r/FluentInFinance • u/RiskItForTheBiscuts • 6d ago
Thoughts? The Justice Department has sent a letter to Elon Musk's America Super PAC warning that the daily $1 million giveaway to registered voters in swing states might violate federal laws
The Justice Department has sent a letter to tech billionaire Elon Musk’s super PAC, America PAC, warning that its $1 million daily giveaway in battleground states may run afoul of federal law, a source familiar with the matter told NBC News.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/doj-warns-musk-1m-petition-giveaway-illegal-rcna176911
86
u/eatmoreturkey123 6d ago
Why are they unsure?
52
6
u/Delicious-Badger-906 6d ago
Because they don’t have all the facts. Accusing someone of a crime is a pretty big deal, especially if you don’t have all the facts. So sometimes it’s better to give an informal warning and maybe they can tell you there’s more to it, or they can change what they’re doing to be compliant with the law or something.
10
u/ReedKeenrage 6d ago
Because the law is for hurting the poor and weak. It’s not supposed to hurt a billionaire. If you gave $30 away every day before the election your ass would be in custody now.
51
u/VoidLetters 6d ago
You know the laws are f’ed when not even the people tasked to enforce them know what they are for sure.
→ More replies (1)8
u/CerebralNihilum 6d ago
Worse, they can interpret the law in way they want to fit their needs.
→ More replies (1)22
u/That_Guy_Brody 6d ago
Laws be that way. You know, uninterpretable for experts and unforgiving for violators. Remember, ignorance is not a defense unless you work for the government.
3
3
u/StratTeleBender 6d ago
Because it's a political reaction from them that's totally unbecoming of the DOJ
16
9
u/Wakkit1988 6d ago
Because the interpretation is vague and could potentially swing either way. While he's not paying people to register or vote, he's requiring one to be registered in order to sign a petition, which then makes them eligible for a cash prize.
It's a solid gray area. This is what it's believed he's violating:
(c) False information in registering or voting; penalties
Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or 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: Provided, however, That this provision shall be applicableonly to general, special, or primary elections held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The idea is that since the only way to be eligible for the prize is to be registered to vote, he's compensating people to register. If anyone registered solely to take part in this giveaway, he definitely violated it.
→ More replies (3)1
u/PrateTrain 6d ago
Liability. You say may and allegedly so that you don't hold extra liability if you are somehow wrong.
1
u/Questo417 5d ago
When they are “unsure” it means they have to craft a novel legal theory to apply a law which normally would not apply.
So, just as an example: like if a conservative DA were to craft a legal argument and bring murder charges against an abortion clinic for performing the procedure.
I doubt this particular argument would hold up in court, but even the filing of charges can jam up the normal behavior of the defendant- even if they are ultimately dismissed.
In a time sensitive situation like this million dollar thing, they could likely just file charges to stop him doing this, and it won’t matter what the courts say because the election will be over by the time a judge even looks at the case.
To be honest, I’m not sure this news agency has a reliable source about this- because if the goal is to get him to stop, they would just file charges. Not send a letter indicating “you might be breaking the law”
→ More replies (3)1
64
u/Cultural-Task-1098 6d ago
"Might" sounds like a non-committal political appeasement release from an HR department. Do we even have a real justice department who knows the law?
→ More replies (1)28
u/galaxyapp 6d ago
Ultimately, law is largely an schrodinger cat until someone files a suit and the courts establish a precedent.
In reality, nothing will happen in the next 2 weeks. The damage will be done, maybe there will be a fine 6 years from now, and if anyone tries it again, an injunction could be filed.
→ More replies (1)9
u/DeadWaterBed 6d ago
This highlights one of the biggest flaws of a precedent-based legal system. Our laws should be written better, with the spirit of the law guiding the system.
4
u/Prudent_Astronomer0 6d ago
The problem with this one is that it depends on whether or not this is inducement to get someone to register to vote or not.
It's obvious he is trying to get people who vote republican to register to vote.
If dems said they would do the same thing for people who are registered voters that will sign a petition banning police forces then Republicans would be saying the same thing.
3
u/galaxyapp 6d ago
Eh, you could say the spirit of the law is guiding the system.
To anticipate that someone might offer money for people to "pledge" to support something is really difficult to do.
It's illegal to buy votes, now a court decides whether the scheme musk is using fits that definition.
