Billionaire Elon Musk is facing mounting questions about the legality of his latest effort to help Donald Trump win the presidential election: a promise to give away $1 million every day to registered voters in key battleground states.
The controversial giveaway, announced over the weekend, is being organized through America PAC, the political action committee Musk created to support Trump's return to the White House.
With Election Day just two weeks away, legal experts are questioning whether the arrangement violates federal laws prohibiting financial incentives for voter registration.
A Million Dollars a Day Until Election Day
Musk announced Saturday that America PAC would award $1 million daily to a registered voter who signs its online petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.
The promotion is limited to voters in seven battleground states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Musk personally presented the first million-dollar check during a political event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on Saturday. Another recipient was announced Sunday in Pittsburgh.
The giveaway is scheduled to continue through the November 5 election.
America PAC had already been offering financial incentives for collecting petition signatures, including payments for referrals from registered voters.
But the new million-dollar prizes have attracted considerably greater scrutiny.
Is Musk Violating Federal Election Law?
Federal law prohibits paying or offering to pay someone to register to vote or cast a ballot.
Violations can carry penalties of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The legal controversy centers on a critical detail: only registered voters are eligible for Musk's giveaway.
UCLA election law professor Richard Hasen argues that the arrangement violates federal law because it effectively offers financial rewards tied to voter registration.
Other legal experts have raised similar concerns, warning that requiring voter registration to participate in a lucrative lottery could amount to an unlawful financial inducement.
However, not everyone agrees.
Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, has argued that the promotion may be lawful because participants are being rewarded for signing a petition rather than registering or voting.
Musk has defended the giveaway on similar grounds, emphasizing that participants are not required to vote for any particular candidate.
Whether the promotion crosses the legal boundary remains unresolved.
Musk Has Already Spent Tens of Millions Helping Trump
The giveaway is only the latest example of Musk's growing involvement in Trump's presidential campaign.
Federal campaign finance disclosures show that Musk contributed approximately $75 million to America PAC between July and September.
The organization has spent heavily on voter outreach, advertising, and efforts to mobilize voters in competitive states.
Musk, who owns Tesla, SpaceX, and the social media platform X, has also used his enormous online audience to promote Trump and criticize Vice President Kamala Harris.
His involvement illustrates the extraordinary financial resources wealthy individuals can deploy through political action committees.
Although federal law limits direct contributions to candidates, super PACs can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political activities.
Trump Says He Doesn't Know the Details
Asked Sunday about Musk's million-dollar giveaway, Trump said he had not closely followed the promotion.
He nevertheless praised Musk, describing him as a friend and an important supporter.
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, meanwhile, expressed concern about the arrangement and suggested law enforcement should examine its legality.
The controversy comes as Pennsylvania and Michigan reach their voter registration deadlines Monday, making the timing of Musk's offer particularly significant.
When Political Influence Comes With a Million-Dollar Prize
There is nothing inherently illegal about a wealthy individual supporting a presidential candidate or financing political advertising.
There is also no general prohibition against paying someone to sign a petition.
But federal election law draws a distinction when money is offered in connection with registering to vote or voting itself.
That distinction is now at the center of Musk's million-dollar promotion.
Critics argue that the arrangement risks turning voter participation into a financial contest, while supporters maintain that it is a lawful effort to promote constitutional rights.
For Trump, the giveaway provides another high-profile boost from one of the wealthiest and most influential figures in the country.
For election officials and legal experts, it raises a more consequential question: How far can billionaire political donors go in offering financial incentives to voters before crossing the line established by federal election law?
With Election Day approaching, that question remains unanswered.