Kayden Green
Edited by Sahith Mocharla, Ananya Singh, Jia Lin, and Kira Small
Donald Trump is officially the United States president-elect, bolstered by an incoming unified Republican government and Supreme Court majority. A new America is on the horizon, with his victory signaling his ability to successfully subvert the various legal cases against him and those that target his supporters. Much of Trump’s pre-election support stemmed from influential celebrity endorsements as well as political action committees (PACs), non-governmental organizations, and lobbying efforts that funded and publicized his campaign trail [1]. To reach target demographics such as the “bro-vote” and young social media users, much of his campaign utilized non-traditional media platforms. Endorsements from influencers like popular podcaster Joe Rogan–who interviewed Trump–and Tiktoker Bryce Hall, who joined Trump on stage at his Las Vegas rally, played a significant role in reaching these voter demographics [2] [3].
Perhaps the most influential spokesperson for Trump’s campaign has been Elon Musk. After purchasing X (formerly Twitter), Musk transformed the platform; He further adjusted the algorithm following his formal endorsement of Trump. A working computational analysis has found that directly following Musk’s endorsement of Trump, X began promoting a Republican-leaning recommendation bias while the platform underwent algorithmic adjustments to enhance interactions with Musk’s own posts [4]. Musk endorsed Trump at his campaign rallies and on X, and founded the “America PAC” to publicize and fund Trump’s 2024 campaign [5]. America PAC is a pro-Trump super political action committee that spent over $171.9 Million on the 2024 federal election and utilizes X posts to support values such as secure borders, free speech, and self-protection [6] [7].
As part of Trump’s election effort, America PAC hosted a petition for signers to demonstrate their support of the First and Second Amendments of the constitution. The “Petition in Favor of Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms” ran from October 17th through Election Day for registered voters in swing states, collecting signatures in support of the constitution’s First and Second Amendments [8] [9]. Claiming to help spread the petition’s message, Elon Musk offered a daily lottery of $1 million daily to a random petition-signer and $47 per registered voter referred to the petition that signed [10] [11]. Musk promoted the petition on X and announced the daily million dollar winners through November 5th (excluding October 23rd), collecting petition signers’ first and last names, email, cell phone number, and mailing address data upon signing [12]. The winners are featured on America PAC’s website and X handle, garnering significant public and press attention and driving significant traffic to Musk’s platform X [13]. Significant backlash emerged following the petition’s announcement from federal employees, state governments, and petition signers, although Musk reaffirmed that the petition does not require signers to be from a particular political party, nor does it require them to vote [14].Various lawyers and government employees warned Musk and America PAC’s lawyers that this petition could be considered illegal as it is financially incentivizing voter registration and participation, pointing to similar cases like the Ben and Jerry’s free scoop and Krisy Kreme free donut promotions for showing an “I Voted” sticker on Election Day that were modified to include all customers instead of just voters [15]. Under federal voter law, providing payout to petition signers with the intention of influencing a presidential election is an illegal overstep. Petitions like America PAC and Musk’s created with the intention to influence electoral outcomes allows elite groups of wealthy people to commandeer elections and illegally influence critical election cycles. Quickly following the announcement of the petition giveaway, legal investigations and lawsuits roared. However, considering Musk’s close relationship to Donald Trump and his appointment to lead the “Department of Government Efficiency,” legal action against Musk’s election interference may never come to fruition, undermining the people’s right to free and fair elections and setting a precedent for the wealthy to exert a disproportionate influence over electoral outcomes [16]. A presidential pardon could excuse Musk’s election interference, and his appointment to Trump’s cabinet could stir internalized fear in those pursuing legal justice that may result in legal action never reaching court and ignorance by the American public towards future illegal electioneering. Whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and McAferty or Musk and America PAC prevail, a precedent will be set for financially incentivizing voters and the ability of political action committees to work alongside corporate entities like X to indirectly generate profits. As officials continue to examine these lawsuits, the race against the clock to Trump’s inauguration on January 20th begins.
