Tech billionaire Elon Musk has announced an extraordinary giveaway of $1 million (£766,000) a day to registered voters in crucial swing states until the US presidential election on November 5. The initiative is part of a broader effort to support Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House, with the funds distributed through a lottery system.
Musk’s campaign group, AmericaPAC, which he established to back Trump, has organized the daily lottery, selecting winners from among those who sign a pro-US Constitution petition. The first recipient of the $1 million prize was chosen at a town hall event in Pennsylvania over the weekend, with another cheque handed out the following day.
Musk’s decision to link the giveaway to a political petition has already sparked concern. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat and supporter of Vice President Kamala Harris, expressed his alarm over the strategy, suggesting that law enforcement should examine the legality of the payments. During an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, Shapiro emphasized that Musk’s approach could undermine the integrity of the electoral process.
The giveaway is targeted specifically at voters in key battleground states that are expected to determine the outcome of the election. These states include Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. By focusing on these regions, Musk’s campaign aims to gather substantial support for Trump while boosting voter turnout among conservative-leaning individuals.
However, not everyone views Musk’s actions as legitimate. Election law expert Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), raised concerns about the legality of Musk’s offer. Writing on his Election Law Blog, Hasen argued that the offer might violate federal election laws. US law prohibits offering payments for voter registration or casting a vote, with penalties including fines of up to $10,000 or a five-year prison sentence.
Hasen’s main concern lies in the fact that Musk is only offering the prize to registered voters in swing states, potentially influencing the outcome of the election in these critical regions. Although Musk is asking voters to sign a petition rather than directly paying them to vote, Hasen questioned the intent behind the offer, noting that the strategy introduces money into the electoral process in a way that might influence voter behavior.
In addition to signing the petition, participants are required to provide their contact details, which could allow AmericaPAC to follow up with them and gather more detailed voter information. Campaigns often use such tactics to build databases of voters, which can be useful for mobilizing supporters and raising additional funds. AmericaPAC’s strategy mirrors these tactics, using the petition to create a more targeted approach for voter outreach.
To further incentivize participation, Musk’s campaign is offering additional rewards for referrals. In Pennsylvania, voters who sign the petition receive $100, with an extra $100 for every person they refer who also signs. In other battleground states, the referral bonus is set at $47 per person.
Despite the potential legal concerns, there may be a loophole in US election law that Musk’s strategy could exploit. Since no one is being directly paid to vote, Musk’s giveaway may not fall under the strict legal definition of voter payments. However, the mere introduction of money into the process, particularly in such a high-stakes election, has raised eyebrows among legal experts and political observers alike.
This is not the first time the legality of incentivizing voter participation has come into question. During the 2008 presidential election, ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s faced a similar issue when it planned to offer free ice cream to voters. The company eventually opened the offer to all customers after concerns were raised about whether the initial promotion, which required voters to show an “I voted” sticker, was in violation of election law.
While Musk’s financial support for Trump’s campaign is clear, the former president himself has kept a certain distance from the giveaway. When asked about Musk’s efforts during a campaign event on Sunday, Trump downplayed his involvement, saying, “I haven’t followed that,” but added that Musk is a “friend” and that the two speak often.
Musk’s support for Trump has grown increasingly prominent in recent months. In July, the tech mogul launched AmericaPAC with the express purpose of boosting Trump’s re-election bid. To date, Musk has donated $75 million (£57.5 million) to the organization, making AmericaPAC one of the most important players in Trump’s campaign. With Musk’s financial backing, the group has become a key tool in Trump’s efforts to connect with voters, especially in crucial battleground states.
The central message of AmericaPAC, according to its website, revolves around key conservative values such as border security, law and order, and free speech. The group’s stated mission is to promote “Secure Borders, Safe Cities, Sensible spending, Fair Justice System, Free Speech, [and the] Right to Self-Protection.” Musk himself has described the petition as a way to rally support for the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution, which protect free speech and the right to bear arms.
Musk, currently the world’s richest man with an estimated net worth of $248 billion (£191 billion), hopes to get as many as two million voters in swing states to sign the petition. He believes this will send a powerful message to lawmakers about the importance of preserving constitutional rights.
As the US election draws closer, Musk’s campaign activities are likely to continue drawing scrutiny from legal experts, voters, and political figures alike. With millions of dollars on the line, and a key role in the future of American politics at stake, the impact of Musk’s actions remains to be seen.
