American businessman Elon Musk recently found himself on the wrong side of the law with his controversial social media post. Musk offered a staggering $1million to voters but his post or call caught the attention of lawmakers. Various publications indicate that Musk stirred controversy with his post.
A controversial post by Musk: why was it controversial
With the election fever still a major thing in the United States of America, Musk made a call to voters. Still, his social media post attracted the attention of lawmakers amid election regulations.
Born in South Africa, Musk offered to splash $1 million to voters who signed a petition from his political action committee (PAC) supporting the Constitution. According to BBC and CNN, this unusual offer, announced during event festivities aimed at rallying voters for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, has raised serious legal concerns among election experts and officials.
In his social media post on X (Twitter), Musk said he had a special surprise to his followers as it underlined his commitment to the recent political climate.
His initiative promised to provide financial incentives until the November 5 American election, aiming to secure support for the First and Second Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, respectively.
“I have a surprise for you. We are going to be awarding $1 million to people who have signed the petition — every day, from now until the election,” Musk posted.
While his post seemed generous, this clear push for financial engagement is seen by many as potentially crossing legal boundaries.
It is also reported that the lottery-style offer, where participants must be registered to vote, has left many questioning its legality.
Musk offers a giant cheque to a local voter
During a town hall event that was held on October 17 in Pennsylvania, the controversial businessman who also owns Twitter and Tesla caused a stir by offering the first giant cheque to one lucky participant or voter.
In a response to Musk’s controversial offer, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who campaigned for Vice President Kamala Harris and also previously served as the state’s attorney general, expressed concern over Musk’s approach.
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Shapiro explained: “I think it’s something law enforcement should take a look at. It does raise serious questions.”
Why Musk’s call caused a stir
According to reactions and political commentators, the major legal issues stem from federal laws prohibiting payments intended to induce voting or voter registration. This law, highlighted by experts, specifies fines and even prison time for those who contravene these regulations.
One election law scholar, Rick Hasen emphasized in his blog post: “This one is clearly illegal,” as it operates under the guise of incentivizing participation through cash.
At the same time, Musk’s America PAC made funds available to support Trump’s campaign with approximately $75 million, thus indicating his solid support for the former president’s run for the White House.
Musk’s PAC mainly focused on mobilizing voters, particularly within key swing states, which were expected to play a major role as a deciding factor during this election.
Brendan Fischer, another campaign finance lawyer who analyzed Musk’s proposal, believes it strives to toe the thin line of what’s acceptable. “If every Pennsylvania-based petition signer were eligible, there would be few doubts about legality,” he stated.
In the past, the billionaire also made headlines when he made tempting offers, it is documented that he had announced rewards like $47 and $100 to individuals who could bring new signatories to the petition.
While this tactic garnered criticism, it didn’t necessarily violate the stipulations around voter incentives due to the nature of his conditions.
Musk’s involvement has unearthed broader discussions and the potential ramifications of such cash giveaways raising eyebrows about the integrity of the electoral process, and prompting calls for regulatory review.
Michael Kang, who teaches election law at North-Western University, added another dimension to the debate by pointing out how timing plays against Musk’s strategy. “It’s not quite the same as paying someone to vote,” he said, “but you’re getting close enough.”
Interpretation of actions like Musk’s can lead to difficult legal battles, especially if deemed to incentivize voter registration right before elections.