Once America PAC’s petition was announced, The Department of Justice quickly launched an investigation looking into the petition’s legality under vote interference legislation. The department warned Musk a day after the petition was announced that the petition could be illegal under federal election voter laws. Federal election law states that it is illegal to offer to pay or willingly and knowingly pay for someone to register to vote [17]. The federal law states the government can prosecute any person or entity who “pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting,” which the Department of Justice confirmed includes lottery chances like the petition offers [18] [19]. Following the Department’s warning, Philadelphia District Attorney Lawrence Krasner sued America PAC and Musk on behalf of Pennsylvania for running an illegal lottery and issued an immediate injunction to stop the petition canvassers. Meanwhile, Arizona resident Jacqueline McAferty sued America PAC and Musk on behalf of herself and the other over 1 million petition signers for false statements regarding the petition’s one million dollar giveaway [20] [21]. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, acting through Krasner, is currently suing America PAC on the basis of consumer protection and state lottery law. When representatives from America PAC admitted in a hearing that the $1 million petition winners were predetermined and not randomly selected, they spawned an entirely different case under McAferty [22] [23].
However, America PAC and Musk’s lawyers may be able to exploit legal loopholes. Although the million-dollar offer and $47-100 referral payout are limited to registered voters in swing states, the petition focuses on garnering support for the First and Second Amendments without explicitly endorsing a candidate or requiring signers to vote. However, election interference charges could still be applicable, as the giveaway exclusively targets registered voters in swing states and provides financial incentives related to voter registration. The petition’s targeted demographic also closely aligns with that of Trump supporters, which could contribute to the illegality of the petition if it is perceived by court as a coordinated effort with Trump campaign–super PACs who are restricted from close collaboration and coordination with campaigns (with an exemption for door-to-door efforts) [24]. The legal basis against America PAC and Musk’s defense in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and McAferty cases, however, is much less uncertain. The vague language and undisclosed information allowing Musk and America PAC to exploit legal loopholes exemplifies the widespread and devastating deception the petition relied on to encourage pro-Trump swing state voter registration, collect sensitive personal data under false financial promises, and garner traffic for Musk’s X platform [25].
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. America PAC and Musk
Philadelphia District Attorney Krasner is suing America PAC and Musk on the basis of the financial incentives for the “Petition in Favor of Free Speech and the Right to Bear Arms” being unlawful under Pennsylvania state lottery law [26]. The petition is considered a lottery under the financial promise of a daily random chance for citizens of Pennsylvania and other swing states to submit their private identifying information and make a political pledge in exchange for the chance to be selected for $1 million [27]. However, Pennsylvania law states that all lotteries conducted within the state must be regulated, operated, and administered by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which America PAC’s petition is not [28]. Krasner states that illegal lotteries are considered a public nuisance and dangerous to those 65 and older due to the lack of regulations and disclosures [29]. The plaintiff claims that Musk’s vague and misleading statements regarding the petition–such as not disclosing if or how America PAC is protecting participants' private personal information–created purposeful misunderstandings [30]. Krasner cited violations of consumer protection law and running an illegal lottery as ample basis for an injunction of the lottery immediately before Election Day on November 5. Krasner also defended the urgency of shutting down the lottery entirely, arguing that the petition was clearly intended to influence voters in the presidential election, although his case clarifies that the legal dispute is not targeting the defense for “vote-buying”, but rather violations of state consumer protection and lottery law [31]. Deceiving consumers (in this case, petition signers) by failing to provide disclosures about the lottery rules and use of data as well as running an illegal lottery scheme without state oversight may have caused confusion or misunderstandings about the presidential election taking place. As Krasner argued, this served as ample basis for the petition’s injunction as continuation of the lottery would interfere with the public’s right to a free and fair election. He also argued that the petition violates consumer protection law due to how personal identifying data provided in the petition could be unknowingly sold to third parties and how the lottery has indirect intentions to benefit Musk’s platform X via increased traffic generated by America PAC [32]. Despite the argument that the petition violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, Judge Angelo Foglietta ruled the day before Election Day that the lottery and daily $1 million giveaways could continue [33]. Various online outlets, and Krasner, pointed out that it was perhaps too convenient that the early winners of the daily lottery just so happened to live near (and attend) Musk’s pro Trump rallies [34]. In response, America PAC and Musk’s defense revealed during the court hearing that the winners were not chosen at random, and rather the “chance for $1 million” was an opportunity to earn money as compensation if asked to become a spokesperson for America PAC, and did not function as a chance to win money nor a lottery [35]. However, the petition’s description of the giveaway includes no verbiage that, if selected, the recipient of the $1 million will work as a spokesperson for America PAC [36]. Petition signers only had Musk’s own public statements about the petition to rely on, in which he directly claimed that the first winner was chosen at random and congratulated him on “winning” the first $1 million [37]. The vague, misleading language surrounding the giveaway makes it clear that it intentionally preyed on individuals from swing states with hopes of financial gain to incentivize Republican-leaning persons to register to vote and commit to voting for Republican candidates in the 2024 election.