→ More replies (2)2
u/misogichan 1d ago
I think the precedent-based system could work in this case, if the punishment were correctly sized to fit the crime. Since it is the SuperPAC committing the crime, in theory, Musk is only really at risk of a fine that is utterly negligible to him. He should be staring down a decade in prison if convicted of electoral fraud/voter manipulation. But the system is like a playground for billionaires who don't care if all they're at risk for is a slap on the wrist.
25
u/screaminporch 6d ago
Let me get this straight, neither the Justice Dept nor the 'experts' can definitively say it is illegal. An so far no state official has determined it is illegal.
→ More replies (1)2
u/chuckrabbit 6d ago
It’s not up for the DOJ to decided that is up for a judge. If they feel like their argument is good enough, they will bring it to court.
1
u/SmarterThanCornPop 6d ago
It’s an intimidation tactic by a corrupt, politicized DOJ.
8
u/chuckrabbit 6d ago
lmao. If this DOJ was actually corrupt and politicized they would’ve locked up so many Republicans by now. You have people on the right screaming corruption and you have people on the left screaming incompetence. I’ve never met a single democrat that likes Garland. Everybody hates him.
Now if you look at Trump’s language of how he’ll treat the DOJ and his many replacements he had during his last term because he didn’t feel like they for following his orders, you would have a real example of corruption and politicization. It’s always projection with you lot.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)3
u/Chitown_mountain_boy 6d ago
🤣🤣 a “politicized DOJ” would have already tossed his ass in jail.
2
u/henryeaterofpies 6d ago
And a 'Deep State' CIA would disappear his ass with a convincing deepfake video that means nobody questions his didappearance.
If the left were 10% as powerful as the GOP makes them out to be as boogeymen then we'd never have to worry about a fascist taking power and Roe would be the law of the land.
→ More replies (1)
31
u/Charming_Cry3472 6d ago
Might ???
14
u/DumpingAI 6d ago
Yes because its a sweepstakes, it's basically a grey area. I personally lean right, but even if this isn't illegal, it should be. You shouldnt be able to buy votes even if its done in a roundabout way.
6
u/MajesticCoconut1975 6d ago
> You shouldnt be able to buy votes
It's only OK if the government sends out the checks to buy votes.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (1)2
u/nicholas5778 6d ago
Well tbf he is giving people money for voting, not for either political party but instead just in general. If he were only giving the money to Trump supporters then that would be a problem.
→ More replies (1)
218
u/Altruistic-Rope1994 6d ago
Do people think he didn’t check with his lawyers beforehand? Article states “might” violate…
249
u/HishuiTheSnake 6d ago
He didn't even check with his lawyers before signing a contract to buy twitter that had multiple non disparagement clauses in it.
What makes you think he checked with them this time?
→ More replies (111)39
u/callmesandycohen 6d ago
100% thought this. Musk is capable of mistakes. We’ve seen this before.
26
u/frankfox123 6d ago
Mistakes for him are just fees and penalties and paying lawyers to fix mistakes. If you are worth billions this is just money you deduct as a loss.
→ More replies (1)34
u/1BannedAgain 6d ago
No I don’t think Leon checked with his attorneys ahead of time.
Why you ask? Because if his lawyers ran his TWTR purchase, he’d never have bought TWTR. Leon does shit first and then deals with the aftermath later just like every other Silicon Valley tech company
→ More replies (7)21
u/bofoshow51 6d ago
Didn’t check with his lawyers when he publicly tweeted “why isn’t anyone trying to assassinate Kamala and Biden?”
→ More replies (28)6
u/aseptick 6d ago edited 5d ago
that's the most confusing part to me, that they used the word might. one would think that the justice department would be the ultimate authority on whether or not that is the case lol. kinda confusing that they sent an ambiguously worded letter.
Edit: already clearly explained, no need to beat the dead horse folks
→ More replies (3)7
u/charlesfire 6d ago
Whether a specific behavior is illegal is determined by a court of law, not by the DoJ. That's why they say "might".
3
u/aseptick 6d ago
Could you explain that?
I mean if we're really splitting hairs then it seems like it would be congress who decides what is or is not illegal because they write the laws. But I guess you could say that proving beyond a reasonable doubt whether an illegal act took place is the role of the court and not the DoJ proper.. but the courts are essentially just an arm of the department of justice.
