On Election Day 2024, a Philadelphia courtroom decision let Elon Musk’s controversial $1 million-per-day voter sweepstakes run its course — not because it was declared legal, but because the prosecution couldn’t prove it was illegal. Judge Angelo Foglietta of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas issued a terse but decisive ruling on November 5, 2024, denying an emergency injunction sought by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner. The sweepstakes, run by the political action committee America PAC, had drawn over a million signatures in battleground states, offering daily $1 million prizes to registered voters who endorsed free speech and gun rights. Now, it’s over — but the legal fight is far from finished.
"No Evidence of Misuse"
Krasner’s lawsuit, filed in late October, claimed the sweepstakes violated Pennsylvania’s ban on illegal lotteries under Title 18, Section 5513. The state law requires three elements: consideration (something of value given), chance, and a prize. Krasner argued that by collecting personal data — names, addresses, voter registration details — America PAC was extracting value from participants, making it a lottery disguised as political activism. "They scamming over a million people," he told reporters before the hearing. "This isn’t free speech. It’s data harvesting under the guise of democracy."
But Judge Foglietta wasn’t convinced. In his written opinion, he wrote: "Although (Krasner) alleges that America PAC and Elon Musk 'scammed' people, DA Krasner failed to provide any evidence of misuse beyond mere speculation." No records showed data sold, leaked, or misused. No victims came forward. No financial trail linked the collected information to advertising or third-party sales. The court saw no fraud — only a bold, expensive political stunt.
The Defense: Political Speech, Not a Lottery
Musk’s legal team didn’t just defend the sweepstakes — they redefined it. They argued participants weren’t "winners" at all. Instead, they were designated as "paid spokespeople" for America PAC, compensated not through random chance but through pre-selected outreach. The $1 million payments, they claimed, were merely honoraria for public advocacy — a form of protected political expression under the First Amendment.
"This isn’t a raffle," said one attorney during the November 4 hearing at
Philadelphia City Hall. "It’s a campaign. These people are speaking for a cause. If you can pay a pundit $50,000 for a TV appearance, why can’t you pay a voter $1 million to speak at a rally?"
The judge didn’t rule on whether the sweepstakes was constitutional — only that the prosecution hadn’t met its burden to stop it. "The law doesn’t prohibit expensive political speech," Foglietta noted. "It prohibits fraud. And there’s no fraud here."
Federal Court Had Already Rejected the Bigger Argument
Before the state case even began, Musk tried to move the lawsuit to federal court, arguing it implicated federal election law. He claimed the sweepstakes interfered with the integrity of a presidential election — a federal concern. On November 1, 2024,
U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert — a former Pennsylvania Attorney General appointed by President Obama — shut that down. "Federal question jurisdiction," he wrote, "does not turn on a plaintiff’s motivations in filing suit; it turns on whether the legal issues arising from the claims originate in federal or state law."
In plain terms: Pennsylvania’s lottery laws are state laws. The fact that the sweepstakes targeted swing states during a presidential election doesn’t make it a federal case. That ruling forced the matter into Foglietta’s courtroom — where the stakes were lower, but the symbolism was enormous.
Why This Matters Beyond Philadelphia
This wasn’t just about one PAC. It was a test case for the future of political spending. Musk, who poured over $70 million into America PAC during the 2024 cycle to support Donald Trump and other Republicans, used the sweepstakes to drive voter registration in Pennsylvania — a state with 19 electoral votes that both campaigns fought over fiercely. Kamala Harris and Trump each made multiple visits to Philadelphia in the final weeks. The sweepstakes wasn’t just about money — it was about mobilization.
Krasner, elected as a progressive prosecutor in 2017 and re-elected in 2021, has long positioned himself as a watchdog against corporate influence in elections. His office has previously targeted payday lenders, pharmaceutical firms, and tech giants for data exploitation. But here, he hit a wall. "We respect the court’s ruling," he said on November 6, "but we still believe this activity skirts the edge of the law. We’re exploring all options."
That means criminal charges aren’t off the table. Krasner’s team could still pursue charges for fraud, deceptive practices, or campaign finance violations — though they’d need new evidence. The sweepstakes ended at 12:01 a.m. on November 6, after the final drawing. The winner? A Florida resident. No Pennsylvanian collected a dime.
What Comes Next?
The emergency injunction is over. But Krasner’s underlying civil lawsuit remains active. He can still sue America PAC for damages, or seek an injunction against future similar promotions. Meanwhile, Musk’s legal team is preparing to countersue for defamation, arguing Krasner’s public statements — calling the sweepstakes a "scam" — damaged Musk’s reputation.
And the broader question lingers: If a billionaire can pay $1 million to a voter for endorsing a policy, is that democracy — or a new form of voter bribery? The First Amendment protects political speech, even the weird, loud, expensive kind. But when money becomes the only language voters hear, what happens to the idea of equal participation?
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Elon Musk be criminally charged over the sweepstakes?
Yes — though not yet. Judge Foglietta cleared the way for the sweepstakes to continue because Krasner lacked evidence of fraud, but the District Attorney’s office retains authority to pursue criminal charges if new evidence emerges. Krasner has signaled he’s still investigating whether personal data was exploited or if the sweepstakes violated campaign finance disclosure rules. No charges have been filed as of November 7, 2024.
How many people actually entered the sweepstakes?
America PAC confirmed over 1.2 million unique registrations across eight battleground states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona. The company said each registrant had to verify their voter status and sign a petition affirming support for First and Second Amendment rights. No financial contribution was required, but participants had to provide their full name, address, and date of birth — data that raised red flags for election integrity advocates.
Why didn’t any Pennsylvania residents win?
America PAC’s legal team stated participants were selected not by chance, but as "spokespeople" based on geographic and demographic criteria — and they confirmed the final winner on November 5 was from Florida. Judge Foglietta noted this fact in his ruling, saying it rendered the injunction unnecessary since no Pennsylvania resident stood to benefit. Still, the sweepstakes targeted Pennsylvania heavily, with ads placed in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and suburban counties.
Is this legal in other states?
It depends. States like New York and California have stricter anti-lottery laws and may challenge similar promotions. But in states with looser regulations — like Texas or Ohio — such sweepstakes could become common campaign tools. Legal experts warn this case sets a precedent: if you frame cash incentives as "political advocacy," courts may protect them under free speech, even if they look like bribes.
What’s the connection between America PAC and Donald Trump?
America PAC is an independent expenditure committee that openly supported Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Elon Musk, who recently accepted a role advising President-elect Trump on government efficiency, donated over $70 million to the PAC. While the PAC didn’t coordinate directly with Trump’s campaign — as required by law — its messaging, advertising, and voter mobilization efforts aligned closely with Trump’s platform, particularly on gun rights and free speech.
Write a comment