Elon Musk has carved out a role in American politics as a prominent figure rallying for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Musk is a master at attracting attention, which he desires just as much as Trump does. However, a closer look reveals that his oversized cardboard checks for $1 million hold little real value.

He has sparked a legal frenzy with his peculiar Pennsylvania lottery-style campaign, where he promises $1 million to voters who sign a petition from his political action committee supporting the First and Second Amendments.

While it is illegal to pay individuals to register or vote, the first three “winners” of Musk’s America PAC contest were already registered in Pennsylvania and had cast their votes long before Musk’s show put them in the spotlight.

The true significance lies in how Musk has unintentionally highlighted the emptiness that Trump’s campaign has descended into in its final days.

Musk Donated $75 Million to Trump via America PAC

Nonetheless, it is true that Musk has been a significant ally to Trump. The America PAC has raised $83.7 million this year, with nearly 90% of that—approximately $75 million—coming directly from Musk.

This PAC is quickly utilizing those funds for efforts aimed at mobilizing voters for Trump and supporting various congressional candidates.

Will this be effective? Given that Trump has lagged behind Vice President Kamala Harris in fundraising, any assistance with grassroots efforts could be beneficial. However, there are indications that Musk’s strategy may not be precisely executed.

What’s gaining more focus is Musk’s extravagant publicity stunt in Pennsylvania, where he’s handing out huge checks. A coalition of former Republican lawmakers and legal professionals has asked U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate these cash prizes, claiming they might breach federal electoral laws.

Federal law specifies: “Anyone who knowingly or willfully pays or offers to pay for voter registration or voting may face fines of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for a maximum of five years.”

Yet, this doesn’t seem to apply to Musk’s first three winners.

Can Musk Influence Undecided Voters?

Even if the Department of Justice gets involved, significant action is unlikely in the waning days of a presidential campaign. It’s doubtful anything would emerge later on, either, as it’s improbable that Trump would pursue legal action against a wealthy supporter. The same goes for Harris, I suspect.

This ultimately seems to be just a conversation starter.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who is Harris’ running mate, shared his thoughts on “The View,” stating that Musk’s ostentatious money tactic for Trump reveals that the former president lacks solid plans to assist middle-class voters.

Let’s not kid ourselves that Harris is above using such attention-grabbing tactics. Bruce Springsteen is set to perform in support of her presidential campaign, with concerts in Atlanta on Thursday and Philadelphia on Monday, alongside former President Barack Obama.

While these events may lack the flashiness of a cardboard check, they seem better designed to galvanize Democratic supporters rather than sway undecided voters.

In this way, Musk’s approach mirrors that of Harris.

Musk and Trump Seek Spotlight as Election Day Approaches

Bruce Castor, a former acting attorney general of Pennsylvania who previously represented Trump during his second impeachment, shared my view that the controversy regarding Musk’s financial contributions won’t significantly impact Election Day results. He doubts there’s any substantial political benefit that would “move the needle at all.”

Castor remarked, “Claiming any wrongdoing is a stretch because there’s no evidence of criminal intent. While some strict liability election laws might be breached resulting in minor fines, the maximum penalties are likely to be minimal.”

In an unsought comparison, he likened the situation with Musk to Trump’s recent visit to a McDonald’s in suburban Philadelphia, which was closed temporarily so Trump could serve fast food to a selected group of supporters at the drive-thru. Castor found that scenario amusing.

Though Trump grew up affluent, benefitting from his father’s successful real estate ventures, he seems absorbed by how Vice President Harris recounts her experience working at McDonald’s during her college years, asserting—without any evidence—that she fabricated that narrative.

Perhaps he’s unable to grasp what that lifestyle is like. Nevertheless, this illustrates another instance of Trump’s final argument—excuse my reference to Shakespeare—filled with noise and passion yet lacking substance.

Harris has skillfully avoided falling into Trump’s fast-food trap. She allows him to engage in meaningless chatter as the election approaches and votes are counted. He and Musk certainly know how to attract shallow attention. Let them have their moment.