A watchdog group argues that Elon Musk’s use of X to host and promote Donald Trump violates campaign finance laws.
|
Listen To This Story
 |
Monday’s two-hour “conversation” between Donald Trump and Elon Musk on the social media platform X constitutes an illegal in-kind corporate contribution because it amounted to a campaign event for the former president, a campaign finance watchdog group said in a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
That seems like a reasonable interpretation since Musk has openly endorsed Trump, the two share an anti-immigrant ideology, and the owner of X (formerly Twitter) didn’t challenge any of the former president’s lies during the event.
And, because the event consumed the company’s resources, the Trump campaign received something of value.
“The Donald Trump-Elon Musk campaign rally hosted on X wasn’t just an incoherent diatribe of lies marred by technical difficulties, it was a blatantly illegal corporate contribution to Donald Trump’s campaign,” said Tiffany Muller, the president of the campaign finance watchdog group End Citizens United. “This brazen corporate contribution undermines campaign finance laws and would set a dangerous precedent for unfettered, direct corporate engagement in campaigns. The FEC must investigate this corporate-funded campaign event and hold Trump, his campaign, and X Corp. accountable.”
The start of the livestream was delayed by technical glitches, which employees of X first had to fix. And, because the “conversation” was a thinly disguised attempt to boost the former president’s chances in this year’s election, these employees essentially provided a service to the Trump campaign.
As a result, their activities on behalf of Trump are covered by the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibits corporations from making donations to federal candidates, End Citizens United argued in its complaint.
There is an exemption in the law for news outlets, e.g., if a news channel hosts one of the candidates, that are engaged in their “legitimate press function.”
However, End Citizens United argues that this does not apply to X.
While the FEC has not yet resolved the question of whether the platform is a press entity, in this case, the goal of the event was advocacy.
“Even if X were a press entity, the owner’s hosting a livestream event with a candidate featuring express advocacy is a departure from [the] usual hosting-and-content moderation functions,” the complaint states.
End Citizen United noted that the FEC has ruled previously that an entity loses its press exemption when it departs from its usual activities to benefit a specific candidate that this entity supports.
Furthermore, X is taking advantage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which grants companies immunity from liability for content they publish. In other words, X says it is merely a conduit that allows individuals to voice their opinions.
That, however, means that the company “cannot also claim the benefit of the press exemption for the Trump Campaign material it publishes using corporate resources.”
End Citizens United probably should not expect that this complaint will trigger any action because the FEC’s three Republican commissioners have done all they can to shield Trump from accountability.
According to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, as of May 1 of this year, the FEC received 59 allegations that Trump or his committees violated campaign finance laws. Republican appointees voted 0 times that the commission should take enforcement actions.
