In an October 4, 2024 ruling, a Pennsylvania judge allowed Elon Musk’s $1 million-per-day sweepstakes to proceed through Election Day, despite claims that the giveaway, run through Musk’s pro-Trump political action committee, America PAC, was an “illegal lottery” designed to sway votes.
Musk’s $1 million-a-day voter giveaway was intended to attract and mobilize voters in key swing states. By offering a significant cash prize, Musk’s team aimed to encourage individuals to sign a petition endorsing free speech and gun rights, which would potentially boost support for pro-Trump values.
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Angelo Foglietta dismissed District Attorney Larry Krasner’s arguments. The decision followed an intense, all-day hearing in a crowded Philadelphia courtroom marked by heated exchanges.
Krasner’s team labeled Musk’s political staff as individuals engaging in a fraudulent scheme, while Musk’s team accused the district attorney of infringing on constitutional rights. The judge’s ruling addressed Krasner’s emergency motion to halt the sweepstakes immediately, though a broader case remains to determine if Musk’s giveaway breaches state gaming laws.
During the proceedings, Krasner testified that his office would pursue restitution from Musk or his super PAC for the “victims” of what he described as an unlawful lottery that misled Philadelphians in future stages of the case.
A progressive Democrat, Krasner filed the lawsuit a week earlier. Despite the ongoing legal challenges and a Justice Department warning about potential violations of federal election laws, Musk’s daily giveaways from his pro-Trump super PAC continued.
Musk and his legal team dismissed Krasner’s lawsuit as a publicity tactic, alleging it was motivated by Krasner’s opposition to Musk’s support for Trump.
After the ruling, Krasner spokesman Dustin Slaughter remarked to CNN that significant truths had emerged during the hearing, encouraging people to stay informed as the case progresses. Musk’s lawyers acknowledged in court that the super PAC’s winners are not selected by random chance.
Musk’s attorney, Chris Gober, argued there is no “prize” to be won since winners are not chosen by chance, implying the contest does not qualify as a lottery. Instead, Gober asserted that the so-called “prize” is compensation for acting as a spokesperson for the super PAC. Recipients are selected based on their suitability for this spokesperson role, effectively “earning” the million dollars as payment for their representation of America PAC.
John Summers, a lawyer representing Krasner, described this as a full admission of responsibility, while Krasner, on the stand, called it one of the most insincere arguments he’d ever heard.
In promoting the giveaway, Musk had stated they would be “awarding $1 million randomly to people who have signed the petition” supporting the Constitution, which Krasner argued was political marketing posing as a lottery. Musk’s political adviser, Chris Young, during the hearing, provided further details on the giveaway’s structure.
Young explained that their intention was solely to compensate registered U.S. citizens who were voters, avoiding any risk of awarding funds to foreign nationals or individuals with malicious intent. He added that some participants who were unregistered voters were given a follow-up opportunity and encouraged to confirm their registration status.
The legal challenge has expanded to other states, with additional lawsuits in Texas and Michigan. Jacqueline McAferty, an Arizona voter, filed a class-action lawsuit in Texas on Election Day, claiming the advertised “random” drawing misled her. The suit argues that Musk’s team exploited the contest to drive traffic to his social media platform X and gather valuable personal information.
The case also points to deeper concerns about the role of wealth in influencing elections. America PAC’s substantial funding, backed by Musk’s $120 million contributions, allowed the PAC to conduct extensive canvassing operations across swing states, raising questions about the integrity of such high-dollar, unconventional election tactics.