(Photo
by
Apu
Gomes/Getty
Images)
On
October
19,
Elon
Musk
announced
to
a
crowd
in
Harrisburg
that
he
had
a
“surprise”
for
them.
In
addition
to
a
$47
“payment”
for
referring
the
name
of
a
registered
voter
to
his
pro-Trump
America
PAC,
he’d
be
giving
away
$1
million
to
one
signer
per
day
through
November
5.
“We
are
going
to
be
awarding
a
million
dollars
randomly
to
people
who
have
signed
the
petition,
every
day
from
now
until
the
election,”
he
vamped,
adding
later
that
the
only
“ask”
was
that
recipients
be
good
spokespeople
for
the
PAC.
That
turned
out
to
be
less
than
100
percent
true,
as
became
immediately
apparent
when
the
“winners”
just
so
happened
to
be
present
at
Pennsylvania
rallies
to
collect
their
prizes
later
that
week.
But
in
case
there
was
any
doubt,
Musk’s
lawyer
Chris
Gober
confirmed
it
this
morning
in
a
hearing
before
Judge
Angelo
Foglietta
of
the
Philadelphia
Court
of
Common
Pleas
on
the
civil
complaint
seeking
to
enjoin
Musk
from
continuing
to
operate
an
illegal
lottery.
“There
is
no
prize
to
be
won,
instead
recipients
must
fulfill
contractual
obligations
to
serve
as
a
spokesperson
for
the
PAC,”
Gober
protested,
seemingly
defending
his
client
from
charges
that
he
was
running
an
illegal
lottery
by
admitting
that
he
was
engaged
in
fraud.
“The
opportunity
to
earn
is
different
from
the
chance
to
win,”
Musk’s
consigliere
Chris
Young
told
the
court.
According
to
the
Philadelphia
Inquirer:
Gober
acknowledged
that
Musk
used
the
word
“randomly”
in
his
speech.
But
he
said
that
was
not
meant
to
suggest
that
winners’
names
would
be
drawn
from
a
blind
pool,
as
occurs
in
a
lottery
or
other
game
of
chance
—
but
that
the
method
for
choosing
winners
would
be
random
because
it
wasn’t
going
to
follow
any
pre-determined
pattern
or
criteria.
“We
just
heard
this
guy
say,
my
boss,
my
client,
called
this
random,”
gaped
John
Summers,
the
lawyer
representing
Philadelphia
District
Attorney
Larry
Krasner.
“We
promised
people
that
they
were
going
to
participate
in
a
random
process,
but
it’s
a
process
where
we
pre-select
people.”
This
would
appear
to
confirm
the
DA’s
argument
in
his
complaint
that,
if
Musk
wasn’t
running
an
illegal
lottery,
he
was
violating
Pennsylvania’s
consumer
protection
statute:
To
be
clear,
it
would
be
no
defense
for
America
PAC
and
Musk
to
argue
that
it
was
not
engaging
in
a
lottery
if
their
scheme
actually
did
not
involve
a
chance
or
random
selection
of
winners.
In
that
event,
(a)
they
would
be
admitting
to
acting
deceptively
and
in
violation
of
the
Commonwealth’s
consumer
protection
law;
and
(b)
they
would
still
be
in
violation
of
the
Commonwealth’s
prohibition
against
the
operation
of
unlawful
lotteries.
And
indeed
the
petition
itself
seems
to
have
gone
through
several
revisions
in
an
attempt
to
square
with
the
mad
king’s
demands
with
the
provisions
of
state
law.
In
its
current
iteration,
it
refers
to
the
recipients
as
“earning”
their
checks
and
requires
them
to
provide
“a
signed
IRS
W-9
so
an
IRS
1099
can
be
issued.”
But
as
Krasner
noted
when
he
took
the
stand,
“That
doesn’t
sound
like
a
spokesperson
contract.”
The
hearing
was
highly
contentious,
with
Summers
calling
Musk’s
lawyers
“fraudulent
shysters”
at
one
point,
only
withdrawing
the
“shysters”
after
being
reprimanded
by
the
judge.
As
of
this
writing,
Judge
Foglietta
had
not
yet
ruled.
And
for
the
purposes
of
the
injunction,
any
order
is
functionally
moot.
This
is
the
final
day
before
the
election,
and
Musk’s
people
have
said
that
the
only
remaining
“earner”
will
be
from
Michigan,
not
Pennsylvania.
But
to
the
extent
that
Musk’s
henchmen
dropped
him
in
the
criminal
soup,
forced
to
admit
to
actual
crimes
on
the
witness
stand
after
the
billionaire
refused
to
show
up,
the
fun
may
be
just
beginning.
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.