A Look at The Many State Felonies Elon Musk Seemingly Committed to Elect Trump
What he said in public. What his lawyers said under oath. What the law in four states calls it.
Written by: Christopher Armitage
In the closing weeks of the 2024 election, Musk spent roughly $290 million on Trump’s behalf, a figure documented in Federal Election Commission filings. About a quarter billion of that went through America PAC, the super PAC he founded in May 2024. Another $20.5 million ran through a vehicle called RBG PAC, funded by his revocable trust and structured to hide his connection until after the votes were counted. More than $50 million of the America PAC money paid for a giveaway program: a million dollars a day to one signer of an online petition, with the petition restricted to registered voters in seven swing states. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina. No other states eligible. More than a million people signed. The first three winners came from Pennsylvania in the days leading up to its October 21 voter registration deadline. Musk personally announced the winners at public events, holding cardboard checks the size of a person.
He told the public, in his own words, that the selection was random.
On October 5, 2024, at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, Musk told the crowd: “President Trump must win to preserve the Constitution. He must win to preserve democracy in America.” Two weeks later, on October 19, at a Harrisburg town hall with Trump’s campaign, he announced the giveaway program: “We’re going to be awarding a million dollars randomly to people who have signed the petition every day from now until the election.” That same day, he posted on X to his then-200 million followers that the prize would be “randomly” awarded. The next day, October 20, he posted again that signers had “a daily chance of winning $1M!”
Random. Daily chance. Sweepstakes language. The kind of language that, if accurate, describes a lottery.
Sixteen days after Musk first used the word “randomly,” his lawyers told a Pennsylvania state court, under oath, the opposite.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner had filed against Musk and America PAC on October 28, 2024, seven days before the election, in Krasner v. Musk, case number 241003509 in Philadelphia’s main trial court. The civil filing was the move available on that timeline. Criminal charges require grand jury work that cannot happen in a week. What was not available in those seven days has been available in the eighteen months since.
The Many State Felonies Elon Committed to Elect Trump.
What he said in public. What his lawyers said under oath. What the law in four states calls it.
The hearing was on November 4, 2024, the day before the election. Judge Angelo Foglietta presided. The PAC put two witnesses on the stand. Christopher Gober, the PAC’s lawyer and former treasurer, and Christopher Young, its executive director and current treasurer.
Gober’s words on the record: “There is no prize to be won. The $1 million recipients are not chosen by chance. We know exactly who will be announced as the $1 million recipient today and tomorrow.”
Young testified that he personally vetted the recipients ahead of time, that the petition functioned “like a job application,” and that signers were screened for political alignment with the PAC’s mission before they could be selected. He confirmed that recipients signed nondisclosure agreements about how they were actually chosen. Asked about Musk’s use of the word “randomly,” Young conceded that it was “not the word I would have selected.” The judge denied Krasner’s preliminary injunction the same day on narrow Pennsylvania-lottery-law grounds, finding that because the recipients were preselected, the giveaway technically did not meet the legal definition of an illegal lottery.
The civil filing produced the evidentiary record any future prosecutor inherits. Gober’s admission, on the record, that the recipients of more than $50 million in payments were preselected, while Musk was simultaneously telling 200 million people the recipients were random. That record has been on Krasner’s own docket for eighteen months. The criminal investigation he announced remains open. No charges have been filed. A person without Musk’s resources who paid even a single voter twenty dollars to vote a particular way could be charged under 25 P.S. § 3539, Pennsylvania’s vote-buying statute, and would face up to seven years in prison. A person caught selling drugs on a Philadelphia street corner with less evidentiary documentation than what is on the Krasner v. Musk docket would be in the back of a squad car the same day. The asymmetry is not about the strength of the case. It is about the identity of the defendant.
That brings us to the law.








