Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner has filed a lawsuit against billionaire Elon Musk and his pro-Trump America PAC, challenging a $1 million daily giveaway to voters in swing states as an unlawful lottery. The civil lawsuit, filed Monday, claims that the giveaway to registered voters—targeted in battleground states such as Pennsylvania—violates federal and state laws, sparking concerns about election interference as the 2024 presidential election approaches.
America PAC, a super PAC funded by Musk, is offering $1 million daily to a registered voter in a swing state who signs a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments. The award is limited to residents in critical swing states, including Pennsylvania, and comes with additional $100 payments for all petition signers in these states. Notably, the giveaway does not explicitly require recipients to vote or register for a specific candidate, though it targets key electoral regions where Musk has been openly supportive of GOP candidate Donald Trump.
The lawsuit, filed in Pennsylvania state court, describes the giveaway as an “indisputably unlawful lottery” that directly conflicts with state regulations. “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,” Krasner’s complaint states, adding that under Pennsylvania law, lotteries must be regulated by state officials to prevent exploitation and fraud.
The complaint alleges that America PAC’s lottery scheme not only breaches state lottery laws but also violates consumer protection statutes by misrepresenting itself and failing to fully disclose participant terms. It further contends that the giveaway is a “scheme to influence voters” and calls for immediate intervention. “Running an illegal lottery and violating consumer protections is ample basis for an injunction and concluding that America PAC and Musk must be stopped immediately, before the upcoming presidential election on November 5,” the filing asserts.
Federal election laws also present a critical hurdle for Musk’s PAC. U.S. law expressly forbids payments in exchange for voting or voter registration, imposing penalties of up to $10,000 or five years of imprisonment. While Musk has asserted that the giveaway is not an incentive for voting specifically, election law experts argue that the structure of the program—which exclusively benefits registered voters—pushes legal boundaries.
Derek Muller, a professor of election law at Notre Dame Law School, recently emphasized this concern, stating, “When you start limiting prizes or giveaways to only registered voters or only people who have voted, that’s where bribery concerns arise.”
Krasner’s lawsuit has drawn support from local and national officials. Pennsylvania State Representative Malcolm Kenyatta commended the district attorney’s intervention, stating on social media that “Krasner’s filing makes a serious case that America PAC and Musk hatched an illegal scheme that makes misleading promises to voters while threatening Americans’ right to a free & fair election.”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has also reportedly flagged Musk’s voter lottery as potentially violating federal election laws. However, no federal action has yet been taken against America PAC’s operations. Advocacy groups such as Public Citizen have called on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate, arguing that Musk’s actions amount to “voter bribery” under federal standards.
Public Citizen recently filed a formal FEC complaint, stating that Musk’s lottery “appears to constitute payment to encourage voter registration and to influence votes.” The group criticized Musk’s involvement in the election, citing it as an attempt to sway electoral outcomes in ways that could undermine democratic principles.
The lawsuit and public backlash against Musk’s lottery raise concerns about the influence of wealth in U.S. elections. This case reflects the ongoing debate over the role of wealthy individuals and corporate PACs in swaying voter behavior and the legality of targeted financial incentives for voter engagement.
In a statement accompanying the FEC complaint, Public Citizen emphasized the broader implications, noting that Musk’s financial investment in the 2024 election likely stems from “self-serving” interests. The advocacy group pointed to Musk’s businesses—including Tesla, X, and SpaceX—which face regulatory scrutiny from federal agencies, suggesting his political spending may be aimed at deterring or influencing legal actions against his companies. “Elon Musk isn’t running for office in 2024,” Public Citizen remarked, “but Musk himself may still be the main beneficiary of his own political spending.”
The outcome of Krasner’s lawsuit may set a precedent for how financial giveaways targeting voters are handled in future elections. Legal experts suggest that if Pennsylvania’s courts rule against Musk’s PAC, it could prompt other states to scrutinize similar voter-targeted campaigns, particularly those backed by wealthy individuals and PACs with political agendas.
Beyond Pennsylvania, the federal implications are significant. A ruling could lead Congress to reevaluate election finance laws to ensure that they adequately address modern forms of voter influence in an era where private wealth and political spending are increasingly intertwined. Federal restrictions on voter-targeted giveaways may become a focal point in debates over election integrity and campaign finance reform.
Legal experts, including Notre Dame’s Derek Muller, have criticized the targeting of specific states and registered voters, arguing that the practice potentially crosses legal boundaries, particularly in battleground regions where even marginal shifts can affect electoral outcomes. “By limiting a giveaway only to registered voters, it looks like you’re giving cash for voter registration,” Muller said, adding that the exclusion of non-registered residents presents clear ethical and legal concerns.
From a consumer protection perspective, Krasner’s lawsuit argues that America PAC has failed to publish complete lottery rules or demonstrate how participant privacy will be safeguarded, creating additional concerns about the transparency of the initiative. State consumer protection statutes require organizations to maintain clarity and honesty in promotional practices, including lotteries, and Krasner’s complaint suggests that America PAC’s practices fall short.
As Krasner’s lawsuit advances, it represents a broader push to uphold the integrity of U.S. elections against undue influence from financially powerful figures. The legal battle over America PAC’s voter lottery brings attention to the potential pitfalls of unregulated election-related giveaways and the ethical implications of incentivizing voter behavior through financial rewards.
As Krasner noted in his complaint, the stakes go beyond this particular giveaway: “Running an illegal lottery and violating consumer protections is ample basis for an injunction and concluding that America PAC and Musk must be stopped, immediately, before the upcoming presidential election.”
COMMENTS