Krasner called the defense’s argument that the $1 million giveaway entry for signing the petition was a selective offer to work for America PAC “absurd,” and reaffirmed that this solidifies the petition’s intention to operate as political marketing for Trump and X rather than as support for the First and Second Amendments [38]. America PAC and Musk cannot defend their actions by claiming the petition is not an illegal lottery scheme simply because the winners were not randomly selected. This argument acknowledges their deception of petition signers, violating Pennsylvania consumer protection laws. Furthermore, it still constitutes a breach of Pennsylvania’s prohibition on lotteries operated outside state regulations [39]. Even if the million dollar giveaway was never intended to be a lottery, this further bolsters the Department of Justice’s warnings to Musk that the petition violates laws against financial incentives for voter registration (as the “winners” became spokespeople for America PAC and the petition), and reveals America PAC and Musk’s intention to vaguely disclose information around the giveaway to unlawfully influence election outcomes and generate traffic and data collection that directly benefits Musk financially.
McAferty v. Musk et al.
Following the defense’s admission of the $1 million giveaway winners being pre-selected during the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. America PAC and Musk hearing, McAferty filed a class action complaint on behalf of the petition signers in swing states against America PAC and Musk for fraud and breach of contract [40]. McAferty’s fraud and breach of contract claim is founded on Musk’s announcement of the giveaway, where he stated that him and America PAC will jointly “be awarding a million dollars, randomly, every day from now until the election,” with Musk adding that the giveaway would aid in publicizing America PAC’s petition, which subsequently would drive media attention to America PAC’s support of presidential candidate Donald Trump [41]. Musk claimed the first winner, who joined him on stage after the announcement and was present at Musk’s small pro-Trump rally, was unaware that he had been selected for the prize [42]. Musk proceeded to request that the winner serve as a spokesperson for the petition after being presented the $1 million check, to which the winner agreed live on stage [43]. The following day, the second winner of Musk’s “random” drawing for $1 million was in attendance that night’s America PAC event, raising legal skepticism about whether the giveaway was truly “random” as advertised [44]. When Musk and his lawyer admitted during the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. America PAC and Musk hearing that the sweepstakes winners were not chosen by chance and that they “know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow,” the statements of the defense indicating that individuals who signed the petition would be randomly chosen to win $1 million when the first petition winner was announced were proven false, admitting that they knew their statements about the giveaway being random were false when they were made [45]. These false statements were made with the intention of inducing individuals to sign the America PAC petition and increase traffic on Musk’s platform X, while fraudulently incentivizing individuals to give up their personal data for possible sale to third parties or use by X [46]. McAferty claims she signed the petition with the understanding provided by the statements by Musk and America PAC that she had a chance of receiving $1 million, and states she would not have provided her personal private information to the defendants had she been aware she had no chance of receiving the $1 million [47]. Disclosing personal private information to America PAC, the provision of a signature, and support of the petition were all considered in McAferty and the class’ decision to sign the petition under the guise of possibly being selected for the sweepstakes [48]. Her case alleges that America PAC and Musk profited from their deceptive marketing by potentially leveraging and/or selling her and the class's personal private information, while the misleading $1 million giveaway generated significant attention and traffic for Musk’s platform X and America PAC [49]. The substantial prize of $1 million, coupled with multiple chances to win, likely influenced most petition signers to place significant weight on their decision to participate, with signers considering the financial incentive of the falsely advertised giveaway when disclosing personal private information such as phone numbers, names, signatures, and email addresses. The petition signers suffered damages outside of the contract as a result of this deception when they gave up their personal private information to America PAC and X without being considered for the million dollar giveaway. McAferty filed her case November 5th and seeks trial by jury to determine if America PAC and Musk will be held accountable for their breach of contract and data collection [50]. The pursuit of this case to trial has substantial and imperative implications for the future role and ability of super-PACs to contribute to elections and candidates, and will set a critical precedent for limiting or legally expanding the ability of wealthy persons to contribute to political campaigns.