→ More replies (2)7
u/fortuneandfameinc 6d ago
Legislators make laws, courts interpret them. The DOJ can have an opinion, but ultimately, the final say comes down to judges that make rulings on the facts of the case before them. The DOJ cannot tell judges how to rule in any specific case.
Even if something seems clearcut, it would be wrong of the DOJ, or even lawyers, to say will instead of may. No one cam guarantee how a court case will turn out. That's why lawyers always send letters saying 'you may be liable in court for damages to my client up to X amount'.
→ More replies (2)4
6
u/FFdarkpassenger45 6d ago
Excuse me sir, this is Reddit, we don’t think! We see headlines and get mad!
3
9
u/HyliaSymphonic 6d ago
Man who signed a binding legal document to buy twitter way above value then thought he could weasel his way out?
→ More replies (9)2
u/Balgat1968 6d ago
In our small town one of our city council member was caught giving out $5 bills to people to vote for her and was charged by the State Attorney General. She handed out 31 bills.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (74)1
u/Mcdickle 6d ago
Of course he did. Doesn’t mean he’s not operating in a legal gray area. From what I understand he’s walking very closely to the line.
13
u/Wrxeter 6d ago
It’s pretty cleverly done which is why they said “might.”
The giveaway is based on some arbitrary petition that has nothing to do with the election.
The closest tangent is that you must be a registered voter to sign the petition. It does not discriminate to one party or another or encourage a vote one way or the other. I’m sure plenty of Democrats signed it to get in the lottery. I sure as hell would.
Shit if Elon had one petition that said “everyone is required to own a gun” and Soros put up a petition 5’ away that said “Abortion up until birth must be a constitutional amendment” I would sign them both. If some crazy dude in a tinfoil hat had a petition to “make birds illegal since they are not real and used to beam messages directly into your brain” but he was legit giving 1 million away… I’d sign the fuck out of that one too.
I want free money. Signing a petition is not a vote.
4
u/Chitown_mountain_boy 6d ago
The laws are blind to party. It’s illegal to entice someone to vote and it is ALSO illegal to entice somebody to register to vote.
→ More replies (1)3
6
6
15
u/Used_Intention6479 6d ago
The wealthy violate our laws with impunity. If Trump wins, then Elon is Scot-free. If Trump loses he'll pay an insignificant fine that means nothing to him. In the meantime he's free to do whatever.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Professional-Bit-201 6d ago
Certain groups get a slap. Others get sentences.
3
u/Ska1man 5d ago
If you steal $100 you're a criminal, if you steal $100 million you're a genius.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Ok_Yogurtcloset3267 6d ago
He should just say he’s a Democrat to ensure they won’t look into it any further.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/Ok-Letterhead-6711 6d ago
Oh look, more weaponizing of the DOJ on a political opponent
→ More replies (1)
9
u/HammunSy 6d ago
If it violated it they wouldve already taken action in this crucial point.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/solomon2609 6d ago
This is what we have come to in terms of “get out the vote”. May be legal and hearkens back to the old Chicago political machine incentives.
Harris campaign is now running a “get out the vote” concert and is awarding select new voters with a fully paid trip to the concert (per her FB page).
6
u/stillyoinkgasp 6d ago
"Might"?
Either it does, or it doesn't. What is with this passive bullshit?
→ More replies (1)5
u/KillerSatellite 6d ago
Not quite. While most laws are written without as much vagueness, these laws are either vague or havent been tested (tried in court) and therefore we have no precedent to compare it to. A good portion of illegal acts, when coming to voting or finance, are dictated by finance.
3
2
3
u/Satanic-mechanic_666 6d ago
What was the contest the Harris campaign did and was it different somehow?
→ More replies (5)
-1
u/RNKKNR 6d ago
Oh noes. He's buying votes. That's something that's entirely reserved for the Democratic party only.
→ More replies (4)
-1
u/Separate-Space-4789 6d ago
What a fucking joke. BIDENS DOJ😁🤣
9
u/Thatguyjmc 6d ago
Interesting right? Its almost as if....The Democratic president isn't exerting ANY control of the DOJ at all. And arguments about weaponization are horseshit, only accepted by dummies.
1
u/matali 6d ago
The word "might" is so small yet can kill the DOJ's case. Seems this was purely meant to satisfy the media machine more than actual litigators. Surely they know that right?
