Elon Musk and his Republican political action committee, America PAC, may be celebrating their contribution to Donald Trump’s extraordinary political comeback, yet a class-action lawsuit filed Tuesday in a Texas federal court claims one of their election tactics wasn’t above board.
The suit accuses Musk and America PAC of fraud and breach of contract concerning their “election lottery,” in which a Musk lawyer admitted winners weren’t selected at random.
Beginning in late October, the America PAC campaign started awarding $1 million to one voter from a key swing state each day. The PAC stated winners would be chosen randomly from those who signed its petition supporting free speech and gun rights. However, Musk and America PAC maintained it was merely an initiative to encourage more voter registration in battleground states, affirming that winners didn’t have to vote for Trump to be eligible.
On October 23, the Department of Justice warned America PAC that it might be violating the law, specifically an offense described as “pay or offer to pay or accept payment either for registration to vote or for voting,” which could lead to up to five years in prison.
The Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Office sued Musk and America PAC last week, accusing them of election fraud and operating an illegal lottery, demanding the court terminate the campaign in that state. On Monday, Judge Angelo Foglietta refused to halt the scheme, though Musk’s lawyer conceded that winners were carefully selected based on their “suitability” to represent America PAC. “The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance,” said attorney Gober. “We know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow. There is no prize to be won. Instead, recipients must fulfill contractual obligations to serve as a spokesperson for the PAC.”
The fresh class action was brought by Arizona resident Jacqueline McAferty, who signed the America PAC petition believing she had a chance at the prize. “Had Plaintiff been aware that she had no chance of receiving $1,000,000, she would not have signed or supported the America PAC petition and would not have provided her [personal data] to Defendants,” the filing reads. “Her signature/support, as well as her [personal data], were given as valuable consideration for a chance to receive the $1,000,000.”
Additionally, the lawsuit criticizes that the petition “places no limitations on America PAC’s use of or sale of the personal data it collects, nor does it provide any additional information about the planned use of data.”