Implications of Trump’s Victory
The outcomes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and McAferty cases against America PAC and Musk’s petition will be some of the most influential modern decisions for election interference legislation, and will undeniably set a precedent for election cycles at every level. If America PAC and Musk are not charged for their illegal lottery in Pennsylvania, vote bribery, danger to consumers from providing vague and misleading information, or illegal use of data collection, wealthy upper class individuals will be empowered to pursue similar deceptive schemes. False claims and vague provisions pose extensive dangers to the American people’s right to free and fair elections, consumer protections, and personal data privacy, with the potential for these dangers to heighten if the upcoming presidential administration enacts Executive Orders or removes laws regulating the role of super-PACs in campaigns.
Each case is running the clock to come to a decision before January 20th when Donald Trump is sworn into office and Elon Musk is potentially appointed as head of the Department of Government Efficiency [51]. President-elect Donald Trump’s presence in office and the appointment of Musk may discourage the Department of Justice investigation of the petition’s intent to bribe votes, as well as persuade DA Krasner or plaintiff McAferty to settle or abandon their cases against Trump-supported Musk and America PAC in anticipation of losing a case to a justice system controlled by the defense or from media backlash. It is imperative that these cases and decisions are pursued with haste to prevent a preemptive settlement or loss, to reinforce the integrity of the American justice system, and to reaffirm and uphold its purpose to defend the law before protecting the interests of those in power.
The case decisions will set a precedent for future election interference. If Pennsylvania or McAferty prevail, it will safeguard citizens from attempts by the powerful and wealthy to manipulate elections through deceptive means that erode the democratic process on which America’s electoral system is founded. A ruling in their favor would prevent similar legal loopholes from occurring that jeopardize citizens’ data privacy while bolstering the American justice system’s integrity and voters’ trust in democratic governance. Musk has attempted to delay legal decisions surrounding the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. America PAC and Musk case by not showing up to the initial hearing when summoned. Similar behavior could continue to delay legislative outcomes until after January 20th, and may result in a different outcome once the cases are officially tried in court. Efficient trials with due process are of vital importance to ensure that these cases receive minimal influence from the November 2024 electoral outcomes and Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency appointment.
America PAC and Musk could receive presidential pardons from Trump if any lawsuits related to the petition resulted in fines or jail time on either party, with neither party facing any tangible consequences for the illegal lottery scheme. While this could lessen the wave of discredibility that would follow a ruling against America PAC and Musk and allow Musk to hold a federal office position, the legal precedent set by the rulings could still be critical to limiting future attempts by America PAC, Musk, or other wealthy campaign donor organizations and individuals from pursuing similar vote-bribery and exploitation of Americans. Local and state-level elections receive less media coverage and attention than presidential elections, and if the case rulings expand the power of super-PACs and the wealthy, this behavior could be even more influential in altering electoral outcomes and influencing voters in state and local arenas. With the expansion of discourse surrounding the influence held by the wealthy in elections, every American deserves to have their right to free and fair participation in elections upheld. As the expansion of the internet continues, it is becoming increasingly paramount for citizens to feel their information is personal, private, and protected [52]. The case(s) by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and McAferty against America PAC and Musk will inevitably shape the future of electioneering and interference; with their outcomes serving as early cues to the second Trump administration’s definition of America and role in protecting the people’s right to privacy, free and fair elections, and true information–and should therefore be regarded closely by her citizens.
[1] Trump, Donald J. - Candidate overview (no date) FEC.gov. Available at: https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P80001571/ (Accessed: 05 December 2024).
