9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
In a contentious ruling, a Pennsylvania judge has allowed Elon Musk’s $1 million-a-day voter sweepstakes to continue through Tuesday’s presidential election. The sweepstakes, hosted by Musk’s political action
In a contentious ruling, a Pennsylvania judge has allowed Elon Musk’s $1 million-a-day voter sweepstakes to continue through Tuesday’s presidential election. The sweepstakes, hosted by Musk’s political action committee in key swing states, has drawn criticism from Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, who argued it was a manipulative tactic to influence the election.
Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court Judge Angelo Foglietta ruled Monday that the sweepstakes, organized by Elon Musk’s America PAC, can continue until Election Day. Musk’s attorneys argued that the winners are pre-selected and serve as “paid spokespeople” rather than random lottery recipients. This distinction, they said, keeps the sweepstakes within legal bounds.
District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, sought an injunction to stop the contest, calling it a “scam designed to influence a national election.” He argued that the sweepstakes could sway voters in favor of Musk’s political agenda in swing states. Musk’s legal team, however, insisted that the program constitutes “core political speech” protected by the U.S. Constitution.
“The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance,” said Chris Gober, Musk’s lawyer. “We know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow.”
The sweepstakes, which offers $1 million to vetted recipients each day, targets battleground states in the run-up to the election. According to Chris Young, director and treasurer of America PAC, the recipients are selected after an intensive vetting process to ensure they align with the PAC’s values. On Monday, the sweepstakes is set to announce a winner in Arizona, followed by a final recipient in Michigan on Election Day.
Gober explained that the selection process does not involve any random draw, dismissing accusations that the sweepstakes is a typical lottery. Instead, recipients are chosen deliberately to serve as representatives whose values resonate with Musk’s PAC. Each recipient is required to sign a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution, which Musk’s team argues promotes patriotism and civic engagement rather than specific political candidates.
Young’s testimony revealed that the PAC takes a hands-on approach to ensure that winners align ideologically with Musk’s PAC, effectively functioning as endorsers rather than mere prize-winners. This approach, according to Musk’s legal team, is meant to protect the PAC’s interests and values in a way that differs from a traditional sweepstakes.
Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner condemned the sweepstakes as a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate voter behavior in crucial states. His legal team argued that Musk’s effort circumvents traditional campaign regulations by giving large sums of money to potential influencers in battleground states, effectively amplifying certain voices during the election period.
“This is not a simple contest,” Krasner argued. “It’s a targeted operation to sway public opinion and influence the outcome of a national election.”
Krasner’s team also claimed that the lack of transparency surrounding the selection criteria could mislead the public. According to Krasner, the PAC’s actions may give the impression that winners were chosen randomly, leading some voters to mistakenly believe they have a fair chance of winning substantial cash rewards by supporting Musk’s platform.
Despite these concerns, Judge Foglietta sided with Musk’s legal team. The judge’s brief ruling did not provide an extensive explanation but permitted the sweepstakes to continue through Election Day, as there were no more recipients set to be selected from Pennsylvania before the contest ends.
Musk’s legal team defended the sweepstakes as an exercise of protected political speech, arguing that the contest highlights values embedded in the U.S. Constitution. In their view, each recipient’s pledge to the Constitution serves as a nonpartisan endorsement of democratic principles, rather than a promotion of any single candidate.
The defense argued that participants’ support for constitutional principles aligns with free speech, noting that the Pennsylvania injunction was unnecessary as no further Pennsylvania recipients were planned. Gober called the opposition’s efforts moot, adding that the sweepstakes was carefully designed to comply with both state and federal laws.
With two final $1 million recipients in Arizona and Michigan, Musk’s PAC aims to finish the campaign in two of the most closely contested states in the election. The organization plans to announce the Arizona recipient Monday and the Michigan recipient Tuesday.
As Musk’s $1 million-a-day sweepstakes proceeds, debate over its impact on voter behavior in swing states intensifies. Supporters argue that the campaign highlights civic values and encourages political engagement, while critics see it as an underhanded attempt to sway voters by financially incentivizing endorsement.
Judge Foglietta’s ruling marks a significant victory for Musk’s PAC, enabling it to complete its campaign in critical battlegrounds. With Election Day upon us, the sweepstakes adds yet another layer of complexity to an already contentious election. Whether viewed as an exercise in freedom of expression or as an attempt to influence the vote, Musk’s campaign has captured the nation’s attention, with the final winners set to be announced in two of the most pivotal states.
