@louis @mattlehrer I don’t think any of us or a Slate author can resolve this. Musk is intentionally parsing the law to walk as close to the line of vote buying as he can without quite doing it. Perhaps Musk has consulted his expensive lawyers, and there is a strong legal history of similar operations that courts have found acceptable. Or, it wouldn’t be out of character for him to just risk it. An assumption that impunity can be purchased has worked for him.

@louis @mattlehrer I think it’s quite obviously an attempt to outright pay people with particular views to vote and vote in particular ways, even the quid-pro-quo is not enforceable. I hope his balls-first approach results in a well deserved crushing. You could make a chills free speech argument against, but money-as-free-speech, especially in an electoral context, has always been a terrible idea. I’d risk that slippery slope.