In a high-stakes legal decision on Monday, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Angelo Foglietta declined a request to halt billionaire Elon Musk’s controversial $1 million giveaway to registered voters in battleground states across the United States. The ruling comes after Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner filed a lawsuit last week, alleging that Musk’s daily giveaways constitute an “illegal lottery scheme,” orchestrated by his pro-Trump political action committee, America PAC, to incentivize voter registration.
Krasner, a Democrat, argued that Musk’s substantial donations and giveaway campaign have crossed legal boundaries, particularly in a politically charged climate that already sees unprecedented levels of spending and influence by special interest groups. However, after a daylong hearing on Monday featuring legal arguments from Musk’s attorneys and city prosecutors, Judge Foglietta ultimately allowed the giveaways to continue, without providing immediate reasons for his ruling. Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, was not present in court.
Musk, one of the world’s wealthiest individuals, announced last month his commitment to give away $1 million per day until Election Day to registered voters in key battleground states. According to America PAC, the recipients of these $1 million awards are randomly selected from a pool of registered voters, with at least 16 winners confirmed to date, including four in Pennsylvania. The daily sweepstakes has sparked intense public interest and debate, drawing attention to Musk’s increasingly overt role in American politics.
While Musk’s influence in the tech and finance sectors is widely recognized, his foray into direct voter engagement has generated controversy, especially among Democrats who argue the giveaway is less about civic engagement and more about swaying voters in crucial swing states. Critics have pointed out that Musk’s backing of former President Donald Trump, along with his hefty financial contributions to America PAC, signal a clear partisan agenda behind the giveaways.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner, claims that Musk’s program amounts to an illegal lottery, specifically designed to sway voters in favor of Trump’s campaign. In court documents, Krasner stated, “Offering substantial monetary rewards to voters is not merely a civic gesture. It’s a calculated ploy to influence political outcomes by incentivizing voter registration, which is expressly prohibited under federal law.”
The U.S. Justice Department had already raised concerns last month, warning Musk and America PAC that the sweepstakes might be in violation of federal statutes against compensating individuals for registering to vote or participating in elections. According to U.S. law, any attempt to incentivize voter registration through cash rewards or gifts is considered unlawful to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
Krasner’s legal team presented these warnings as part of the evidence to strengthen their argument that Musk’s giveaways constitute unlawful interference in the election. The DA requested an immediate injunction to halt further giveaways, describing the initiative as a “dangerous precedent” with far-reaching implications for future elections.
Judge Foglietta’s decision to allow Musk’s program to continue marks a significant setback for Krasner and opponents of the sweepstakes. The judge provided no formal explanation for his ruling, leaving the legal and public communities to speculate on his reasoning. With Election Day just a day away, Foglietta’s ruling means Musk and America PAC are legally permitted to continue awarding $1 million daily to selected voters, though no further giveaways are reportedly scheduled in Pennsylvania.
Legal experts have weighed in on the ruling, suggesting that while the decision may seem straightforward, it underscores the complex intersection of free speech, campaign finance laws, and election integrity protections. Some analysts argue that Foglietta’s decision may have been influenced by First Amendment considerations, viewing Musk’s donations as an exercise of free expression, while others believe the court may be awaiting additional federal guidance on the legality of the giveaways.
Elon Musk’s influence in U.S. politics has steadily increased over recent years, especially following his high-profile endorsement of Donald Trump’s candidacy for the 2024 presidential election. Musk, who previously supported Barack Obama, has shifted rightward, a change that has been evident in his public statements, political donations, and his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). In recent months, Musk has regularly used X to promote Trump’s campaign, criticize Vice President Kamala Harris, and advance conservative causes to his more than 200 million followers.
Musk’s support for Trump extends beyond social media advocacy. His America PAC has reportedly received over $118 million in donations from Musk alone, and he has appeared with Trump at rallies, notably in Pennsylvania, a pivotal battleground state. Additionally, Musk has hosted town halls and events aimed at appealing to undecided voters, raising concerns among critics who view his actions as an effort to tip the electoral scales in Trump’s favor.
The impact of Musk’s involvement in this year’s election has not gone unnoticed. Analysts point out that Musk’s substantial fortune, combined with his control of X, places him in a unique position to influence public discourse and political outcomes, particularly given X’s reach as a major social media platform.
Reactions to Judge Foglietta’s ruling have been predictably divided along partisan lines. Democratic leaders and progressive organizations expressed disappointment, asserting that Musk’s giveaway campaign undermines democratic processes by blurring the lines between lawful political donations and financial inducement.
“Today’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent that opens the door for wealthy individuals to directly influence elections by rewarding voters financially,” said a spokesperson for Common Cause, a nonpartisan watchdog organization focused on government accountability. “This is not about free speech; it’s about wielding wealth to sway electoral outcomes.”
Republicans, on the other hand, have largely praised the judge’s decision. Trump’s campaign manager, John McCaskill, released a statement calling the ruling “a victory for free speech and civic engagement,” adding, “Elon Musk’s giveaways encourage participation in the democratic process, which should be celebrated, not litigated.”
While Judge Foglietta’s ruling allows the giveaways to proceed, the legal debate may be far from over. The Justice Department’s concerns signal that federal authorities could step in, especially if the sweepstakes are found to have violated federal law. Although no official actions have been announced, federal prosecutors have indicated they are “closely monitoring” the situation.
Legal experts have speculated that the case could lead to significant changes in campaign finance and election law. If Musk’s giveaways are deemed legal, it could open the door for similar initiatives by other wealthy individuals and organizations, potentially altering the landscape of American elections. This precedent could also challenge long-standing campaign finance restrictions, with implications for future elections.
Some advocacy groups have called on Congress to address the issue directly, urging lawmakers to consider legislation that would prevent financial giveaways to voters in any form. Such legislation, proponents argue, would protect the integrity of the democratic process and prevent billionaires from using their wealth to sway elections.