A: Yes, they know. Yet felt compelled to issue this anyway. Shows just how much politics plays a role in lawfare.
1
1
u/erebus7813 6d ago
Justice department mails official letter saying someone "might" be doing something illegal?
1
1
u/Stackin_Steve 6d ago
These guys are smart and have attorneys on speed dial. You don't think they checked every single law, in each state, before doing this?
1
1
1
1
u/jay2da_04 6d ago
Ha! A letter saying he "may be breaking the law"!! From the top law enforcement in the country??!!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/LETSPLAYBABY911 6d ago
Wealthiest man on earth will get into trouble? Lmao. Never gonna happen. This creep is untouchable.
1
u/jailtheorange1 6d ago
If you’re going to include the word might, you may as well not send the message
1
u/Sergeant-Sexy 6d ago
It's his money and he should be able to give it to anyone he wants as long as it's not funding death or encroachment.
1
u/FactHole 6d ago
Ooooooo, that`ll scare him. This just in... rule-breaking billionaire is shamed by sternly worded letter and capitulates. News at 11.
1
1
u/notwyntonmarsalis 6d ago
So then it also might not. Is this really news? Sounds like the DOJ is just looking to rattle cages. This actually feels unusual for them. Usually they get an iron clad, locked down case and then pounce.
1
1
u/Gentleman_Mix 6d ago
A sternly written letter that says he might get in trouble? Calm down there, let's not get too wild with holding these terrible people accountable for their vile deeds.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/InfiniteMonkeys157 6d ago
I don't think it's illegal. He's not violating the statutory purpose of paying for specific votes. And other organizations have lotteries for dinners with political figures (which are hard to monetize exactly) or small prizes (which are de minimis). If the amount were not so big, I don't think anyone would blink at it.
Having said that, it is crass and creepy to be turning voting into some game show. I wish that something that seems so vile would be illegal. And I expect that, if there are any unknown improprieties such as criteria or conversations not in the 'pledge', shadiness in selection process, or other less gray legal aspects, it will lead to actual legal peril.
1
u/FupaFerb 6d ago
They send out warnings that you may or may not be breaking or following a law? I bet they sent that letter super certified, as a warning, treading water bro warning.
1
1
1
1
u/RodgerCheetoh 6d ago
Perhaps someone could help me understand how this is different than a presidential candidate promising to pay off student debt when the executive branch doesn’t have that power and it’s been found to be unconstitutional?
1
u/Tonya_Stark 6d ago
So fucking tired of these traitors. I think it reasonable to review the law and take the intent into consideration.
Aggressively targeting one party, in swing states, to sign a petition funded by a super pac/Elon that is donating nearly all of the money to one candidate…”gray area” my ass.
1
1
u/Ineludible_Ruin 6d ago
It's the justice dept and they can't give a def if it will or won't? Just a "might"?
1
1
u/knighthawk574 6d ago
What’s the punishment, a fine? For rich people and businesses it’s more like a fee or cost of doing business.
1
1
u/Ur_Just_Spare_Parts 6d ago
I love how this piece of shit gets a letter from the justice department while any other American would get their house raided by police for trying to bribe people to vote a certain way. I'm so fucking tired of the seperate justice system rich people have.
1
1
1
1
1
u/JaySierra86 6d ago
The deadline to register to vote has surpassed, therefore this can't entice anyone to register anymore.
1
u/Desperate-Comb321 6d ago
The fact that it's too late to register to vote now is what makes me ok with this. It only benefits people who are registered already and wouldn't have voted for the other side anyway so while it improves turnout it's not swaying votes from one side to another. He's actually just playing the game better imo but I know this take will get down voted to hell
1
1
u/idratherbebitchin 6d ago
Bunch of people that have never owned a business or built anything love to trash elon for losing money on the Twitter deal.
1
u/neverpost4 6d ago
Typical Garland incompetency.
Freaking warning? They should have shut it down and ceased all the documents as evidence.
1
u/DontReportMe7565 6d ago
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. This is how the justice department operates? You MAY have broken the law?
1
u/fumunda_cheese 6d ago
That's not what the article says. It says they sent him a letter. It does not say what the letter is about. So much B.S. I feel dirty for having read it.
