Elon Musk’s audacious approach to politics has become a talking point, particularly during the 2024 election season. He made headlines by promising financial rewards to voters in swing states who signed a petition in support of his pro-Trump PAC. However, the aftermath has brought controversy, with some of those who signed claiming they never received any payout and are now suing for significant damages.
His organization, Musk’s America PAC, initially promised $47 to registered swing-state voters for their signatures and later $100 if they referred others. Yet, a class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reveals that Musk has “failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members in full for their signatures and referrals.”
Among the plaintiffs are three lead individuals from Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia, with one having worked as a canvasser for America PAC in Michigan and Georgia. They’ve connected with many others who are equally disheartened over unpaid referrals and estimates suggest there are “more than 100 class members” potentially seeking “over $5,000,000” in total damages.
Just days before this class action came to light, a Pennsylvania resident had already initiated a separate lawsuit, seeking class action status. Shannon Liss-Riordan, co-founder of the law firm representing the case, emphasized that “This case is about a broken promise: Elon Musk promised supporters that they would be paid for signing a petition and referring others.”
The reliance on Musk’s assurances was apparent, with Liss-Riordan stating, “Our clients relied on that promise because they believed in Elon, but unfortunately, that promise was not kept.” Many others are feeling the same frustration as they await payments that were promised.
During the last election cycle, Musk invested over $277 million in supporting Republican candidates, including Trump, with a significant portion—$239 million—funneled through America PAC. In a bold move in October, Musk announced plans for a $1 million daily giveaway to registered swing-state voters, aiming to gather “over a million, maybe 2 million” supporters for his agenda regarding the First and Second Amendments.
This giveaway sparked immediate backlash. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro expressed concern, stating, “When you start flowing this kind of money into politics, it raises serious questions.” Reports also surfaced indicating that the Department of Justice cautioned Musk that his giveaways could potentially be illegal. Former Republican lawmakers and advisors have even requested an investigation, dubbing the payments “prohibited payments for voter registration.”
Public Citizen, an advocacy group, lodged a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, asserting that the giveaway aimed to boost voter registration and participation for Trump’s candidacy in critical swing states. Meanwhile, Philadelphia’s District Attorney filed a lawsuit categorizing Musk’s reasoning as “an illegal lottery scheme.” By this time, Musk’s team had rebranded the initiative as compensation for acting as spokespeople. Musk’s attorney argued that recipients were not randomly chosen but rather vetted to ensure alignment with the organization’s values.
Before the presidential election, a Pennsylvania judge ruled the giveaways permissible, setting a potential precedent. In a further development, Musk replicated this tactic in Wisconsin, planning to distribute two $1 million checks at an event limited to those who had already voted. Musk’s own chatbot hinted at the ethical dilemma, acknowledging the “bribery” implications. Despite attempts by Wisconsin’s Attorney General to halt these activities, they continued unabated. Confirming Musk’s approach, this season saw him offer Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition opposing “activist judges.”
The actions of Musk and the implications of these giveaways pose essential questions about political ethics and responsibility in today’s election landscape. As we observe this evolving situation, it invites us to consider the larger impact of financial influence in politics.
What are the legal implications of paying voters to sign petitions? The legal landscape around this issue remains murky, as experts and officials evaluate whether such incentives breach campaign finance laws.
How does Musk’s behavior reflect new trends in political campaigning? Musk’s approach highlights a growing trend of leveraging significant financial resources to influence political outcomes, which may reshape traditional campaign strategies.
What happens next in the lawsuit against Musk? As the class action progresses, the outcome could set a precedent for how political payments are handled in future elections.
Will Musk continue his financial incentives in politics? Given his track record, it’s likely we’ll see similar tactics used in future campaigns, raising ongoing ethical questions.
As the narrative unfolds, it’s crucial to stay informed and think critically about the role of money in politics. For more insights and updates on current events, continue exploring related content at Moyens I/O.