[2] (No date) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[3] (No date a) YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpcj0BRT31Q (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[4] (No date a) A computational analysis of potential algorithmic bias on platform X during the 2024 US Election | QUT eprints. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/253211/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[5] (No date a) America PAC. Available at: https://theamericapac.org/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[6] America PAC (Texas) outside spending (no date) OpenSecrets. Available at: https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/detail?cmte=C00879510 (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[7] (No date a) America PAC. Available at: https://theamericapac.org/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[8] (No date a) America PAC. Available at: https://petition.theamericapac.org/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[9] (No date a) Trump says he will tap musk to lead Government Efficiency Commission if elected | Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-adopt-musks-proposal-government-efficiency-commission-wsj-reports-2024-09-05/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[10] (No date a) America PAC. Available at: https://theamericapac.org/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[11] X.com (no date) X (formerly Twitter). Available at: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1848147035607998575 (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[12] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[13] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[14] X.com (no date) X (formerly Twitter). Available at: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1848147035607998575 (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[15] 6 (almost) scandals from Ben & Jerry’s history (2020) https://www.benjerry.com. Available at: https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2016/6-almost-scandals (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[16] (No date a) Trump says he will tap musk to lead Government Efficiency Commission if elected | Reuters. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-adopt-musks-proposal-government-efficiency-commission-wsj-reports-2024-09-05/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[17] (No date a) Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/23/doj-reportedly-warns-elon-musk-his-1-million-voter-giveaways-may-be-illegal/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[18] (No date a) Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/23/doj-reportedly-warns-elon-musk-his-1-million-voter-giveaways-may-be-illegal/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[19] (No date a) 52 USC 10307: Prohibited acts. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A52+section%3A10307+edition%3Aprelim%29 (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[20] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[21] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[22] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[23] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[24] (No date) 2024-01. Available at: https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2024-01/2024-01.pdf (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[25] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[26] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[27] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[28] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[29] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[30] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[31] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[32] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[33] Furman, A. (no date) Judge denies da Krasner’s BID TO STOP MUSK PAC’s million-Dollar voter giveaway, The Legal Intelligencer. Available at: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2024/11/04/judge-denies-da-krasners-bid-to-stop-musk-pacs-million-dollar-voter-giveaway/?slreturn=20241108194201 (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[34] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[35] Furman, A. (no date) Judge denies da Krasner’s BID TO STOP MUSK PAC’s million-Dollar voter giveaway, The Legal Intelligencer. Available at: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2024/11/04/judge-denies-da-krasners-bid-to-stop-musk-pacs-million-dollar-voter-giveaway/?slreturn=20241108194201 (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[36] (No date a) America PAC. Available at: https://petition.theamericapac.org/ (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[37] X.com (no date) X (formerly Twitter). Available at: https://x.com/america/status/1847851986495881434 (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[38] Furman, A. (no date) Judge denies da Krasner’s BID TO STOP MUSK PAC’s million-Dollar voter giveaway, The Legal Intelligencer. Available at: https://www.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/2024/11/04/judge-denies-da-krasners-bid-to-stop-musk-pacs-million-dollar-voter-giveaway/?slreturn=20241108194201 (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[39] (No date a) Courthousenews. Available at: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-lawrence-krasner-v-america-pac-elon-musk-election-giveaway-complaint.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[40] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[41] X.com (no date) X (formerly Twitter). Available at: https://x.com/america/status/1847851986495881434 (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[42] X.com (no date) X (formerly Twitter). Available at: https://x.com/america/status/1847851986495881434 (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[43] X.com (no date) X (formerly Twitter). Available at: https://x.com/america/status/1847851986495881434 (Accessed: 21 November 2024).
[44] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[45] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[46] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[47] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[48] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[49] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[50] (No date a) Case 1:24-cv-01346-RP document 1 filed 11/05/24 page ... Available at: https://www.abc6onyourside.com/resources/pdf/e0e67e6f-ed35-4727-b0d3-64997189440f-1.pdf (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[51] X.com (no date) X (formerly Twitter). Available at: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1848147035607998575 (Accessed: 20 November 2024).
[51] Influence of Big Money (2018) Brennan Center for Justice. Available at: https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/reform-money-politics/influence-big-money (Accessed: 05 December 2024).
Comments