The article discusses Elon Musk’s recent political activities, highlighting his vocal support for Donald Trump while promoting a petition aimed at swaying voters in key swing states ahead of the November election. Musk’s campaign includes financial incentives such as a daily $1 million prize and $100 payouts for residents of Pennsylvania. Critics argue that his actions reflect a troubling manipulation of the electoral system, contradicting his previous stance on free speech and suggesting a potential risk for him once the election concludes.
Do you remember when Elon Musk was an advocate for politically neutral social media platforms, emphasizing the importance of allowing free speech?
During the weekend of October 19-20, the billionaire entrepreneur took to Twitter, posting hundreds of messages in support of Donald Trump, whom he actively endorses. Musk encouraged people to wear MAGA (Make America Great Again) caps, place Trump flags in their yards, and he fueled fears by suggesting that Kamala Harris would lead to the decline of the United States. Additionally, he financed controversial advertisements aimed at casting doubt among Muslim and Jewish voters regarding Harris’s views on Middle Eastern issues.
His latest move features a petition that appears to blur ethical lines, resembling an effort to incentivize voters in pivotal states ahead of the November 5 elections, where voters are still undecided between Harris and Trump. In return for submitting an email and phone number, Musk promises monetary rewards, including a daily prize of $1 million at political events.
Musk’s Monetary Persuasion Tactics
The petition, which claims to uphold the principles of “freedom of speech and the right to bear arms”, is structured as a form requiring personal details such as first name, last name, email, postal address, and phone number, albeit with a claim that the phone number will not be utilized. This information is likely intended for targeted political campaigning in favor of Trump.
Eligibility for this petition is restricted to Americans living in key states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—the so-called “swing states” that frequently alternate political allegiance during elections. Musk’s strategy is transparent: he aims to garner support for the Republican side by financially incentivizing voters, disregarding those who have already made their electoral choices.
Each day, a winner is selected to receive a $1 million check presented at political rallies. Musk has also introduced special offers, such as a $100 payment to every resident of Pennsylvania, a crucial state for the upcoming election. Furthermore, he has established a referral incentive, where persuading friends to sign up can earn a person $47—symbolically tied to the potential future 47th President of the United States.
This petition, which is inaccessible from outside the US, highlights the flaws in the American electoral process, focusing on a handful of states. Musk, wielding remarkable financial influence, appears determined to sway the presidential election outcome. His online rhetoric suggests a clear bias, promoting the idea that Harris is unlikely to win, thereby rallying his supporters around Trump as the sole viable candidate.
It’s ironic that Musk frequently criticizes media outlets and social networks for preferentially supporting the opposed political spectrum, alleging that they are attempting to propel Kamala Harris to victory. He also questions the integrity of the American electoral process, describing it as insufficiently secure. Yet, his actions unmistakably favor Donald Trump.
Historically, companies like Facebook encountered significant backlash for their indirect involvement in political elections, particularly during the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Musk, however, openly exploits his platform for political advocacy, which could have repercussions once the election concludes. His primary objective now appears to be ensuring Trump’s election as a means of safeguarding his interests.