Latest details of the lawsuit filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Musk in January this year have been disclosed, revealing that this highly publicized case was actually a 4:1 voting showdown. This vote occurred at the last moment before the Republicans took over the SEC, adding a political color to the entire event.
The case was brought against Musk for delaying Twitter (now X) from disclosing his stock purchases, with four commissioners, including Republican commissioner Hester Peirce, voting in favor, while the soon-to-be acting chairman Mark Uyeda was the only one to oppose.
The origin of the incident dates back to Musk's acquisition of Twitter (now X) in 2022. At that time, he delayed disclosing the fact that he had exceeded a 5% stake for 21 days, far exceeding the statutory 10-day deadline. The SEC accused this delay of allowing Musk to continue increasing his holdings while the stock price was low, ultimately saving him about $150 million in acquisition costs, but harming the interests of other investors.
Is there a political motive?
The only commissioner to vote against was Uyeda, who clearly had more concerns. He feared that the case could be politicized, especially since Musk is a well-known supporter of Trump, and the SEC was in a sensitive transition period, suggesting that the Democrats might have a motive for political retaliation.
Reports also state that Uyeda even asked investigators to sign a commitment letter stating 'no political motives,' but this request was rejected on the grounds of following standard procedures.
Musk's side insists that this is merely a misunderstanding of disclosure rules and not a deliberate violation. However, his uncooperative attitude made the investigation process quite tortuous: he first refused to participate in the third inquiry in 2022, forcing the SEC to seek a court order, and it wasn't until October 2024 that he finally completed his testimony. This delay tactic also meant that the case could not be resolved before the 2024 elections, further exacerbating the political sensitivity of the incident.
However, the ripple effect triggered by this lawsuit is continuing to ferment. The 'Boycott Tesla' movement has now entered its fifth week, spreading to nearly 90 showrooms across the country, with protesters chanting 'sell the stock' and demanding that Musk be held accountable for his actions.
In summary, the intense divisions within the SEC and the strong public response indicate that this case has transcended mere legal disputes, becoming a unique window to observe the relationship between politics and business in the U.S.
Conclusion:
This conflict between the core leadership of the SEC and Musk superficially appears to be a technical dispute over securities disclosure, but it actually reflects the deep-seated contradictions between the U.S. regulatory system and tech giants—specifically, how legal boundaries should be defined when individual influence is strong enough to shake the market.
Finally, do you think the opposition's initiation of accountability lawsuits during this sensitive period before the elections is a coincidence or a strategic game? With commercial actions being drawn into partisan struggles, how should this tech giant prove his innocence?