America in decline: ‘Zuckerbucks’ likely to undermine 2024 election and beyond

by WorldTribune Staff, February 15, 2023

In the 2020 election, $328 million in private funding from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made its way to government election offices in mostly Democrat strongholds of swing states.

News of this brazen corruption reached tens of millions of Trump supporters via alternative media. But the political establishment in Washington and their corporate media partners looked the other way.

For Democrat voters, there is no problem with U.S. election security whether caused by corrupt election officials, voting data fraud or ballot harvesting.

Private funding, which in the compromised 2020 election became known as “Zuckerbucks,” is likely to undermine the 2024 election and beyond, critics say, because officials in the mostly Democrat areas which are offered the funds are either fully willing to go along with the scheme or find the cash infusion too enticing to pass up.

The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) was the key cog in delivering the “Zuckerbucks” to leftist third-party groups in 2020, targeting likely-Democrat voters by harvesting and curing their ballots, and developing automatic voter registration systems.

The CTCL “is already hoping to do this on a much broader scale than in 2020,” Victoria Marshall reported for The Federalist on Feb. 14.

The Federalist had previously reported that CTCL “has an elaborate plan to infiltrate more than 8,000 local election departments across the country by 2026.”

In fact, 7 of 10 counties chosen to be beneficiaries of private funding in the 2024 election cycle have thus far accepted the funds.

“Election officials from Brunswick and Forsyth Counties in North Carolina and Ottawa County in Michigan have chosen not to accept funds from the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a program that plans to funnel $80 million in election grants to jurisdictions across the country over the next five years,” Marshall noted.

The alliance is a project of the CTCL, one of two groups that funneled over $328 million of the Zuckerbucks into 2020 election coffers.

“Many of the jurisdictions chosen as recipients for the 2024 cycle lean heavily Democrat and are located in swing states, indicating CTCL is hoping to replicate its successful scheme in the next presidential election in purple states Democrats need to win, such as Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and North Carolina,” Marshall wrote. “While CTCL might once again try to hide its efforts by claiming the alliance is also giving money to red counties, expect more than double or triple the funds to be spent on Democrat-leaning counties compared to Republican ones, just like in 2020.”

As for the counties that turned down the funding, Ottawa County Clerk Justin Roebuck told RealClearInvestigations he turned down the grant money because of transparency concerns. When Roebuck asked the U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence about its criteria for the amount of money given to each county, he said those running the program refused to give a clear answer.

Tim Tsujii, director of elections for the Forsyth County Board of Elections, told RealClear that Forsyth will not take any grant money because the county has adequate funds to administer its elections.

One place that is taking the funding, Greenwich, Connecticut, approved a $500,000 grant from the program even after town representatives and concerned residents wrote a letter to their local newspaper signaling their opposition to accepting the grant. The letter cited outside influence by the partisan groups in Greenwich’s election process as one reason to reject the funds.

As RealClearInvestigations noted: “When [Greenwich] residents heard that its elections office was tapped to receive $500,000 in grant money from the CTCL, a member of the town’s legislative council sent an email to the center seeking more information, including audits of the group’s books, a copy of the group’s annual report, and its conflict-of-interest policy.”

The CTCL declined to provide the documentation, insisting that its audited financials and conflict policies “are not publicly filed documents.”

Action . . . . Intelligence . . . . Publish