Yes, it's Illegal!

Elon Musk’s latest foray into American politics is as audacious as it is troubling. The world’s wealthiest man, having positioned himself as a kingmaker in the 2024 presidential race, has pledged to give away $1 million a day in a bid to galvanize support for Donald Trump. Framing this monetary outpouring as a defense of constitutional principles, Musk claims to be bolstering the First and Second Amendments. However, the problem with this strategy is not Musk’s rhetoric about freedom. Rather, it’s the glaring question: Is this even legal?

Under Section 10307(c) of Title 52 of the United States Code, it is a federal offense to "pay or offer to pay" any individual a "thing of value" for either registering to vote or voting. The law is explicit: "Knowing or willful violation" of this provision is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years and a fine not to exceed $250,000. Legal scholars and election law experts have already pointed to this statute in questioning the legality of Musk’s initiative. Rick Hasen, a political science professor at UCLA Law, has plainly stated that Musk’s actions cross this legal threshold. By linking a cash giveaway to a voter registration petition, Musk is playing with fire in a legal landscape that strictly prohibits such financial inducements.

This law was designed to safeguard the integrity of elections by preventing monetary influence over voter participation. Musk’s America PAC may not be directly handing out money for votes, but it is undeniably attaching financial rewards to voter-related activity. The statute does not distinguish between the direct act of voting and activities closely related to it, such as signing petitions that are conditioned upon voter registration. The question is not whether Musk's actions violate the spirit of the law—they clearly do—but whether they violate the letter of the law.

To understand the seriousness of such violations, consider a recent example. In 2017, a former Kentucky judge, Wendell T. Harris, was convicted under this very statute for orchestrating a vote-buying scheme. Harris, alongside others, paid individuals to vote in a local election, offering up to $25 per vote. The scheme was uncovered, and Harris was sentenced to probation, avoiding jail time, but the message was clear: elections cannot be bought. Similarly, in 2006, a Tennessee state senator named John Ford was sentenced to five years in prison for paying voters in his district. These cases illustrate the legal boundaries Musk is now pushing with his much more grandiose offer.

Of course, Musk’s team insists their initiative is aboveboard, banking on the claim that the media frenzy only proves their cause is righteous. But this defense is reminiscent of the old saw: “The louder the defense, the weaker the case.” In Musk’s self-styled defense of liberty, one finds more grandstanding than legal grounding. Legal experts are already weighing in, and the federal government may have no choice but to intervene if these actions continue unchecked.

That influence, to be clear, is no trifling matter. With a personal fortune of over $240 billion, Musk can afford to engage in such grandiose experiments. Yet wealth, while it may buy yachts and rockets, cannot, or rather, should not, buy elections. The notion that one man could so nakedly throw his wealth into shaping the political landscape, particularly with such legally dubious means, is a chilling reminder of the dangers of oligarchic power in a democratic system.

Some will argue that this is merely another manifestation of the capitalist spirit, a bold entrepreneur playing by his own rules in an effort to disrupt the status quo. That defense, however, rings hollow when we are dealing with the foundation of representative government. If we allow the Elon Musks of the world to rewrite the rules of political engagement, where does it end? If the fabric of our democracy can be manipulated by sheer financial force, the idea of equality at the ballot box begins to crumble.

Musk’s motivations, it should be noted, are not entirely ideological. He is a businessman, and like all businessmen, he has a keen eye for self-interest. His public alliance with Trump is, at least in part, a strategic gambit to align with a candidate who favors deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. Musk, who controls vast industries ranging from electric vehicles to space exploration, stands to benefit from a political climate that reduces government oversight. So, while his rhetoric may invoke the Constitution, his actions suggest something more transactional: a business titan looking to invest in a political future that is advantageous to his bottom line.

Whether or not Musk’s million-dollar giveaways are ever deemed illegal, the larger issue at stake is the erosion of democratic norms. This isn’t just about a billionaire skirting election laws; it’s about the dangerous precedent that such acts could set. When participation in the electoral process becomes tied to financial reward, the essential equality of citizens in a democracy is compromised. Elections become distorted, not by the will of the people, but by the economic leverage of the few. If these actions go unchallenged, future elections may be shaped more by monetary incentives than by genuine voter engagement.

At the heart of this issue lies a simple truth: democracy is not for sale. And those who believe they can buy it would do well to remember that the price of liberty is far greater than they can afford.