Elon Musk lawyer says $1 million voter giveaway winners are not random

[Mr. Sparkle]

Source: Reuters

PHILADELPHIA, Nov 4 (Reuters) - Elon Musk's pro-Trump group does not choose the winners of its $1 million-a-day giveaway to registered voters at random, but instead picks people who would be good spokespeople for its agenda, a lawyer for the billionaire said on Monday. Musk lawyer Chris Gober was trying to persuade a Pennsylvania judge that the giveaway was not an "illegal lottery," as Philadelphia district attorney Lawrence Krasner alleged in a lawsuit seeking to block the contest ahead of Tuesday's U.S. presidential election.

"There is no prize to be won, instead recipients must fulfill contractual obligations to serve as a spokesperson for the PAC," Gober said in the hearing before Judge Angelo Foglietta. The hearing in the battleground state comes just one day before Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump will square off in the tightly contested race. Musk and his political action committee are backing Trump.

CEO Musk's offer is limited to registered voters in the seven states expected to decide the election - Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. America PAC says its two remaining winners will be from Arizona and Michigan, meaning that Musk would likely be able to continue the giveaway even if Foglietta blocks the lottery.

"The only people protected by Pennsylvania law are in Pennsylvania," said Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School. But in courtroom testimony, Krasner said he would seek financial penalties against Musk and America PAC. He said he would not seek to take money back from the 16 voters who have so far won the contest.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-weighs-challenge-elon-musks-1-million-voter-giveaway-2024-11-04/

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. So, it's simple fraud instead of an illegal lottery

That would also change the tax liability for the “winners” wouldn’t it?

[unblock]

3. It's taxable either way, no?

Hmm maybe they owe fica tax if it's technically labor income

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. Yeah, even if it's a simple 1099, I think it's taxed different than sweepstakes or gambling winnings. Nt

[unblock]

2. Ah, I see. A random lottery would be illegal, but a rigged lottery is fine!

[getagrip_already]

5. Running a false lottery is just as illegal as running a real one..

If actually not more illegal since you are fraudulantly gathering pii from people under false pretenses.

[ZonkerHarris]

6. Elon lying to voters is better? Okay. Bring the fraud lawsuits from those who entered.

[William Seger]

7. As far as I can find, he only promised to give the money to "someone in swing states"

... who signed his petition. He didn't say it would be random, so he probably can't be held criminally liable for assumptions. Sleazebag.

[moniss]

11. However use of the word "someone" could be claimed

to give the implication that each registered voter who signed the petition had a chance. Think of it this way, if the Car Crook had said "someone" in order to entice people to sign etc. when in fact he meant all along to give it to a relative then he did technically give it to "someone" but the use of the vague word could be argued as showing intent to deceive rather than disclose the truth. How successful that argument would be would be dependent on the judge/jury making the decisions.

I will say that the standard in civil and criminal fraud may also vary from state to state somewhat and maybe a legal beagle member could speak to that but whether it's a preponderance/ reasonable person sort of thing or beyond reasonable doubt I do not know. I do know that people who try to play games with wording and make their arguments on that basis would rather not have to be viewed under the reasonable person standard simply because their "word magic", in order to be successful, would require a person to suspend a reasonable conclusion.

[thesquanderer]

8. Since the cost to enter was a signature on a petition, I wonder how they could calculate "damages" (n/t)

[SarcasticSatyr]

9. If it wasn't random . . .

doesn't that open him up to lawsuits, or accusations of fraud by those that assumed it was?

[Martin68]

10. The attorney throws up a little protection to avoid liability for a massive con. It will not hold up in court.

[spudspud]

12. LOL. So you just admitted to fraud? /nt

[JoseBalow]

13. It's almost as if he's not smart

[City Lights]

14. So just another Trump-Musk scam?

Their scams are everywhere these days.