Summary
Two Pennsylvania voters, Austin Gwiazdowski and Jeanne Fermier, received $100 checks from Elon Musk’s pro-Trump “America PAC” despite not signing the PAC’s petition, which was required to qualify for payments.
The petition aimed to gather support for the First and Second Amendments and facilitate pro-Trump outreach.
Both voters expressed confusion and refused to cash the checks.
The PAC, funded by Musk, mailed 187,000 checks as part of efforts to boost Trump’s Pennsylvania support, while Musk’s political influence continues to rise.
Lol what? Can you seriously not copy and paste 18 U.S. Code § 597 into any search engine for the internet?
Google
How do I find the official source tho? The internet is full of misinformation and google loves to send me to content marketing third party untrustworthy trash.
Yes, you should always post a link to the authorative source
The official source is the US government…which is why they cited 18 U.S. Code § 597
Honestly, it should be self explanatory that is laws/codes would be from official American government websites.
Normally i would agree that links should be provided but if someone’s cites a specific law/code, the government site (state or federal, depending on what’s being cited) should be the immediate source of information.
We’re not going to handicap ourselves because you have an aversion for googling. Learn to research. It’s legal code…gee I wonder if a .gov link might be legit.
You’re on a link sharing website saying you dont want to share links. Is this your first time on the Internet?
Welcome, we share links here.
It’s not that you asked for a link, it’s your low effort way of asking that implies you are already skeptical of the information.
“Hey! I googled to look for it and I’m having a hard time finding where it officially says the statute. Mind sharing a link?”
They probably would have said “No problem. Let me google that for you. Here…”
I’m not asking for me. I’m trying to let you know that you should always cite your sources. The link is something you should always provide when you quote something.
If you want to get into it, it’s links that aren’t acceptable as citations. I’m academically published and onto of the number 1 rules of citations is that links on their own are never acceptable sources because they’re ephemeral.
When I cite a book or journal entry, edition, and page number, that source will still exist in the future even if tracking it down is difficult. If I had cited a link to a Geocities site or a page that was edited after my publication, future researchers wouldn’t be able to find my sources. Ever.
Sometimes, you have to cite a webpage, but if you do you it needs to include date accessed, the name of the page (sometimes sites change their urls and the data can be sniffed out afterwards if you know to look for the organization), and the relevant data should be copied into an Appendix in case it disappears forever.
This is just one link, there are better ones I’m sure on a .gov site. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter29&edition=prelim
They are literally citing the law. That’s better than a link because links change all the time, but the citation remains valid because it’s referring to a code section and not some ephemeral html.
Depending on what you’re looking for (law or regulations), the official sites are code.house.gov or the Electronic Code of Federal regulations (ecfr.gov).
What? You have that backwards.
Laws change. Links will ensure you get the latest info.
No. Links change, link rot. Yes, laws change. Which is why I posted the USC. If the exact USC changed, you would know immediately. The gov could overhaul their website and links would die. If you have the code you can look it up on the official .gov sources. In this particular situation a link is not a guarantee. Maybe for other information? But doubtful. I personally have bookmarks from over 15+ years ago that are likely dead. Search skills are… a skill. To make Google better, learn the udm=14 trick .
Use a permalink
Are you a bot? Absolute nonsense comments and the same post spammed across communities, screams “child or bot”
Citations to the law include changes to that law. If you follow the citation above, it’ll have the date of adoption and the date of any amendments. It’ll also remain if the law is strikes from the books with a notation regarding its repeal.
Easy analogy: the 18th amendment. When it was repealed, they didn’t replace it with something else, but updated the language of the amendment to include its repeal. But a newspaper article from 1922 would still have incorrect information regarding the legality of alcohol sales.
Which is exactly why you should link to the source. You’re proving my point
No, I really am not.
I’m saying specifically that a link is a bad reference, whereas a citation to a statue, book, or other reference that doesn’t change domains and stop functioning is a good one.
A code citation is an excellent reference. A link to a Congressional site isn’t when Congress is liable renamed after Trump’s favorite donor in 6 months.
While Google has been circling down the toilet lately, if you at least try searching for what you want, and use half a brain to think about what you’re looking at, it’s not exactly super difficult. I have to Google similar stuff for work sometimes, and .gov is pretty much a sure thing that you’re getting a government source, which is pretty good when you’re looking for a government’s laws. I also get different major colleges, which is just as good. Especially since you’re reading legalese, not commentary on the law or whatever.
Or we can all do our duty to each other and share authorative sources to fight misinformation
I’m a random guy on the Internet. Frankly you should be doing your due diligence the same way you would on a Google search result anyway.