Elon Musk Promises to Award $1m Every Day to Voters

[SYZ]

Elon Musk said his Trump-supporting America Political
Action Committee—will give $1m every day until election
day to someone who signs his petition that effectively
encourages Republicans in the key battleground states
to register to vote.

The commitment, which started on Saturday as Musk
handed a lottery-style check to the first winner of his
contest at a town hall event, could mean Musk is on
the hook for $17m if he remains the sole donor to his
own Pac.

Musk's petition effectively encourages Trump voters to
register to vote so they can be in the $1m draw.

—Now I don't of course know the intricacies of the American
electoral process, but here in Australia, this would be seen
as illegal according to our Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918:

Section 326 makes it an offence to ask for, receive or obtain
any property or benefit on the understanding that it will
influence a person’s vote.

Is Musk's petition effectively buying Republican votes not
also illegal?    And if not, then why not?

[Alan V]

18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

[SYZ]

18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Thanks for the link. So will Musk be
prosecuted for breaching this Code?

[Inkubus]

18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting

Thanks for the link.  So will Musk be
prosecuted for breaching this Code?

I was just about to post the same thread.

So I'll just leave you with some excellent Musk bashing:

“Wait. We were just told Kamala Harris stands with Israel, that she’s super pro-Israel. She’s part of a pro-Israel power couple. Now we’re being told she stands with Palestine against Israel? You see the issue here, right? Those two sets of ads can’t both be true. They’re diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive, but they’re both made by the same pro Trump political action committee to micro target and manipulate vastly different groups of voters. It is the grossest, most cynical ploy I’ve seen in an election cycle that’s rotten with cynical ploys,” Hayes commented

“The Richest Man in the world has become a raving reactionary, and he’s partnering with Donald Trump, the guy who wants to overthrow American democracy, and Musk is doing everything in his power to get that guy elected, from bankrolling lies to reposting racist conspiracy theories, even working a stage in his own absolutely unbearably awkward way.” Link

[Alan V]

18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting

Thanks for the link.  So will Musk be
prosecuted for breaching this Code?

I would hope so.  We will see.

[Vorpal]

Loop hole: Elon has lottery on registering and not actually voting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You'd have to prove that the intent was to sway the one vote.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) said tech billionaire Elon Musk’s plan to give $1 million to voters who sign his America PAC petition ahead of Election Day is “deeply concerning.”

“I think there are real questions with how he is spending money in this race. How the dark money is flowing, not just into Pennsylvania but apparently now into the pockets of Pennsylvanians,” Shapiro said Sunday on NBC News’s “Meet the Press.” “That is deeply concerning.”

Musk, who is a supporter of former President Trump, announced his plan on Saturday. He is asking people to sign the petition, which supports free speech and the right to bear arms.

“The only thing we ask for the million dollars is that you be a spokesperson for the petition,” Musk said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/49...oncerning/

[Minimalist]

18 U.S. Code § 597 - Expenditures to influence voting

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and

Whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

But only if Garland grows a pair of balls.

[Fireball]

Let Musk keep doing this. THEN bust his ass after a few more millions are gone.

[mordant]

Loop hole:  Elon has lottery on registering and not actually voting.

Second loophole: Musk is rich and so exists under a separate system of justice.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Loop hole:  Elon has lottery on registering and not actually voting.

Second loophole: Musk is rich and so exists under a separate system of justice.

Yep. In the unlikely event he is convicted, all he has to do is appeal it all the way to SCOTUS. It will be overturned there.

[Minimalist]

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate;

That language is pretty all-encompassing....which is not to say that the gang of nazi shitwits on the court might just strike down the whole law on some silly grounds or other.

[pattylt]

Because of Trump showing how easy it is to continually appeal court decisions if one is wealthy, would our system of justice ever be allowed to limit the number of appeals on a decision? This ability to go through various levels of justice…all the way to the SC is bullshit.

You get one appeal. If it doesn’t go your way, you can petition the SC to take a look for any actual injustices (and not try the case again) and select those they feel were not legally prosecuted.

IANAL and I know this SC wouldn’t allow this but what I’m asking, is it even possible to change our appeals process? It seems to be a system only the wealthy can utilize so naturally, I think that’s wrong!

[Fireball]

^ This is precisely why I call it the legal system, not the justice system.

[Alan V]

From NBC News:

Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project and an NBC News election law analyst, called the payments “clearly illegal” in a post on his website Saturday night.

He pointed to a federal law, 52 U.S.C. 10307(c ), which says that any individual who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

However, I couldn't verify this by looking the law up online, so I am uncertain about it.

Also, from CNN:

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting.” It’s punishable by up to five years in prison.

I don't understand how they derive the details, but they again reference 52 U.S. Code § 10307, I assume section (b), not (c ).

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because of Trump showing how easy it is to continually appeal court decisions if one is wealthy, would our system of justice ever be allowed to limit the number of appeals on a decision?  This ability to go through various levels of justice…all the way to the SC is bullshit.

We could limit appeals, and because it's not a Constitutional issue, it could be done with simple legislation -- if you can get it past a Congressional vote to include a Senate filibuster.

I'm not sure I'd like the idea. Judges can be and are political too. Their decisions should be reviewed.

[airportkid]

We could limit appeals

Since virtually all legal appeals are simply attempting to reverse an adverse outcome, NOT rectifying any genuine miscarriage of process, I'd propose the following:

What is the ratio of power between the prosecuting side and the defending side?  Power measured in financial AND influence bandwidth.  When the ratio exceeds some threshold, the right of appeal for the more powerful side is, for that case, rescinded.

