• P_P
    link
    fedilink
    English
    104
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    THEN FUCKING ARREST HIM.

    Jesus. The rule of law is dead.

    • @Crankenstein
      link
      3029 days ago

      Maybe people will wake up to understand our system of “law and order” never was meant to serve people, only capital.

      • P_P
        link
        fedilink
        English
        129 days ago

        Excellent point, comrade.

    • @FlowVoid
      link
      English
      1229 days ago

      The Justice Department warned Elon Musk’s America PAC

      They can’t arrest a PAC.

        • @FlowVoid
          link
          English
          -1129 days ago

          The DoJ didn’t say that the board members are committing crimes.

          • @LavenderDay3544
            link
            2029 days ago

            Who the fuck do you think the PAC acts on behalf of? Fuck the legal fiction of corporate personhood and the limitation of liability. If they mess with politics at all, the law should be able to breach the corporate veil and shove a gavel up the asses of those running these PACs.

            • @FlowVoid
              link
              English
              1
              edit-2
              29 days ago

              The board is not collectively punished for the actions of a corporation. Prosecutors have to prove which individuals (if any) are criminally responsible, and often that’s more difficult than proving that the corporation is responsible.

              • @mycodesucks
                link
                729 days ago

                Exactly. If you can’t point to the EXACT person that’s responsible for the committing of a crime, you can’t do anything about the crime and have to let it go on without interruption. There’s literally no other choice. /s

                • @FlowVoid
                  link
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  29 days ago

                  Yes, that’s how prosecutions work.

                  When someone is murdered, they don’t put three people on trial and say “One of these must be the killer, but we can’t figure out who. So we’ll have to send them all to prison”.

                  But in this case, they do have another choice: prosecute the corporation instead of individuals.

              • vortic
                link
                229 days ago

                It’s so dumb that you’re getting downvoted for telling people the truth that they don’t want to hear. Of course you can’t just “prosecute the board”. Individually, they may or may not be complicit.

                It does seem that Musk could be seen as obviously complicit, though, since he is the one out there making the pitch. DOJ should be able to go after him, criminally, if the activity continues, right?

                • @FlowVoid
                  link
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  29 days ago

                  I don’t know.

                  If you posted on Lemmy, “Hey, America PAC is offering money to registered voters, go check it out!” then I think that would be protected speech. If so, it would be equally protected when Musk posts that on X.

                  America PAC is on the hook, not necessarily their shills.

      • masterofn001
        link
        fedilink
        529 days ago

        SovCits destroyed by this one simple trick:

        I am a PAC.

        I am invincible!

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart
      link
      1529 days ago

      Why don’t we seize his companies and most of his money?

      Give him a billion dollars and a yacht and exile him.

  • @_bcron_
    link
    English
    80
    edit-2
    29 days ago

    Pussyfooting about something is condoning it. It’s the justice department and they can’t make a binary yes/no conclusion on the legality of this? “We’re warning you that you may get in trouble” is a green light to continue, they said it themselves, it’s merely questionable, and Elon Musk has infinite resources to have a legal team spin it all back on the DOJ

    • @shalafi
      link
      English
      -329 days ago

      Can you make an argument that it’s illegal? Chapter and verse, what’s the law being violated?

      He holding a lottery for petition signers. A first-year law student could fight this.

      I’d seriously like to hear from you guys as to the violation here. May be some angle I don’t know about.

      • @Furbag
        link
        529 days ago

        Okay, I’ll make an argument. Here’s the law in question per another Lemmy user down below, seen it in several threads already:

        52 U.S.C. 10307©: “Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both…”

        Bold emphasis mine.

        Now, if this were just a lottery set up by Elon Musk for people who sign a petition, that’d be one thing, but this petition has prerequisites aside from just signing your name on the petition. First of all, it’s only for people who live in Pennsylvania. Second, you are only eligible to enter if you yourself register to vote or refer someone else in a battleground state to register to vote via a link as their sponsor.

        The statute above specifically states that both offers to pay or accepted payments in exchange for registering to vote is prohibited. So not only might Elon Musk be in trouble for offering the financial incentive, so too is anyone who accepted the reward money as a result of their participation. Musk is trying to get around this by making it a random draw, but the fact that they are only eligible when they meet the specific requirement of someone somewhere registering to vote, that should be cause for concern. It’s not a totally clear cut violation of the law, but it’s quite clearly against the spirit of the law which wants to discourage people from using financial incentives like the one Musk is offering to compel people to vote or register to vote.

        • @ReginaPhalange
          link
          629 days ago

          shall be fined not more than $10,000

          Ahh… the cost of doing business.

          • vortic
            link
            629 days ago

            … or imprisoned not more than 5 years …

            That said, your point isn’t wrong. $10,000 is nothing in this context. Criminal fines should be in direct proportion to a person’s income. Also, statutes, when they mention monetary value, should peg that value to invlation, income, or some other metric that scales with time. We have SOOOOO many laws on the books that use ridiculous numbers by modern standards but were reasonable at the time they were enacted.

            • @_bcron_
              link
              English
              428 days ago

              We have SOOOOO many laws on the books that use ridiculous numbers by modern standards

              I think the most egregious ones are thresholds for felony theft. A lot of states haven’t adjusted the thresholds in many decades. New Jersey for example, theft of something valued 200-500 bucks is a class 4 felony and 500-75000 is a class 3.

