Elon Musk, the renowned entrepreneur behind Tesla and SpaceX, as well as the owner of X, is making significant waves in the political arena by backing Republican Donald Trump’s presidential bid. Musk has already poured at least $70 million into supporting Trump, but he has now promised an intriguing initiative, offering $1 million total to voters who sign a petition by his political action committee (PAC) that advocates for the Constitution.
This initiative has raised eyebrows among election scholars, with many arguing that linking financial incentives to signing a petition is legally questionable, especially when it mandates individuals to be registered voters.
On Sunday, Pennsylvania’s Democratic Governor, Josh Shapiro, who previously served as the state’s attorney general, voiced his concerns regarding Musk’s efforts. He stated, “There are genuine questions regarding how he is distributing funds in this election, as well as the influx of undisclosed money not just within Pennsylvania but potentially into the hands of its residents. This is indeed worrisome,” he remarked during his appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Examining this situation more closely reveals that Musk announced the daily giveaway of $1 million, which will continue until the upcoming November 5 election. This initiative is aimed at supporting the First Amendment—protecting free speech—and the Second Amendment, which allows citizens the right “to keep and bear arms.” During a recent event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he presented a check to a participant named John Dreher as part of this campaign. A response from Dreher was not received on Sunday.
In terms of the larger picture, Musk’s America PAC has rolled out a tour across the critical battleground of Pennsylvania, focusing on garnering voter support for Trump, whom Musk explicitly endorses. Moreover, the PAC is extending its outreach to persuade voters in key states nationwide. This isn’t Musk’s first time offering cash incentives; he has previously announced on X that he would reward individuals with $47, and then $100, for referring others to register and participate in the petition initiative.
However, this giveaway has not gone without criticism. Election law experts are cautioning about the potential legal implications of the scheme. Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance attorney, pointed out that the stipulation requiring registration to qualify for the $1 million cash prize raises legal concerns. “If every signer of the petition were eligible without preconditions, there would likely be no question of legality. However, tying the payments to voter registration arguably breaches the law,” he stated in an email.
In a more pointed analysis, Rick Hasen, a political science professor at UCLA Law School, cited laws prohibiting monetary compensation for registering to vote or casting a ballot. “If the intent was merely to pay individuals for signing the petition, it might be seen as frivolous spending; however, the legality shifts because only registered voters can participate in this giveaway,” Hasen explained via telephone.
Michael Kang, an election law scholar from Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law, voiced that the timing of the giveaway, so close to Election Day, raises doubts about its motives, suggesting it serves as an incentivization for voter registration. “While this isn’t equivalent to directly paying someone to vote, it gets perilously close to crossing that boundary and raises substantial legal concerns,” Kang noted.
Attempts to reach the PAC for comment were made on Sunday, as well as a request directed to the Justice Department for further clarification.
As for the relationship between PACs and Trump’s campaign, typically, collaboration between campaigns and super PACs has been prohibited. However, a recent ruling from the Federal Election Commission has allowed for certain types of cooperation, especially regarding voter mobilization efforts.