It doesn’t say anything about voting voting Trump, just blindly saying you support the 1st and 2nd amendment. Like I will gladly and openly say I completely agree with that, but there’s not the slightest chance in hell I’m voting for Trump.
Cards Against Humanity however is very carefully threading the needle around committing election fraud. They’re paying you to make a plan to vote, but not based on whether or not you actually follow that plan and vote. The latter is very explicitly turnout buying, what CAH is doing is possibly just far enough away to be legal. I’d be shocked if no one uses them over it though as close as it is.
CAH is also clearly saying “what we are doing is fucked up and shouldn’t be legal.” They are bringing attention to the fact that this shouldn’t be legal to encourage laws to be updated.
Yeah, but CAH is cutting it much closer than Musk. Bribing people to sign a petition that says you support basic constitutional rights you already have is a lot farther away from buying votes or buying turnout than what CAH is doing, which is walking as close to the line as they think they can get away with to show just how far out the line is.
Yes, they are showing where the line is, but I can’t think of a single credible argument for “What CAH is doing should be illegal but what Musk is doing is fine.”
I didn’t say it necessarily was or should be, but it’s definitely closer to the line. Signing a meaningless petition that you support your 1A and 2A rights is a lot farther from voting than making a plan to vote is.
The only closer example I can think of was that Fuel the Vote thing a while back where one city in PA set up “satellite election offices” that had all the functions you’d associate with a polling place (you could go in, register, receive your ballot, fill it out and turn it in all in one go) but technically weren’t and so didn’t need poll watchers and other things required of polling places. So people set up stands giving away free food in a clear attempt to lure people in to vote, but since they technically gave you the food whether or not you voted and weren’t giving it to people in line at a polling place (because giving it to you if you are in line to vote is giving it to you because you are going to vote and would step across that line) it wasn’t technically illegal.
https://petition.theamericapac.org/
For those curious.
What’s the legal reasoning behind it?
I think it’s because Musk is offering money to people who get other people to sign up and pledge to vote Trump.
It doesn’t say anything about voting voting Trump, just blindly saying you support the 1st and 2nd amendment. Like I will gladly and openly say I completely agree with that, but there’s not the slightest chance in hell I’m voting for Trump.
Cards Against Humanity however is very carefully threading the needle around committing election fraud. They’re paying you to make a plan to vote, but not based on whether or not you actually follow that plan and vote. The latter is very explicitly turnout buying, what CAH is doing is possibly just far enough away to be legal. I’d be shocked if no one uses them over it though as close as it is.
CAH is also clearly saying “what we are doing is fucked up and shouldn’t be legal.” They are bringing attention to the fact that this shouldn’t be legal to encourage laws to be updated.
Yeah, but CAH is cutting it much closer than Musk. Bribing people to sign a petition that says you support basic constitutional rights you already have is a lot farther away from buying votes or buying turnout than what CAH is doing, which is walking as close to the line as they think they can get away with to show just how far out the line is.
Yes, they are showing where the line is, but I can’t think of a single credible argument for “What CAH is doing should be illegal but what Musk is doing is fine.”
I didn’t say it necessarily was or should be, but it’s definitely closer to the line. Signing a meaningless petition that you support your 1A and 2A rights is a lot farther from voting than making a plan to vote is.
The only closer example I can think of was that Fuel the Vote thing a while back where one city in PA set up “satellite election offices” that had all the functions you’d associate with a polling place (you could go in, register, receive your ballot, fill it out and turn it in all in one go) but technically weren’t and so didn’t need poll watchers and other things required of polling places. So people set up stands giving away free food in a clear attempt to lure people in to vote, but since they technically gave you the food whether or not you voted and weren’t giving it to people in line at a polling place (because giving it to you if you are in line to vote is giving it to you because you are going to vote and would step across that line) it wasn’t technically illegal.
Which funny because they’re simultaneously phasing out parts off the first amendment.
I’m not a lawyer so I have no idea. I was just providing the link from the image.
Consorship right?( Smartass lib)