A federal judge has declined to block a lawsuit being advanced against tech billionaire Elon Musk and his political group America PAC, alleging that they refused to pay the advertised money for people who helped get signatures on his pre-2024 election petition.

Musk offered $47, later increased to $100, for any swing state voter who signed his petition, which affirmed support for the First and Second Amendments, with additional payments for each additional voter referred to sign it; while it did not require a commitment to vote for President Donald Trump, the suit still triggered accusations it was effectively a vote-buying scheme on Trump's behalf.

The new lawsuit was brought by Bobbi Pisor, Anthony Maglietta, Steven Reid, and Jerry Victorious, and an unidentified John Doe, who live across seven swing states and allege they did not receive the money that was promised.

"Doe, Reid, Pisor, Maglietta, and Victorious aver that although they 'accepted Defendants’ offers by signing or successfully referring registered voters' to sign the Petition, 'Defendants have since failed to pay [them] in full for their signatures and referrals,'" said the lawsuit. The complaint alleges in particular that Doe worked as a paid canvasser for America PAC, and while he was paid for canvassing, he maintains that he made around $20,000 worth of petition referrals that he was not compensated for, causing him “significant emotional and physical distress” and “damage to his credit.”

U.S. District Chief Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the suit was brought, denied Musk and America PAC's motion to dismiss the case, although she dismissed the case against a separate entity, Group America.

America PAC played a key role in organizing for Trump, although it has been the center of additional controversy and litigation over how disorganized and poorly treated its employees were.

A class-action suit filed in the week before the election alleged that America PAC promised recruits an hourly wage but then told them they would be paid based on the number of doors knocked, while threatening to withhold expense reimbursement if they didn't meet wildly high quotas.