this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
172 points (93.9% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7193 readers
650 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

taken from [email protected]

all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dohpaz42 16 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

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

[–] dhork 39 points 4 weeks 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 9 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 4 weeks 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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 weeks 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 3 points 4 weeks ago

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

[–] 314xel 24 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks 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.

[–] dohpaz42 3 points 4 weeks ago
[–] Brokkr 25 points 4 weeks 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 4 points 4 weeks 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 24 points 4 weeks 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

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 weeks ago

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Cards Against America

EDIT: Realized I sounded like a nutjob

[–] 314xel 18 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago

Our cards comrade

[–] woodytrombone 13 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] too_high_for_this 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah, I got $13 even though I voted in 2020.

[–] woodytrombone 1 points 4 weeks ago

When I did mine it was a max of $10—the politics pack must be selling really well!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 weeks ago