Legal loophole, blatant voter buying, or just another billionaire’s power play? Regardless of your political stance, Elon Musk’s million-dollar lottery in swing states tests the limits of voter ethics.
Recently, Musk has come crashing out of the closet politically and has strongly affirmed with the Republican Party. In efforts to sway some of the most important states in the election, Elon Musk gave out millions of dollars to anyone who voted as well as agreed on traditional Republican values, such as gun rights and freedom of speech.
Specifically in swing states, where the outcome of the election could come down to a razor-thin margin, every vote counts. By offering such a large sum of money in these key states, Musk risks the indirect buying of votes, even if no laws are directly broken.
To understand why Elon Musk sought to win over swing states in the first place, it’s important to look at what he has to gain with Trump as president. On the first day after Trump’s victory over Kamala, Elon Musk became $15 billion richer, making the $119 million he spent on Trump’s campaign back overnight. In addition to this, Trump has business-friendly policies, such as tax cuts and government deregulation, which would seem appealing to a multi-billionaire business owner. Moreover, Trump will give SpaceX more autonomy in launching its rockets and provide more opportunities for collaboration with NASA or even the Space Force.
Looking back at Elon Musk’s tactics, all seven swing states where Musk held his lottery went red. Further fueling accusations of voter buying is that when revealed in a court hearing, all of the chosen people were preselected, despite earlier claims made by Musk calling it a random lottery. To make matters worse, Elon Musk began paying every single person who found somebody else who lived in a swing state to sign the petition $47.
Nicholas Kassabian ‘27 added, “Voting should be about who you like more as a candidate, not trying to cash in on a billionaire’s money.” While the case against Elon doesn’t look great, it can be argued that his actions can be justified. Firstly, Elon Musk’s actions were entirely legal; he only asked if you support freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, both of which are in the Constitution. Additionally, both sides use money given to them by wealthy backers to “buy votes,” whether it’s large donations or publicity stunts.
However, regardless of the ethics of Elon’s schemes, this paints a dark picture for the future of campaigns. Is the winner of the election just the person who has more money backing them? Are votes just tokens that can be bought and paid for?
Grant Hong ‘27 voiced, “I have fears for future elections, since if money becomes the deciding factor of elections, then voting will feel more like an auction.”
Elon Musk’s actions may have followed the letter of the law, but they undoubtedly highlight the growing problem of money and influence shaping election outcomes. If this trend continues, it could erode trust in the system and discourage participation among those who feel their voice is being drowned out by money.
Ultimately, it’s important to remember that we Loyola students are the future generation of voters. With that, it’s our responsibility to protect the integrity of our elections, challenging trends and advocating for fairness and equality in all elections.
