Despite what you may hear from leftist so-called election law “experts,” Elon Musk is not violating federal law with his America PAC’s million-dollar lottery for registered voters who sign his “Petition in Favor of Free Speech and the Rights to Bear Arms.”
Those who mistakenly claim otherwise are ignoring the terms of the petition and the text of the applicable federal statute in order to take a swipe at Musk.
Musk’s very vocal support for the First Amendment, which he says is under “relentless” attack, is nothing new. He announced in April that he would fund a national signature campaign in support of free speech, and he’s frequently said defending free speech is one of the main reasons he purchased Twitter, now X.
He’s also been vigorous in his support for the Second Amendment.
So, what are the actual terms of the PAC’s offer that has Musk’s critics in such a dither?
The petition states that the “First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendment.” Each day, one individual who signs the petition in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, or North Carolina will be awarded $1 million.
The condition for signing the petition and the chance to win this lottery is being a registered voter.
Each signer can earn $47 for each registered voter he refers who also signs the petition supporting the First and Second Amendments. There is a special offer of $100 for each registered voter who signs the petition from Pennsylvania and an additional $100 for referring another registered voter to sign the petition.
The most important legal point here is that Musk is not paying individuals to register to vote. He is paying already registered voters to sign the petition.
In other words, there is no direct quid pro quo between getting paid and getting registered; the quid pro quo is getting paid for signing the petition, but the offer is open only to registered voters.
The applicable federal law is 52 U.S.C. §10307(c), which makes it a felony violation for anyone who “knowingly and willfully … pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting.”
Notice the precise terms of this clear language. If America PAC was directly paying individuals to register to vote, and if any individuals accepted those payments, they would be violating the law. But America PAC—by the explicit terms of the petition—is paying individuals to sign the petition, not register to vote. And the registered voters in the applicable states are accepting payments for signing the petition, not becoming registered.
What Musk is doing transactionally is not that different, except in terms of sheer scale, from what pollsters, political consultants, and campaigns do all the time with focus groups.
They convene a group of registered voters—who are paid for their involvement—to ask them questions about candidates and issues. It is normally a condition that you are a registered voter to be eligible to participate in the focus group and get paid for spouting your opinion.
Requiring that as a condition to participate does not violate federal law.
One can certainly argue that Musk’s offer may lead to individuals registering to vote in order to be able to sign the petition so they can get paid for 1) signing the petition in Pennsylvania; 2) referring registered voters in other states to sign the petition; and 3) becoming eligible for the million-dollar jackpot.
But that indirect result is not sufficient to constitute a violation of the applicable statute that requires an explicit, knowing, and willful direct exchange of money for becoming registered to vote.
That is not occurring under the explicit terms of the petition, which seems to have been cleverly and carefully drafted by Musk’s lawyers precisely to avoid violating 52 U.S.C. §10307. And it is no different than an individual getting registered to vote so he can take up an offer from a campaign consultant to become a paid member of a focus group.
The bottom line? No objective, nonpartisan, rational federal prosecutor would take up this case.