Just recently Abbott is trying to kill a prisoner on death row for whom credible doubts of guilt have arisen, and so the whole power of government is appealing a decision to spare the guy for ten minutes to revisit the case, and just kill him already.

[pattylt]

Because of Trump showing how easy it is to continually appeal court decisions if one is wealthy, would our system of justice ever be allowed to limit the number of appeals on a decision?  This ability to go through various levels of justice…all the way to the SC is bullshit.

We could limit appeals, and because it's not a Constitutional issue, it could be done with simple legislation -- if you can get it past a Congressional vote to include a Senate filibuster.

I'm not sure I'd like the idea. Judges can be and are political too. Their decisions should be reviewed.

But how many times?  I agree that appeals should be available but if the first court finds someone guilty and the appeals court agrees, why keep going?  If the appeal finds problems, those should be reviewed or even retried.  It’s just absurd to me that someone can continually appeal as long as they have the money to do so and a poor person rarely gets even one appeal.  I don’t hate the wealthy, I’m just frustrated that they can play the system when others can’t.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We could limit appeals

Since virtually all legal appeals are simply attempting to reverse an adverse outcome, NOT rectifying any genuine miscarriage of process, I'd propose the following:

What is the ratio of power between the prosecuting side and the defending side?  Power measured in financial AND influence bandwidth.  When the ratio exceeds some threshold, the right of appeal for the more powerful side is, for that case, rescinded.

Just recently Abbott is trying to kill a prisoner on death row for whom credible doubts of guilt have arisen, and so the whole power of government is appealing a decision to spare the guy for ten minutes to revisit the case, and just kill him already.

I like facts. Appeal judgements should be based upon them. The appeal process is aimed at circumventing bias in this or that actor within the system.

The ability to appeal should be based and presented upon fact. Government or convicted, that's irrelevant to me. The right to appeal should not be curtailed based on one's standing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

We could limit appeals, and because it's not a Constitutional issue, it could be done with simple legislation -- if you can get it past a Congressional vote to include a Senate filibuster.

I'm not sure I'd like the idea. Judges can be and are political too. Their decisions should be reviewed.

But how many times?  I agree that appeals should be available but if the first court finds someone guilty and the appeals court agrees, why keep going?  If the appeal finds problems, those should be reviewed or even retried.  It’s just absurd to me that someone can continually appeal as long as they have the money to do so and a poor person rarely gets even one appeal.  I don’t hate the wealthy, I’m just frustrated that they can play the system when others can’t.

What if the judges are appointed by a "strong on crime" president? What if exonerating facts come up after the second appeal? We have enough questionable executions and wrongful imprisonments that it seems to me that a court's judgement, upheld on only one appeal, can still result in the execution or false imprisonment of an innocent defendant.

I bet if we restrict appeals, those wrongfully convicted will mushroom in number. Do you want your government doing that in your name? I don't. It should be noted that even indigent convicts can maintain appeals through publicly-provided lawyers, or even self-representation. Both the wealthy and the poor can appeal to the high heavens.

[SYZ]

US Election law experts have now voiced concerns that Musk
could be breaching federal laws that ban the payment of cash
to people with the intention of getting them to register to vote
or to vote in a particular way.

The laws cover not only cash payments, but also anything of
monetary value like liquor or lottery chances, according to a
US Justice Department election-crimes manual.

Professor Rick Hasen, a political scientist with UCLA's Law School,
says Musk would not be breaking any laws if he were only offering
money for people to sign his petition.

"The problem is that the only people eligible to participate in
this giveaway are the people who are registered to vote. And
that makes it illegal", Hasen said.

[pattylt]

But how many times?  I agree that appeals should be available but if the first court finds someone guilty and the appeals court agrees, why keep going?  If the appeal finds problems, those should be reviewed or even retried.  It’s just absurd to me that someone can continually appeal as long as they have the money to do so and a poor person rarely gets even one appeal.  I don’t hate the wealthy, I’m just frustrated that they can play the system when others can’t.

What if the judges are appointed by a "strong on crime" president? What if exonerating facts come up after the second appeal? We have enough questionable executions and wrongful imprisonments that it seems to me that a court's judgement, upheld on only one appeal, can still result in the execution or false imprisonment of an innocent defendant.

I bet if we restrict appeals, those wrongfully convicted will mushroom in number. Do you want your government doing that in your name? I don't. It should be noted that even indigent convicts can maintain appeals through publicly-provided lawyers, or even self-representation. Both the wealthy and the poor can appeal to the high heavens.

Now you’re talking about new evidence being brought forth…I agree that changes the argument.  I’m thinking of cases where appeal after appeal happens where nothing has changed other that trying to find a judge sympathetic to your politics or religion or personality.  I guess I really don’t know how the justice system actually works.  What happens when someone is denied appeal?  Does that happen, too?

[Thumpalumpacus]

What happens when someone is denied appeal?  Does that happen, too?

No. Criminal defendants are entitled to an appeal, and denying them any appeal is a violation of their 14th Amendment right to due process. Note that this is different than denying their appeal itself. Simply having an appeal does not mean the judgement must be overturned.

[pattylt]

What happens when someone is denied appeal?  Does that happen, too?

No. Criminal defendants are entitled to an appeal, and denying them any appeal is a violation of their 14th Amendment right to due process. Note that this is different than denying their appeal itself. Simply having an appeal does not mean the judgement must be overturned.

Thanks.  I early appreciate it when people answer me honestly!