Recently, a Pennsylvania judge decided to suspend a lawsuit against tech giant Elon Musk, involving Musk's high bonuses to voters in key swing states before the presidential election. Musk himself did not attend the hearing on October 31, but requested through his lawyer to transfer the case to the federal court. Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner accused Musk of "illegal lottery" and believed that this move may have an improper impact on voters.

Case background: million-dollar bonus and "illegal lottery" allegations

The trigger for this lawsuit was a campaign launched by the "American Political Action Committee" (America PAC) founded by Musk, which planned to offer a million-dollar bonus to registered voters in key states every day. Prosecutor Krasner filed a lawsuit on October 28, arguing that the campaign was suspected of illegally inducing voter behavior by offering bonuses to attract voter participation, and may use voters' personal information. Krasner believes that this behavior not only touches the bottom line of election fairness, but also violates the lottery rules in state law.

Judge Angelo Foglietta held an emergency hearing in Philadelphia that day, allowing both parties to make preliminary arguments on their positions in the case. Although Krasner believed that Musk should attend in person, Musk's lawyer Matthew Haverstick pointed out that Musk was busy and could not attend the hearing in a short time. Haverstick further stated that the American Political Action Committee should be the only defendant, not Musk himself.

Considerations for the transfer of the case to the federal court

After the hearing, Judge Foglietta decided to suspend the case and wait for further rulings on whether the federal court will take over the case. He pointed out that although Musk should have attended the hearing, no further punitive measures will be taken for his absence. The case has now been transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Federal District Court, where federal judge Gerald Pappert will take over the trial. Pappert served as Pennsylvania Attorney General, is a member of the Republican Party, and was nominated as a federal judge by then-President Obama. Although the case entered the federal court, Pappert has not immediately scheduled the next hearing.

Krasner's legal team tried to keep the case in state court, arguing that the case involved state law and should be heard in a local court in Pennsylvania. Krasner's lawyer John Summers told reporters outside the court that they would try their best to return the case to the state court because the main dispute in the case was related to state law, especially the provisions of lottery and election laws.

Legal boundaries between free speech and election influence

Musk's side emphasized in the documents submitted to the court that the case involved issues of free speech and voting rights, and believed that these issues were more suitable for federal courts. Musk believes that the event does not constitute an "illegal lottery" but a manifestation of "free speech" and falls within the scope of federal constitutional protection. Musk said that the event is a support for election activities, aimed at motivating voters to participate, rather than directly affecting voters' voting choices.

On October 19, Musk personally handed a $1 million check to a voter at a campaign event in Pennsylvania, which was seen as a signal to start the event. As a move to support the former president and other Republican candidates, the American Political Action Committee plans to continue until the eve of the November 5 election and will conduct a random lottery every day. This activity has caused extensive discussion in the legal community. Some legal experts believe that this activity may be in the gray area of election law and there are potential legal risks.

Gray Area of Election Law: Legal Disputes over Paying Voters Bonuses

US election law explicitly prohibits paying voters directly to encourage them to vote, but does not make specific provisions for encouraging voting through lotteries or bonuses. Krasner believes that this move has exceeded the legal boundaries and constitutes an "illegal lottery" that may affect voter behavior. Musk insists on the legality of the activity, believing that it did not directly ask voters to vote, but attracted attention through lotteries, which is a legal way of campaigning.

Dmitry Peskov also expressed his position on this bonus activity in an interview with the media. He pointed out that "elections should be based on fair and legal principles" and expressed concern about Musk's behavior. Peskov emphasized that as a major democratic country in the world, the United States should influence voters in a fair way, rather than inducing their voting behavior through bonuses. This statement has triggered extensive discussions on election manipulation and the scope of application of election laws.

Case Outlook and Possible Legal Impact

The current focus of the case is whether the bonus activities touch the boundaries of election law and whether they have illegal inducement elements. Musk's bonus activities carried out through the US Political Action Committee are considered to have obvious political colors, and this behavior may have a complex psychological impact on voter behavior. If the court supports Musk's view in the future, it may further establish the legality of "lottery-style" incentives; if it supports Krasner's view, it will set new norms for the scope of application of election law.

The outcome of this case may have a far-reaching impact on future election activities. Regardless of whether the case continues to be heard in federal court, its ruling will set an important legal precedent for the behavior of other political action organizations and public figures in election activities.