The Justice Department warned Elon Musk that his $1 million giveaway could come with a prison sentence—and it appears he’s actually paying attention.

The Justice Department warned Elon Musk that his $1 million giveaway could come with a prison sentence—and it appears he’s actually paying attention.

After receiving a warning from the Justice Department, Elon Musk has stopped his $1 million giveaway to swing voters from his super PAC.

The tech CEO pledged Saturday to give away the hefty sum each day to one registered voter in a battleground state who signed America PAC’s pro–First and Second Amendment pledge. Every day since then, a winner has been announced: three Pennsylvania voters and one North Carolina voter.

However, the move immediately raised legal questions, as it’s a federal crime to pay someone to register to vote, punishable by a fine of $10,000, five years in prison, or both. Experts were divided, with Musk’s plan falling into a legal gray area at best. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro called the move “deeply concerning,” and author Stephen King accused Musk of “paying to register Republicans.”

  • Dorkyd68@lemmy.world
    182·
    7 hours ago

    He ain’t scared of shit. At the end of the day he’s so rich he could murder someone in broad daylight with multiple witnesses and still walkl a free man.

    In America money buys freedom

  • savx@lemmy.worldEnglish
    661·
    16 hours ago

    if it’s illegal, just sue his ass already. you dont send warning to ordianry people who breaches the law right? at this point i have to say i’ll be happy if musk would continue the lottery, slapping a giant F word in the DOJ’s face.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      2·
      3 hours ago

      The grey area is that he uses the petition as a strawman. The DOJ will need to prove it is a strawman. At the same time the petition works as a filter to only attract republicans and put off democrats.

      I agree this should be persecuted but there is enough mud in the water for a drawn out trial and finally the criminals in SCOTUS to rule it acceptable.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      9·
      6 hours ago

      You send a warning and if they don’t follow it you can now apply for a harsher sentence.

      If you skip the warning you might win still, but you’ll have a harder time getting the harshest punishment.

      They could still charge him post warning even if he’d stopped, but then it looks like he cooperated and will probably not get the harshest punishment.

      Harshest punishment requires the warning and ignoring of it.

      • kungen@feddit.nu
        3·
        5 hours ago

        Harshest punishment requires the warning and ignoring of it.

        Does it say that in the law code? I thought that being ignorant of the law doesn’t matter for most prosecutions (“ignorantia juris non excusat”)

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          2·
          5 hours ago

          Not by law, but it’s just like first time offenders or cooperating defendants or guilty pleas often getting lighter sentences.

          They could still throw the book at you, as they do at times, but it’s not a guaranteed success.

  • daikiki@lemmy.world
    237·
    20 hours ago

    I don’t want to rock the boat or anything, but does anybody else think that maybe we need just a tiny bit of judicial reform? It seems to me like there’s an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of criming and our judicial system is apparently not that interested about stopping them until after the next election. And there’s always a next election.

    So far.

    • Ænima@lemm.ee
      3·
      2 hours ago

      Meanwhile some deaf, mentally impaired, black dude gets tased and beat up by police for the crime of… Checks watch… Being black and unable to hear the officer.

    • EvilBit@lemmy.world
      72·
      19 hours ago
      1. Try crime
      2. Benefit from crime
      3. Receive stern letter
      4. Pause crime
      5. Enjoy benefits from period of crime
      6. Repeat
    • Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works
      54·
      20 hours ago

      What chaps my hide is that this is just a warning and not outright a clear case of election interference. I’m tired of warnings instead of judgments. Less likely to see these stories if people actually faced consequences for their actions.

    • ravhall@discuss.online
      30·
      20 hours ago

      If by reform you mean we need to just get rid of people who are too wealthy to get away with crime, then yes… Any measure to accomplish this is acceptable by me

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    441·
    17 hours ago

    “Oh no. I got all the benefits I was after and now I can skip out on paying people a million dollars a day and blame the Democrat’s for not doing it. Wah”

  • clover@slrpnk.netEnglish
    411·
    19 hours ago

    $10,000 fine on a $1,000,000 lottery is just a 1% tax. I’m surprised he even bothered to notice.

  • Thistlewick@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    49·
    20 hours ago

    Breaks law by using his wealth to sway the results of an election. Gets a warning.

    I really do believe what Trump said about shooting a man and not losing any votes… except he would also walk away with a warning not to do it again.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    19 hours ago

    I’d like to see him get arrested and then see how scared he is. This warning seems like the same strongly-worded letter all these rich assholes get.