David Bridges
Elon Musk is known for his extravagant spending habits and bold promises, especially when it comes to achieving his goals. Recently, during the heated 2024 election season, he made headlines by pledging to financially reward voters in key swing states who supported his pro-Trump PAC by signing a petition. However, a growing number of these petition signers claim that Musk failed to deliver on his promises, leading them to file a lawsuit seeking millions in damages. This situation raises significant questions about the integrity of political fundraising and the obligations of influential figures like Musk.
Musk’s America PAC initially promised to pay $47 to registered voters in swing states who signed a petition purportedly supporting the First and Second Amendments. In addition to this, he offered referral bonuses for those who encouraged others to sign. However, a class action lawsuit filed in federal court within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleges that Musk has “failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class Members in full for their signatures and referrals.” This accusation highlights potential discrepancies in political campaign promises and financial accountability.
The three lead plaintiffs in the case, who resided in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia, include an individual who worked as a canvasser for America PAC in Michigan and Georgia. They assert that they have connected with numerous others who referred voters to sign the America PAC petition, all of whom share their frustration over not receiving the full payments they were promised. The plaintiffs estimate that there are “more than 100 class members” involved in the lawsuit, with total expected payments exceeding $5,000,000. This situation underscores the potential for widespread dissatisfaction among supporters of Musk’s initiatives.
This lawsuit comes on the heels of another legal challenge filed by a Pennsylvania resident, who also sought class action status for his claim. Shannon Liss-Riordan, a co-founder of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, the legal firm representing the class action lawsuit, emphasized to CNBC that “This case is about a broken promise: Elon Musk promised supporters that they would be compensated for signing a petition and referring others to do the same.” This statement underscores the reliance that many supporters placed on Musk’s assurances, revealing the emotional and financial stakes involved in political endorsements.
“Our clients relied on that promise because they believed in Elon, but unfortunately, that promise was not kept,” she continued, revealing the depth of disappointment felt by the plaintiffs. “It appears the promise was broken for many others as well,” she added, indicating that this issue may extend beyond just a few individuals and potentially affect many supporters across the nation.
During the previous election cycle, Musk invested a staggering $277 million to support Republican candidates, including Donald Trump. Reports from CNBC indicate that the bulk of this funding, approximately $239 million, was funneled through America PAC. In a bold move in October, Musk escalated his outreach by announcing a $1 million daily giveaway aimed at registered voters in swing states. His stated goal was to encourage over one million, potentially two million, voters in battleground states to sign the petition in support of the First and Second Amendments, showcasing his commitment to mobilizing political support.
However, this giveaway raised significant concerns, with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro expressing that “When you start flowing this kind of money into politics, I think it raises serious questions.” Additionally, the Washington Post reported that the Department of Justice cautioned Musk that his giveaway could potentially be illegal. Former Republican lawmakers, advisers, and Justice Department officials also urged Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate the legality of these payments, questioning whether they constituted “prohibited payments for voter registration.” This level of scrutiny reflects the broader implications of Musk’s financial strategies in the political arena.
“We are aware of nothing like this in modern political history,” they wrote in a letter, highlighting the unprecedented nature of Musk’s actions. “We recognize that they are framed as payments for signing a petition, or for referring voters who sign. But many of the payments are restricted to registered voters, so anyone who wishes to get paid must register first.” This raises important ethical considerations regarding the intersection of finance and political engagement.
In a complaint lodged with the Federal Trade Commission, the advocacy group Public Citizen asserted that the giveaway’s primary purpose “appears to be to motivate voter registration and voting at the polls by those sympathetic with the candidacy of Donald Trump in the key swing states.” Furthermore, Philadelphia District Attorney General Larry Krasner filed his own lawsuit aimed at halting what he characterized as an “illegal lottery scheme.” However, by that time, America PAC had redefined the giveaway as compensation for serving as a spokesperson. During a subsequent hearing, Musk’s lawyer, Chris Gober, testified that recipients “are not chosen by chance,” while America PAC’s director, Chris Young, noted that they are vetted based on their personality and values alignment with the organization.
Just before the presidential election, a Pennsylvania judge ruled in favor of the giveaways, establishing a concerning precedent for future political financing practices. In March, Musk adopted a similar strategy in Wisconsin during the state Supreme Court race, announcing plans to distribute two $1 million checks at an event where entry was restricted to individuals who had already voted. At that time, Musk’s own chatbot, Grok, acknowledged, “Though aimed at boosting participation, this could be seen as election bribery,” illustrating the ethical dilemmas surrounding such financial incentives.
Despite the attempts by Wisconsin’s Attorney General to halt Musk’s questionable tactics, the giveaways were ultimately allowed to proceed. This suggests that Musk may resort to similar strategies in the future. Ironically, Musk also offered Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition opposing “activist judges,” further complicating the narrative surrounding his political engagements. We will have to wait and see how these initiatives affect voter sentiment and engagement in the coming year.
Brandon Fletcher
