That was the claim in a new lawsuit filed on Tuesday. It claims that Musk and his super PAC, America PAC, owe canvassers who supported his pro-Trump political operation for the 2024 election cycle. Our anonymous plaintiff says he’s due $20,000 for circulating petition signatures in Pennsylvania. He claims this as inspiration for joining the campaign, that because Musk believed in him it empowered him to start doing something real.
Details of the Lawsuit and Alleged Non-Payment
The complaint in the lawsuit details egregious instances of systemic non-payment. That means that there are likely at least another 100 victims who have been harmed by Musk’s alleged breach of contract. These allegations allege that canvassers were hired to further bad petitions supporting free speech and gun rights. America PAC sweetened the deal with a financial incentive, offering $100 to participants for each signature gathered from registered voters in targeted, high-stakes battleground states.
Moreover, canvassers could pocket an extra $100 for each additional voter they persuaded to sign. Specifically, this incentive structure was intended to mobilize conservative voters and strengthen support for now-candidate Donald Trump.
America PAC’s cash for folks is raising eyebrows about whether it’s even legal. The Justice Department sent out cease-and-desist letters in October concerning the organization’s $1 million sweepstakes targeting registered voters. Andrew Romeo, a spokesman for America PAC, said the group did nothing illegal. He seemed taken aback, perhaps even offended, when challenged on his handling of the lawsuit.
“America PAC is committed to paying for every legitimate petition signature, which is evidenced by the fact that we have paid tens of millions of dollars to canvassers for their hard work in support of our mission,” – Andrew Romeo
The Philadelphia district attorney, also a Democrat, claimed victory after fighting to end the daily intravenous state-sponsored lottery in state court. Sadly, those efforts fell short. Throughout the 2024 campaign, Musk and his super PAC loudly and unequivocally insisted that their cash giveaways did not break federal laws prohibiting vote-buying. Furthermore, they claimed that their conduct didn’t function as an unlawful state lottery.
The implications of this ongoing dispute underscore the contentious, partisan culture of the campaign financing debate. It illustrates just how desperate the media and political parties are to spread panic for mobilization purposes. Because the plaintiff feared retaliation, he decided to bring the lawsuit anonymously. This unfortunate decision underscores the daunting dangers to which Americans are subjected when they choose to engage in political campaigns.
Author’s Opinion
This lawsuit brings into question not only the legality of certain political campaign practices but also highlights the troubling ways in which financial incentives can potentially manipulate the democratic process. As these issues continue to surface, it’s crucial that legal frameworks evolve to better handle the complexities of modern campaigning and financial influence.
