I am curious, are you thinking of picking up a tesla to give Elon a bit of support?
No, I will not be buying a Tesla.
Everyone and their brother owns one.
This (I hope it’s not geolocked) is quite interesting:
Tl;dr: since Musk acquired Twitter the algorithm has pushed pro-Trump material.
Surprised? Nope.
1 Like
As frustrating as this is it seems another example of buying votes that seems to be routine. Mr. Trump promises it with benefits somehow miraculously bought with “lower taxes” incurring debt. Ms. Harris with money for first time home buyers and those who will start small businesses. The whole enterprise is rotten and must continue until enough individuals start to reject it.
Sweet mother of God, where do they get these lawyers? “Randomly” is not the same as “by chance.” A $1million giveaway is not a “prize,” it is a “salary.”
Who knew?
Musk lawyer says his $1m giveaway is NOT a lottery. “There is no prize to be won” and winners “are not chosen at random,” Musk lawyer Chris Gober said.
Instead, the $1m is a salary they “earn” to be a spokesperson for Musk’s pro-Trump super PAC. Winners are picked based on their “suitability to serve” and their personal story, Gober said.
In response, Philly DA team called this a “complete admission of liability” that Musk is running an illegal lottery under PA law.
Remember: When Musk announced the giveaway… in PA nonetheless… he said, “we are going to be awarding $1 million randomly.” DA showed this in court to the judge.
Gober argued there’s a difference between “randomly” and “by chance,” which is why he argued that this isn’t an illegal lottery under PA gaming laws.
1 Like
This is a transparent case of the lawyers knowing their client is fucked; and either not being willing to tell the client so, or saying so and being ignored; then being told to put on their asbestos pants (English or American version: it really doesn’t matter); and get into court and say something.
Even a true lottery can impose some obligations on the winners. The Colorado lottery, for example, requires big winners to agree to be interviewed, their names are made public, and a bit more.
Colorado Lottery | Claiming Prizes.
So, Musk should not be able to get out of the “it’s a lottery” problem by saying that winners must perform a few simple PR functions. Plus, of course, no one can seriously believe that the winners of Musk’s scheme are actually performing a $million worth of services.
1 Like
Got to hand it to these lawyers, laws around lotteries are notoriously strict and complicated.
So kudos to coming up with an argument that musk didn’t violate lottery laws. I guess the only downside is that they are saying musk just violated other laws. I guess that is a minor downside here.
But did Musk’s giveaway have terms like that attached to it (I genuinely don’t know)? It can’t be easy to impose them on winners after the event.
Here is what Musk said:
Not mentioning this is a salary.
Sounds like a gem. His big law experience? Two years at Fish & Richardson - mainly known for patent/IP work, not political law.
Although the firm’s website is no longer accessible, a version saved in July 2024 reflects that the firm was founded by attorney Chris Gober, who has previously represented conservative luminaries like Sen. Ted Cruz and podcaster Ben Shapiro. Indeed, Gober’s biography touts his “dozens” of wins before the FEC; his lead role in drawing Texas’ new congressional maps following the 2020 census; his prior, senior legal roles at the Republican National Committee and its Senate-specific arm, the National Republican Senatorial Committee; and a client base of “dozens of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, governors, and state attorneys general across the country.” And it mentions that Gober has connections to two Supreme Court Justices: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, whom he helped prepare for their confirmation hearings.
So is Chris Gober the legal mastermind behind Musk’s massive checks? Veteran political journalist Tom LoBianco, writing for his own Substack, said the DOJ’s letter was indeed sent to Gober Monday and that while it “did not specify any immediate legal action … it did spell out the penalties for breaking U.S. voting laws, including possible imprisonment of up to five years.”
1 Like
Musk included the diversity jurisdiction argument in his earlier removal petition and the federal judge rejected it. See pp.4-5:
I don’t know the details of what is required of winners. The answer might be on Musk’s PAC website, but I’d rather not get on that list. I get way too much political stuff already.
I was just going off of what was quoted above re: Musk’s theory of defense. My thought was that even if some minimal PR work — like sitting for a photo — is required of winners, that does not distinguish it from a lottery. State lotteries often impose some publicity requirements on winners. There is a lawyer in Florida who has a specialty in helping lottery winners use things like LLCs to try (no idea of his success) to get around those requirements.
I don’t think Musk’s legal team has to win, they just have to delay any final decisions until after the election.
Whatever the decision is after Nov 5, it won’t really matter and the actual goal will have been achieved.
1 Like
The judge just refused to stop Elon from giving away $1M per day to people that had signed the petition.
Elon’s lawyer said that the winner is not chosen by chance. The next two winners will be in Arizona and Michigan, so Pennsylvania law will not be affected. He also said that this is “core political speech”.
And the judge has denied an injunction anyhow. It’s hard to get an injunction, especially when the defendant can argue it is engaged in First Amendment activity.
Plus, the lottery/sweepstakes angle seemed like fairly weak sauce. That’s slap on the wrist stuff, in a civil case. A criminal case based on a theory of paying people to register would threaten more serious consequences, but only well into the future and there are all sorts of reasons that such a case might never happen.
I’ll give Musk this much: it’s not every client who will let you assert as a key defense that the client was lying. It’s not a lottery because I lied when I said winners were chosen at random.
I thought the illegal lottery angle was perhaps a stretch.
While it instead sounds like fraud on its face, I don’t know the fine print. It does sound like anyone who signed up signed some form of NDA, probably a part of the fine print.
To me, it makes Musk just look slimy. But when you have his money and influence, a lot of people will overlook that. Or more so, people overlook this kind of behavior when it benefits their team.
Reminds me of Tucker Carlson’s attorney’s defense against allegations of slander, which amounted to, no reasonable viewer would think Carlson’s speech is factual, so there can be no claim of slander.
News flash, lawyers say a lot of shit that just isn’t so.
1 Like