In a recent legal battle, a Pennsylvania judge declined to halt Elon Musk’s daily $1 million giveaway, dismissing a lawsuit brought by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner. This decision means Musk can continue his financial pledge aimed at encouraging Americans to support the U.S. Constitution ahead of the upcoming November election. Krasner, a District Attorney backed by billionaire George Soros, has faced scrutiny for focusing on Musk’s campaign rather than addressing rising crime in Philadelphia.
The background of this case traces back to an October rally in Pennsylvania, where Musk announced he would give away $1 million daily until Election Day, Nov. 5. At that rally, Musk presented John Dreher, a supporter of Musk’s initiative, with the first $1 million check.
Musk’s giveaway is awarded to those who sign a petition he organized to promote support for constitutional principles. But DA Krasner alleges that this act crosses the line from charitable giveaway to election interference.
In a statement, Krasner’s office claimed Musk’s giveaway interferes with the integrity of the election. The District Attorney argues that offering money in the lead-up to an election, particularly through what he described as an “illegal lottery,” could skew voters’ actions. Krasner emphasized that as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, he is responsible for protecting the public from unfair trade practices and preserving election integrity, two duties his office cited in their filing.
“The Philadelphia DA is charged with protecting the public from public nuisances and unfair trade practices, including illegal lotteries. The DA is also charged with protecting the public from interference with the integrity of elections,” read Krasner’s statement.
This argument points to Pennsylvania laws on voter influence and questions whether Musk’s giveaway could be perceived as an undue incentive during the election season. Krasner’s office emphasized that this filing was a civil action under state law, with potential for future criminal consideration depending on the court’s findings.
On Thursday, Pennsylvania state judge Angelo Foglietta ruled that he would not take immediate action to block Musk’s giveaway. Judge Foglietta decided to place the case on hold to allow a federal court to review whether it will assume jurisdiction over the lawsuit. This decision provides Musk the green light to continue his campaign as planned, at least until the federal court’s decision or after the Nov. 5 election.
Musk’s legal team argued that the giveaway, unlike a lottery, involves no purchase or payment requirement for eligibility and is part of his campaign to foster civic engagement. By framing the giveaway as a motivational tool for those who support constitutional principles, Musk’s team contends the initiative is legally sound. However, the broader implications of the case touch on the boundaries between philanthropy, civic campaigns, and potential election influence—a line Musk’s efforts may be testing.
Reuters, covering the story, highlighted the likely timeline, noting that any substantial action on the case would probably be delayed until after Election Day. This means Musk’s giveaway, regardless of legal challenges, is expected to reach its full 1-million-dollar-a-day promise. For Krasner, however, this delay in legal proceedings suggests a battle to regulate such high-profile campaigns could fall short in achieving a meaningful resolution before the election.
Krasner’s decision to prioritize Musk’s giveaway has invited criticism from political observers and Philadelphia residents. Some have pointed to escalating crime rates in Philadelphia, including increased incidents of violent carjackings and retail thefts, arguing that Krasner’s focus should be directed more on tackling these pressing issues. Detractors argue that Krasner’s focus on Musk’s giveaway rather than on combating Philadelphia’s crime challenges reflects misplaced priorities, particularly in a city grappling with high-profile crimes.
Critics have called Krasner’s actions an example of politically motivated legal action, one aimed at generating media attention rather than addressing Philadelphia’s criminal justice challenges. The DA’s critics argue that his office, benefiting from resources from high-profile donors like Soros, is targeting Musk because of his high-profile stance on issues that oppose Krasner’s political supporters. Musk himself has recently made public remarks that align with conservative views, including criticisms of urban crime management—a stance that further sets him at odds with Krasner.
As it stands, Musk’s daily giveaways will proceed until the November election, barring any last-minute court actions. Should a federal court choose to hear the case, Musk’s legal team could face a new set of challenges. However, the delay effectively means Musk’s plan will reach full realization by Election Day.
The outcome of this case could set a precedent for high-profile philanthropic initiatives and how they intersect with election laws. For Krasner, the lawsuit highlights his commitment to addressing potential election interference in the public eye, though it risks alienating Philadelphia residents concerned with safety and public order.
