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.
Biju k
This is wild. A million bucks just for saying you believe in free speech? 🤯 I’d sign up in a second if I lived in the US. No cash? No problem. But this? This is next-level political theater. Elon’s not breaking rules-he’s rewriting the game.
Akshay Gulhane
The law doesn’t care about your feelings. It cares about evidence. No data sold. No victims. No fraud. Just a billionaire spending millions to make a point. And the court said: if it’s not illegal, it’s allowed. That’s democracy in action. Not perfect. But real.
Deepanker Choubey
Imagine being that one guy in Florida who won. Just a regular person. Probably didn’t even know how big this was. Now he’s got a million bucks and a story to tell his grandkids. Meanwhile, Krasner’s still mad because he couldn’t stop it. 😅 Sometimes the system works exactly how it’s supposed to-even when it’s weird.
Roy Brock
This is the end of civilization as we know it. A billionaire buys votes under the guise of ‘political speech.’ The court didn’t stop it. The system is broken. We are not citizens. We are data points. And Elon? He’s the new king. 👑 The elites have won. The people? They’re just pawns in a game they never agreed to play.
Prashant Kumar
You can’t call it bribery if there’s no quid pro quo. The participants didn’t vote for anyone. They just signed a petition. And the prize went to someone outside PA. So no one even got paid in the state they targeted. The DA’s case was built on vibes, not law.
Prince Nuel
This is why we lost. People think ‘free speech’ means ‘I can pay you to say what I want.’ It’s not speech. It’s coercion with a fancy label. And now the courts are okay with it? Next they’ll auction off jury seats.
Sunayana Pattnaik
The fact that no Pennsylvanian won proves it was never about them. It was a performative stunt. A distraction. A way to make the media scream while the real influence was being bought quietly. This isn’t activism. It’s psychological warfare disguised as a giveaway.
akarsh chauhan
Look, I get why people are mad. But let’s not pretend this is the first time money’s been used to influence politics. This is just the first time someone did it with such a flashy, public, and legal method. Maybe instead of rage, we should be asking: how do we make participation more accessible? Not just more expensive.
soumendu roy
The First Amendment was never intended to function as a financial instrument for oligarchs. While the court’s ruling may be technically correct, the moral bankruptcy of this precedent cannot be overstated. We are witnessing the commodification of civic identity.
Kiran Ali
So let me get this straight. You can pay someone a million bucks to say they support the Second Amendment but you can’t pay them to vote for a candidate? That’s not logic. That’s hypocrisy. The system is rigged to protect the rich and punish the poor. This is just the latest proof.
Kanisha Washington
I think it’s important to remember that the law is not always fair. But it is supposed to be consistent. If collecting your name and address is not fraud, then it’s not fraud. Even if it feels wrong. Even if it’s ugly. The law doesn’t care about feelings.
Rajat jain
Honestly? I’m just glad no one got hurt. People are angry, sure. But this didn’t change any votes. Didn’t delete any records. Didn’t break any laws. Maybe the real lesson is that we need better laws-not more outrage.
Gaurav Garg
So… if I start a sweepstakes where I pay $1M to anyone who says they like pizza, is that also protected speech? 😏 Just asking. Because if the court says ‘it’s just advocacy,’ then we’re all just talking heads with price tags now.
Ruhi Rastogi
They didn’t prove it was illegal so it’s fine. Classic. The system works exactly how it’s designed to. Slow. Broken. But technically correct.
Suman Arif
You know what’s worse than a billionaire buying votes? The fact that so many people think this is normal now. We’ve become numb to it. This isn’t democracy. It’s a reality show where the prize is political power and the contestants are just names on a spreadsheet.
Sai Sujith Poosarla
India has better election integrity than this. We don’t have billionaires handing out millions to random people to say they believe in something. This is why America’s democracy is rotting from the inside. It’s not about policy anymore. It’s about who can shout loudest with the most cash.
Sri Vrushank
This was a psyop. The whole thing. The winner was from Florida? That’s not a coincidence. They used this to manipulate voter turnout in PA by making people think they had a shot. Then they gave the prize to someone else. It’s all controlled. The media didn’t even ask why.
Praveen S
I think the real issue here isn’t whether the sweepstakes was legal-it’s whether we still believe in the idea of equal participation. If democracy is reduced to who can pay the most to get people to speak, then we’ve already lost. The court didn’t rule on justice. It ruled on procedure. And that’s terrifying.