              So like, in that particular case, someone gets in a heated argument with their roommate who owes them money, takes their Playstation 5 as collateral, they might face the same charges as someone who breaks into a construction site and steals an entire trailer full of power tools

          • @Furbag
            link
            229 days ago

            I know, I rolled my eyes at that part too.

            I hope the judge presiding would realize that fining the richest man in the world $10,000 would be like fining me one cent for a parking ticket and expecting me to have learned my lesson. Jail time should absolutely be on the table all things considered.

  • Rhaedas
    link
    fedilink
    2629 days ago

    No lawyer, but so often you’ll see a judge discuss the intent of the law vs. the letter of the law and make judgement on that, sometimes helping to change the law in question. Here we have a case where the argument is that he isn’t paying someone to vote a certain way or even to vote, so it’s not technically breaking existing law. But we all see what’s going on, so the intent is clear.

    Nothing will happen to him mainly because of him being untouchable, plus the time frame. This just needs to serve as a lesson to act on for the future and get the laws caught up with the times, where absolutely the rich and powerful are influencing political direction in so many ways, and have been for a long time. It needs to stop.

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      2029 days ago

      It’s illegal to offer someone something of value, which explicitly includes lottery entries, in exchange for their being registered to vote.

      No idea why there’s a “may be” about any of this.

      • Rhaedas
        link
        fedilink
        329 days ago

        Could that depend on state law, since states control the actual election processes? I would think if it was universally written that clear then actual justice officials would be saying so.

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          129 days ago

          I wish I had the statute at hand. Maybe I saw it on a Glenn Kirschner video? I’ll try and look it up later, but I know for sure it is written down somewhere.

          • Rhaedas
            link
            fedilink
            529 days ago

            What gets me is how even if there isn’t a hard law, the response should be to cease the activities because they are such a gray area, not this vague “oh gee, this might be a problem maybe”.

            • Nougat
              link
              fedilink
              829 days ago

              Found it.

              https://electionlawblog.org/?p=146397

              52 U.S.C. 10307©: “Whoever knowingly or willfully gives false information as to his name, address or period of residence in the voting district for the purpose of establishing his eligibility to register or vote, or conspires with another individual for the purpose of encouraging his false registration to vote or illegal voting, or pays or offers to pay or accepts payment either for registration to vote or for voting shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both…”

              DOJ Election Crimes Manual at 44: “The bribe may be anything having monetary value, including cash, liquor, lottery chances, and welfare benefits such as food stamps. Garcia, 719 F.2d at 102. However, offering free rides to the polls or providing employees paid leave while they vote are not prohibited. United States v. Lewin, 467 F.2d 1132, 1136 (7th Cir. 1972). Such things are given to make it easier for people to vote, not to induce them to do so. This distinction is important. For an offer or a payment to violate Section 10307©, it must have been intended to induce or reward the voter for engaging in one or more acts necessary to cast a ballot.… Moreover, payments made for some purpose other than to induce or reward voting activity, such as remuneration for campaign work, do not violate this statute. See United States v. Canales 744 F.2d 413, 423 (5th Cir. 1984) (upholding conviction because jury justified in inferring that payments were for voting, not campaign work). Similarly, Section 10307© does not apply to payments made to signature-gatherers for voter registrations such individuals may obtain. However, such payments become actionable under Section 10307© if they are shared with the person being registered.”

              • Rhaedas
                link
                fedilink
                329 days ago

                You know what his loophole is? He’s not offering money TO vote or GET registered, he’s just making the terms of the lottery be that you have to BE registered. Again, it’s obvious, but by the letter I think it avoids this.

  • @psycho_driver
    link
    2329 days ago

    Elon’s banking on it not mattering in 3 months.

  • @mycodesucks
    link
    1529 days ago

    People joke about strongly worded letters…

  • NutWrench
    link
    fedilink
    1328 days ago

    And if Elmo does it again, he’ll get an even stronger warning.

    It must be nice to live a consequence-free life.

    • @auzy
      link
      328 days ago

      Investigations take time.

      Don’t be surprised if Elon is already under investigation in the background

    • @RapidcreekOP
      link
      1
      edit-2
      28 days ago

      Usually, if Musk’s PAC does not comply, the DOJ initiates an investigation phase. Gets a court order to preserve all documents and xoorspondence, etc.

      • n1ckn4m3
        link
        English
        228 days ago

        And we’ve seen that the DOJ is a real stand-up operation the last 8 years, haven’t we

          • n1ckn4m3
            link
            English
            128 days ago

            One unspoiled egg in a factory of spoiled eggs doesn’t instill in me much hope.

    • @RapidcreekOP
      link
      629 days ago

      Edited source and title to CNN

    • @LavenderDay3544
      link
      1029 days ago

      Citizens United and SpeechNow opened the door to this.

    • @shalafi
      link
      English
      -429 days ago

      Because it’s a lottery you enter when signing a petition. That’s it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1029 days ago

    If I did this they’d be beating me with a rubber hose on my front lawn. Why’s he get a “warning”?

    (I know why)

  • @dohpaz42
    link
    English
    629 days ago

    If I’m understanding correctly, this sounds like lip service and nothing more than a side-eye glare from the DOJ while muttering quietly, “Don’t. Stop. That’s ‘illegal’” in Musk’s general direction.

    They have as many teeth as the SEC has had when it comes to Musk’s “AlLEdgEd” shenanigans.

    🙄 🤦‍♂️

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      429 days ago

      So, here’s my test: someone without his clout do the exact same thing except with $100. If that person gets charged but Musk doesn’t, that tells you exactly why Musk will get away with it.