If this is gambling, then so is every procurement tender bidding process or blind auction as the underlying principle is the same. In fact, this is just a all-pay auction where people are bidding on a sum of money.
Auctions aren’t generally considered gambling.
Not in the various all-pay forms of auction.
Its interesting that the example cited in Wikipedia involves bribing a public official.
Ignoring the obvious potential for fraud…
It’s basically a 50-50 draw. The argument is whether the winner selection is chance or not. When the participants don’t know if they are winning or not, unlike a real auction, then it seems to me that’s the “chance” part of it. You’re guessing. (Is Monty Hall offering you three doors a game of chance? The prizes are there, and you are guessing)
The procurement bidding process is supposed to be like that, not unlike a game of chance - the difference is, a bid is based or real financial considerations. Each bidder selects their best balance between profit and loss for the service they will provide.
The difference is that in this game, someone is guaranteed to win. That’s not the case for lotteries.
High five! I always wondered but never quite enough to remember to look it/him up after my drive.
Well, the person who bought the ad space on the billboard is promising that someone is guaranteed to win, anyway. Whether or not that’s really going to happen is a different question.
So the answer to the OP seems to be that the game being proposed probably doesn’t run afoul of gambling laws; as Mr Dibble’s cite says, it would probably be considered legally to be an auction rather than a game of chance. It seems like an obvious setup for fraud, but you can’t prosecute that before it’s actually occurred; and given the lack of any defined end date of the “contest”, it arguably wouldn’t be fraud even if he just kept all the money and said he was going to determine a winner at some point in the future.
As a left-winger I’m usually not on this side of the argument, but the government’s ability to protect people from their own stupidity is finite, and I wouldn’t support using a lot of law enforcement resources to shut whatever this is down. (I feel the same way about those “send $5” classified ads from the thirties).
I can’t seem to find any news or links about this billboard anywhere.
If we change the word “lottery” to “raffle” then we have guaranteed winners.
A lottery like e.g. Powerball is what’s called a “progressive” lottery. Considering just the grand prize jackpot and ignoring all the smaller teaser winners …
A way to look at the process is that multiple sets of tickets are sold to multiple drawings over multiple weeks that constitutes one single multi-draw raffle. Eventually statistics ensures somebody is a the winner; it just doesn’t have to be on the first drawing of the series. And everyone who is not a the winner has wagered their stake and lost it. Whether they did so on the 1st, 6th, or last drawing, or maybe all three doesn’t matter.
It might be legal if they actually pay out half of the money they collect. But based on the appearance of this operation, I suspect that won’t happen.
I disagree. Even if this could somehow be classified as a legal all-pay auction (which I doubt), it definitely does not follow laws about clearly stated rules and transparency. There’s no contract, licensing, or any of the things that are required for auctions in Texas.
As far as I can tell, only live auctions are covered. Is this correct?
Now that I think of it, this is essentially a pay-to-play silent auction, where the prize is half the pot. That differentiates it from a raffle, so it’s not subject to most of Texas law on raffles (CREA). That law prohibits cash prizes for 50/50 raffles except for some professional sports organizations. Silent auctions are legal. But silent auctions do not generally involve cash prizes… 
Would it be like a silent auction where people put checks in a box and the person with the highest check got 1/2 of the total in the box?
I just did a search, and I can’t find any mention of this billboard other than in this thread. That’s strange, since I would think other people would find this interesting and mention it online. Drum_God, can you take a picture of this billboard and show us the picture? As I said above, notify all those organizations about the billboard. If there’s something illegal about it, they will take care of it. We can’t do anything about it.
Functionally, it would seem that way. Part of the issue is that, in a real silent auction, there’s a stated date and time in which the results will be announced and the prize awarded. AFAICT, if the billboard indeed only contains the information that the OP noted, there’s no statement of when this “auction” will be concluded, or (apparently) no contact information other than that Venmo account.
Again, it’s possible that this is all legitimate and legal, but the stated situation is pinging all sorts of fraud warnings in many of our heads.
Likewise, if this is considered a contest rather than an auction, I’m pretty sure they’re required to publish the official rules somewhere, including things like the deadline to enter, how the winner will be contacted, odds of winning (even if it’s simply “the odds of winning depends on the number of entries received”), etc.
Except in an auction, silent or otherwise, only the highest bid gets paid and they get whatever was being put up for auction.
In this contest, everyone who participates pays and only one person gets the prize. This seems more like gambling than an auction.
In this “contest” the perpetrator will have more than enough time to reel in the suckers then close shop and go home (whatever country that may be in) before authorities try to take a peek behind the curtain.
I agree. This set-up looks suspect as hell.
But my point was that even if it was run as described, it would still be a wager not an auction. And gambling is covered by a different set of laws than selling is.