By love-89.com Elon Musk is committing to give away $1 million a day as he dives headfirst into campaigning—could deregulation be the real reason behind his efforts?
Over the weekend, Musk announced a bold pledge to donate $1 million daily to registered voters in battleground states who support his America Pac’s petitions backing the First and Second Amendments. He kicked off this initiative at a rally in Pennsylvania, handing out a novelty check that resembled a kitchen island. With plans to continue this until the November 5 election, some experts are raising eyebrows about the legality of this stunt.
After endorsing Donald Trump in July, Musk established America Pac, infusing it with $75 million. Recently, he has been making multiple campaign appearances each day, focusing particularly on Pennsylvania—a critical swing state.
What exactly is Musk campaigning for? A recent article by my colleagues Nick Robins-Early and Rachel Leingang examined Musk’s undeniable influence on the U.S. presidential election, highlighting months of his political activities. An intriguing question emerged: Is deregulation driving Musk’s political ambitions globally? Is his spending and campaigning primarily aimed at reducing government oversight?
Rachel and Nick note that Musk’s frequent clashes with regulatory agencies have coincided with public declarations advocating for deregulation and a thorough audit of the federal government. This call for efficiency aligns with Trump, who announced plans for a Musk-led commission to review federal agencies and identify cuts. Musk humorously suggested naming it the Department of Government Efficiency—or Doge—after a popular meme featuring a Shiba Inu.
While the initiative lacks specifics, it raises concerns about Musk auditing the very regulators overseeing his companies. Both Musk and Trump have floated the idea of Musk taking a significant role in a potential Trump administration. In a recent Fox News appearance, Trump mentioned creating a ‘secretary of cost-cutting’ position and hinted at Musk being the perfect candidate.
Musk’s quest for fewer government agencies extends beyond the U.S. His confrontations with regulators often put him at odds with other wealthy business leaders. For example, in India, he has been battling the government over satellite broadband access, recently outmaneuvering Mukesh Ambani, Asia’s richest man, in negotiations.
Self-styled as a “free-speech absolutist,” Musk has openly criticized speech regulators. He ignited controversy when he tweeted about a “civil war” being inevitable in the UK amid race riots, posting a cartoon suggesting that the government’s response to free speech could involve severe penalties by 2030. His critiques have also targeted the California government and the Biden administration.
Musk’s deregulation efforts frequently clash with judicial systems worldwide. Last month, Brazil restricted access to his social media platform, X, due to noncompliance with court orders, while Starlink—another Musk company—faced fines for its associated breaches. Ultimately, Musk and X complied with these demands.
Are regulators pushing back against Musk? Recently, they have taken a new approach by penalizing one of his companies for the actions of another. Last week, European regulators indicated that X might face fines for failing to meet the Digital Services Act requirements, suggesting those penalties could be based not just on X’s revenue but also on the total income of all Musk-operated enterprises. This could significantly impact X financially.
In California, Musk faced challenges when a coastal commission cited his history of spreading misinformation during a vote related to SpaceX and the U.S. Air Force’s petition to launch rockets from a Santa Barbara beach. In retaliation, Musk filed a lawsuit alleging political bias and First Amendment violations, insisting he just wants to continue launching rockets, tweeting, and spending millions on elections without interference.