Elon Musk’s $1M Giveaway: Did It Cross a Line?

This piece is part of a series of articles produced in a special topics class taught by Professor of Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought Lawrence Douglas on the 2024 election. Articles may have been reviewed by Douglas as well as other members of the class prior to submission to The Student.

One week after the election, there appears to be not only two, but three big names in the election results headlines: Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, and Elon Musk. The world’s richest man announced his endorsement of Trump on July 13, and since then was hell-bent on getting Trump past the finish line first, and it worked. However, one of Musk’s biggest tactics could be a breach of federal law.

In my opinion, there are two reasons for why Musk so eagerly endorsed Trump: The first for business incentives, and the second for personal reasons. If Musk, tech mogul, endorsed Trump, then Trump must be good (or at the very least, not bad) for future growth in the tech sector. If this is true, Musk’s two tech babies, Tesla and SpaceX would be beneficiaries. There also must be something to gain for Musk personally. His intensely ambitious businesses are proof that he loves being the one to pave major social endeavors, and loves the spotlight. Musk is used to being the one with the newest ideas and coolest inventions, so it is possible that Trump is his next way to remain relevant.

One of the largest examples of Musk’s support for Trump’s campaign was the launch of a $1 million giveaway to voters. Less than a month before the elections, he announced that through his super PAC (political action committee), “America,” he will be giving $1 million away each day via a lottery system to individuals who have signed the PAC’s petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and the Second Amendment recognizes the right to bear arms — one of the Republican party’s greatest talking points. Furthermore, the America PAC is a Republican-back super PAC that backed Donald Trump. It is clear that those who signed the petition were most likely Trump voters. Therefore, the $1 million a day rewarded Trump voters, and enticed others to join. Not only that, but a prerequisite to sign the petition was to be a registered voter. So the giveaway money not only primarily benefited one party, but also encouraged people likely to vote for Trump to register to vote. This is where the legality of Musk’s giveaway became murky.

The registered voter prerequisite to sign the petition made the giveaway scheme a possible breach of federal election laws. In the United States, it is illegal to pay someone to vote for a certain candidate. The voting law states that “Whoever knowingly or willfully … pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” While Musk’s reward money directly benefited those who signed the America PAC petition, it also indirectly benefited those who are registered to vote.

Loophole or not, Musk was paying people to register to vote, especially those who support Trump, therefore violating federal election law as well as the morals of America’s democratic passing of power. Musk’s money allowed him to have a greater impact on the election than others, possibly silencing the true opinions of other Americans. As a nation, we pride ourselves on the values of “power to the people” and democracy. Payment to incentivize votes threatens those values. Regardless of wealth, social standing, or occupation, each citizen of the United States should have an equal opportunity to vote and influence the election. Musk’s bribery disrespects this fundamental American right. Recently, he was appointed to Trump’s cabinet, making the situation even more of an ethical quagmire.

Ensuring that the elected president is a fair representation of American opinion is arguably more important than which individual ultimately wins the White House. Allowing those with wealth to essentially cast more than one ballot is intolerable. Musk’s giveaway has already stirred up legal commotion, as he is facing charges in court, and he should continue to be fairly assessed through the rule of law. This situation will set a precedent for future election campaign practices, and it is therefore vital that it be assessed properly within our justice system.