278
submitted 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 16 points 6 hours ago

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

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago

'may' be?. try is

[-] PortoPeople@lemm.ee 92 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

THEN FUCKING ARREST HIM.

Jesus. The rule of law is dead.

[-] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 23 points 9 hours ago

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

[-] PortoPeople@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago

Excellent point, comrade.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 11 points 11 hours ago

The Justice Department warned Elon Musk’s America PAC

They can't arrest a PAC.

[-] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 18 points 10 hours ago

They can arrest its board.

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 hours ago

SovCits destroyed by this one simple trick:

I am a PAC.

I am invincible!

[-] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago

People joke about strongly worded letters...

[-] _bcron_@lemmy.world 71 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours 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

[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 27 points 13 hours ago

I wish what they'd say is, "we will prosecute this and a jury will decide."

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world -3 points 10 hours 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@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours 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@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

shall be fined not more than $10,000

Ahh.... the cost of doing business.

[-] Vorticity@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours 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_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour 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@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours 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.

[-] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 94 points 15 hours ago

Can we revoke his government contracts now?

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 11 points 9 hours ago

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

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

[-] zephorah@lemm.ee 10 points 11 hours ago

May? How is it not a bribe?

[-] LavenderDay3544@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago

Citizens United and SpeechNow opened the door to this.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world -2 points 10 hours ago

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

[-] Linktank@lemmy.today 23 points 14 hours ago

May be? Are they not sure? Aren't they the guys who should know for sure?

[-] zipzoopaboop@lemmynsfw.com 7 points 11 hours ago

He knows. Fucking do something about it

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 24 points 14 hours 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@fedia.io 18 points 13 hours 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@fedia.io 3 points 13 hours 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@fedia.io 1 points 13 hours 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@fedia.io 4 points 13 hours 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@fedia.io 7 points 13 hours ago

Found it.

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

52 U.S.C. 10307(c): “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(c), 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(c) does not apply to payments made to signature-gatherers for voter registrations such individuals may obtain. However, such payments become actionable under Section 10307(c) if they are shared with the person being registered.”

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 4 points 13 hours 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.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 9 points 13 hours 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)

[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago

Edited source and title to CNN

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours 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.

🙄 🤦‍♂️

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 13 hours 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.

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

#IS illegal*, you yellow-bellied felch suckers.

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 5 points 14 hours ago

As it should!

[-] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago

I, for one, am still waiting on the Bill Gates money from all those times I forwarded that email

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -2 points 15 hours ago

The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
278 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4114 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS