? Was this an attempt to pay off only voters who could clearly only choose one side? It certainly was, and voters should not see this sweepstakes as more than a sideshow.