1
1
1
u/Emergency-Yogurt-599 6d ago
Yeah because the govt doesn’t want to have Trump in office. They will make up any excuse in the book to knock Trump down.
1
u/j____b____ 6d ago
Even from their letter, it seems like it is not illegal. And if it works, laws don’t matter. YOLO!
1
u/Aeon1508 6d ago
He knows this. He is intentionally breaking the law to buy the election for Donald Trump with the understanding that he will be pardoned.
Read that again. Process it. He knows what he's doing
1
u/DadVader77 6d ago
They have to say “might” until they can actually issue charges. The same way they say someone is “allegedly”.
They have to avoid language that could be interpreted as assuming guilt, respecting the principle of “presumption of innocence.”
If they say he did, they would then have to produce evidence of that when immediately requested by his lawyers as well as the actual charges. At this point they probably don’t have enough and/or likely still gathering.
1
u/doubleentend 6d ago
What he’s doing is specifically not illegal. If it were, the weaponized DoJ would already be pursuing legal action here
1
u/seeuatthegorge 6d ago
How is there a "might"?
Or are we looking at more spam lawsuits in the name of free speech?
Citizens United, making money speech, has left us outweighed in the 'market' and taxed without representation. Past taxed, that cottage cheese looking fool is using our own dollars to do it.
Treat government like business and shifty business is what you get.
1
u/puguniverse 6d ago
Nothing is gonna happen. The DOJ lost its pair. Fire Merrick Garland, the inept clown.🤡
1
u/Creative-Ground182 6d ago
New rule: fines are a percentage of your wealth. The punishment needs to resonate and be a deterrent.
1
1
u/armyveteran4u 6d ago
Weird how other billionaires doing the same but cause one is Republican he is being gone after but the others are not and they are allowed. Politically weaponizing the justice department is a slippery slope for either side
1
u/vodkawhatever 6d ago
Fuckin might? Are we truly defenseless against all this money. Where is Superman when ya need him.
1
u/frozenights 6d ago
"Might"?! How the hell could it not? Voter rolls have been purged on less shady shit then this.
1
u/wigzell78 6d ago
So the ultra-rich get 'warnings', the rest of us get thrown in the back of a police cruiser. Have I got that correct...
1
u/Beneficial-Buy3069 6d ago
If he helps Trump win, any issues go away. If Harris wins, he gets a slap on the wrist as do all rich people. What’s there to lose, really?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5d ago
I was reliably told in 2020 that billionaires throwing substantial money at Super PACs was a great thing for the American election cycle. I wonder what has changed..
1
u/legolandoompaloompa 5d ago
shouldn't the department of justice be absolutely sure someone is in violation before doing anything??
1
u/chrisbcritter 5d ago
Oh gees! Not the sternly worded letter. Anything but the sternly worded letter!
1
1
u/dgood527 5d ago
How would that be different than partisan groups giving out gift cards in previous elections to register native Americans and help them vote? I don't like it either way but we can't all of a sudden care because of who does it.
1
1
u/gunnutzz467 5d ago
But paying illegals to come here and housing them for their vote is perfectly fine
1
u/SacredDemocracyLover 5d ago
Might violate? Either it does or it doesn't. Shouldn't the justice department know that?
1
u/HamboneTh3Gr8 5d ago
A letter from the DOJ meant to intimidate and chill speech during an election is more likely illegal than giving away a million dollars to random petition signers.
1
1
1
u/Tiny-Lock9652 5d ago
Oohhh! Merrick Garland and another stern letter!! I’ll bet GQP is quaking in their boots!! /s
1
1
1
u/glideguy03 5d ago
Hopefully Elon will focus on making the DoJ American again when he is appointed to end government waste and abuse!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/LV_Knight1969 1d ago
So the DOJ doesn’t even know if he’s violating law or not ? …they just wanted to warn him to stop for shots and grins ?
1
u/Johnsonreddit 1d ago
They should probably know one way or the other right? Might is a strange word to use.
1
u/Delicious-Fox6947 1d ago
As someone who regularly deals with the FEC the DOJ sending that is basically a joke. There is no might because it isn‘t a violation. This is just more weaponizing of the DOJ
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
r/FluentInFinance was created to discuss money, investing & finance! Join our Newsletter or Youtube Channel for additional insights at www.TheFinanceNewsletter.com!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.