Elon Musk Skips $1M Giveaway Hearing, Case Moved To Federal Court

Case Shift Sparks Controversy: Billionaire Elon Musk missed a high-stakes court hearing in Philadelphia on Thursday regarding his $1 million-a-day election sweepstakes, a case that has now shifted to federal court. The move came after Musk’s legal team filed a motion to transfer the case from Pennsylvania state court, a request that was granted shortly after the hearing began.

Judge Issues Warning Amid Musk’s Absence

Judge Angelo Foglietta expressed disappointment over Musk’s absence, noting that the tech mogul risked contempt of court for skipping the state hearing. However, Musk’s attorneys argued that he could not feasibly attend on short notice, as they were notified only the night before. Although Judge Foglietta declined to impose immediate sanctions, he remarked on Musk’s absence, prompting a humorous exchange.

“Counsel, he’s not going to get in a rocket ship and land on the building,” the judge quipped, easing tensions in the courtroom.

Attorney’s Defense: Federal Court as the Appropriate Venue

The defense argued that the Pennsylvania state court was an inappropriate venue, citing the federal implications of the lawsuit, which involves claims of election interference. They contended that Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner’s case was “disguised as state law claims” while allegedly targeting Musk’s federal political actions.

Krasner, a Democrat, accused Musk’s PAC of conducting an illegal lottery, noting that the sweepstakes disregards Pennsylvania’s laws against such lotteries. The lawsuit aims to halt Musk’s cash giveaways, which reportedly benefit Trump’s campaign in Pennsylvania, a critical swing state.

$1M Sweepstakes: Legal or Election Interference?

At the heart of the case is Musk’s “America PAC” sweepstakes, which has awarded 13 $1 million checks so far to voters in swing states who sign a petition supporting the Constitution. Krasner’s legal team argued the sweepstakes was “indisputably violating” state laws, raising concerns about transparency and fairness in how winners are selected.

“They’re doing things in the dark,” said John Summers, an attorney for the DA’s office. “We don’t know the rules being followed. We don’t know how they’re supposedly picking people at random. It’s an outrage.”

Musk’s attorneys insist that the sweepstakes represents lawful political spending and free speech, and Musk has shared photos of winners holding novelty checks on social media.

Implications for Election Law and Voter Integrity

This lawsuit raises questions about potential election interference, with election law experts debating whether Musk’s prize giveaway violates federal laws against compensating people to vote. Although Musk describes the cash as a prize for participants’ endorsement of the Constitution, DA Krasner suggested that criminal charges might still be on the table to preserve election integrity.