168
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by UnhingedStopa@sopuli.xyz to c/usa@lemmy.ml
all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] woodytrombone@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago
[-] too_high_for_this@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

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

[-] woodytrombone@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

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

[-] WhatThaFudge@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 day ago
[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago

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

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago

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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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 28 points 1 day 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 26 points 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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

[-] 314xel@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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 26 points 1 day ago

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 1 day ago

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 1 day 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 1 day ago

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

Elon musk does it nobody bats an eye lol

I mean no surprises coming from Lemmy world the neolib fediverse factory

[-] icetree@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Cards Against America

EDIT: Realized I sounded like a nutjob

[-] 314xel@lemmy.world 18 points 1 day ago
[-] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 0 points 1 day ago

Our cards comrade

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

United States | News & Politics

7164 readers
482 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS