Cards Against Humanity is taking on Elon Musk — again.

The self-described “party game for horrible people” has launched an anti-Donald Trump super political action committee that’s squaring off against Musk’s pro-Trump America PAC while taking a page from its playbook. Both aim to incentivize swing-state voters with cash without breaking strict campaign finance rules that ban paying for votes.

Cards Against Humanity PAC will pay as much as $100 for previous non-voters to “care” about the election, but it requires a public apology true to form for the card game known for its irreverent and crude humor. To receive the cash, the non-voters have to apologize for not voting, make a voting plan and publicly post “Donald Trump is a human toilet” on social media.

The super PAC will receive a donation of $100,000 from Cards Against Humanity and will also be funded by sales of a $7.99 special 2024 election pack of cards.

“If everyone in America voted, Trump would never stand a chance. So we’re doing our part to get just a few more people thinking more seriously about voting,” the company said in a statement to Bloomberg.

Musk’s America PAC, meanwhile, is promising to pay $47 to people who refer registered swing-state voters to sign a petition that says they support freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. The idea is to generate a list that the PAC could then target with its get-out-the-vote efforts.

America PAC, which has spent nearly $80 million to date on pro-Trump canvassing and ads, didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The data it collects could be muddied by Cards Against Humanity’s efforts. The game’s website encourages registered voters to sign the America PAC petition and list Cards Against Humanity PAC’s email as the referrer so that it receives the $47. If Musk doesn’t pay, Cards Against Humanity will sue him, according to the website.

It is illegal to pay to register voters in a federal election, but often groups find gimmicky and creative ways around the law.

America PAC’s approach is in the clear because paying someone for voter information is not a problem and it’s done all the time through data brokers, said Stanford University law professor Nathaniel Persily. But he believes there’s a “good argument” that Cards Against Humanity could be crossing the line.

“The only question here is whether paying people to make a plan to vote is paying someone to vote,” Persily said. “I’d say it’s dangerously close.”