A Pennsylvania state judge ruled Thursday that he would not block Elon Musk from continuing his $1 million per day voter giveaway ahead of the Nov. 5 general election.
Judge Angelo Foglietta announced that he would place the civil lawsuit brought by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner on hold because Musk is seeking to have the case removed to federal court, according to Reuters.
“Krasner, who championed progressive causes when running for district attorney, accuses Tesla CEO Musk and his political action committee America PAC of hatching an ‘illegal lottery scheme to influence voters,’” the outlet reported.
Musk’s random giveaways through his America PAC are for registered voters — residing in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin — who sign a petition saying they support the First and Second Amendments.
America PAC is also awarding $47 to everyone who recruits a registered voter to sign the petition.
Musk gave his first two checks away in Pennsylvania last week.
Every night, @America will announce another $1M winner!
All you have to do is sign our petition in support of The Constitution. https://t.co/Zsda5ao2In
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2024
In its civil lawsuit, the Philadelphia DA’s office alleged America PAC and Musk are violating Pennsylvania public nuisance law and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
“America PAC and Musk are lulling Philadelphia citizens — and others in the Commonwealth (and other swing states in the upcoming election) — to give up their personal identifying information and make a political pledge in exchange for the chance to win $1 million. That is a lottery.”
“And it is indisputably an unlawful lottery. Under unambiguous Pennsylvania law, all lotteries in Pennsylvania must be regulated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” they added.
The DAs further alleged that America PAC has not published a complete set of lottery rules, as required by law.
“Also, though Musk says that a winner’s selection is ‘random,’ that appears false because multiple winners that have been selected are individuals who have shown up at Trump rallies in Pennsylvania,” the lawsuit said.
Krasner’s office made clear they are not accusing America PAC and Musk of vote buying, which would violate federal and state law, but engaging in an illegal lottery and deceiving consumers.
Musk responded to the allegation by others that he was vote buying, posting on X, “All you need to do is sign the @America petition in support of the Constitutional rights to free speech & bear arms to have a daily chance of winning $1,000,000! You can be from any or no political party and you don’t even have to vote.”
All you need to do is sign the @America petition in support of the Constitutional rights to free speech & bear arms to have a daily chance of winning $1,000,000!
You can be from any or no political party and you don’t even have to vote. https://t.co/vF93mBnBJd
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 20, 2024
Regarding Musk’s effort to transfer the case to federal court, The Hill reported that “federal law provides that when a defendant attempts to move a civil lawsuit to federal court, a process known as removal, the state court ‘shall proceed no further’ until the defendant’s attempt is rejected.”
Musk’s attorney Matthew Haverstick argued in a brief filed in federal district court Wednesday evening that the case presents several issues regarding federal law.
“In short, the nature of the Complaint’s pleadings demonstrates that the Complaint, in truth, has little to do with state-law claims of nuisance and consumer protection,” the brief read.
“Rather, although disguised as state law claims, the Complaint’s focus is to prevent Defendants’ purported ‘interference’ with the forthcoming Federal Presidential Election by any means.”
Haverstick noted the Philadelphia DA’s civil complaint, “[A]lso narrowed its focus to two of the Defendants’ election-related activities with which DA Krasner disagrees — independent expenditures to influence campaigns for federal office and the core political speech via petition gathering — both of which raise significant questions of federal law that are within the exclusive province of this Court.”
