this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
168 points (93.3% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7165 readers
221 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (4 children)

Hm. Not that this is a bad idea, but I’m really surprised by this, as it’s kinda illegal.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Except they were careful and never actually said "we will give you money to vote for Harris/against Trump". Paying you to call him a human toilet isn't against that law.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

But the law also includes this language:

Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote… or to vote for…

I take that to mean to pay someone to vote, or to vote for someone. And in this case, CAH is definitely paying people to vote.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 days ago

The reward is specifically for people to come up with a plan on how they would vote. The reward isn't technically contingent on someone acting on that plan.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 27 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Legally speaking they're not paying people to vote, only to do voting-adjacent tasks which is legal

The Register went into the more detail on the legality of it all

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Thank you. Im glad to be wrong, and it’s good to see someone dissecting this issue.

[–] 314xel@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

They're paying people to apologize for not voting last time. What that means is up for the reader. Not the same.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They were very careful in how they worded the request. They are not asking for people to change their voting behavior, only to create a plan, and to make some public statements.

Obviously, the latter part is fine but the voting plan doesn't require that someone actually change their behavior. They are definitely skirting the line, but I'm sure they had the help of a lawyer when they made this.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We're trying to pay tens of thousands of swing-state non-voters… enough to actually swing the election.

I think their intentions here is what is most damning.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago

Disagree, people spend money with the intention of influencing the outcome of elections all the time, that's all campaign ads and canvasses and phone banks and etc. are

And they're not paying people to vote - they're paying people to make a plan to vote (and make an apology and send a tweet, but I think those are irrelevant), which is something that campaign volunteers talk about with potential voters all the time

[–] 0x01@lemmy.ml 18 points 3 days ago

I think that's the point? This is a direct response to musk is it not?

[–] icetree@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Cards Against America

EDIT: Realized I sounded like a nutjob

[–] 314xel@lemmy.world 18 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 0 points 3 days ago

Our cards comrade