Social co-founder Mark Zuckerberg told Bloomberg’s Emily Chang that he had no intention of participating in this year’s general vote as he had in previous decades. He reiterated this in a recent letter to the House Judiciary Committee. Even thus, supporters of election integrity if let go of their sigh of relief. The” Zuckbucks” in 2020 still face problems today thanks to the nonprofits Zuckerberg once worked with. Left-leaning businesses may include set their sights on gaining more ground in rural and suburban America this year, some through grants and some through increased on-the-ground lobbying. Not only do these dangers persist, but they also continue to exist.
The Center for Tech and Civic Life ( CTCL), one of the main foundations that Zuckerberg previously helped fund, made their new” 2024 Rural and Nonmetro Election Infrastructure Grant Program” public on August 5. This comes after Republican Committee on House Administration users criticized poll grants as overwhelmingly assisting voters in left-leaning metropolitan areas over rural ones. In light of this, CTCL supporters might try to argue that this new grant, which is intended to address remote communities, is simply CTCL’s attempt to correct its flawed practices, but a comprehensive analysis of CTCL’s difficult tactics suggests a more partisan motivation to leave urban neighborhoods.
More money might seem like a good thing at first, but it wo n’t if it’s coming from organizations like CTCL. Although CTCL’s funds have historically overwhelmingly benefited Democrats in urban areas, expanding funding to liberal remote areas is not a wise decision because election grants from organizations like CTCL typically support less secure voting practices like smart voting sites and drop boxes. Additionally, personal offers led to the questionable offers of power to CTCL people, including Michael Spitzer Rubenstein, who had inadequate access to voting infrastructure and absentee ballot containers. Expanding the CTCL’s funding to rural counties only increases rural areas ‘ election insecurity.
In 2020, 28 states passed legislation restricting or outlawing the use of private funds to run elections, but even states that have prohibited private funds are not always protected from undue influence from similar organizations. Rural and non-metropolitan areas in other states are undoubtedly still susceptible to pressure from other types of nonprofits, and they should be aware of the Democrats ‘ overarching plan to squander money at rural and non-metropolitan areas that have historically been red.
‘ Protect Democracy’ in Georgia
After being outlawed in those areas, left-leaning organizations have made their struggle for dominance in rural areas a prime example of how to adapt. Despite a significant ballot mix-up concern that even the liberal Macon NAACP demanded a pause to the election, a lawyer from the nonprofit group Protect Democracy approached election officials in Macon-Bibb County during the May primary. Georgia has a deadline for certification, but it is telling that Protect Democracy has pushed for certification but not the enforcement of other election rules that would improve election security.
At a state election board meeting earlier this year, Protect Democracy proposed a rule that would severely restrict people’s ability to challenge voter eligibility and maintain voter lists. The reconciliation rule prior to certification, which only reiterates and clarifies current Georgia law, requires a comparison of the number of ballots cast in each precinct to the number of voters, was not supported by Protect Democracy. The county superintendent must halt voting until the discrepancy is fixed by the law if the numbers do n’t match up.
Election officials should aim for clean voter rolls, timely reconciliation, and timely certification, but Protect Democracy only aims for timely certification and undermines the earlier steps in the process. This effectively promotes not just certification, but certification of inaccurate results.
Other Leftist Groups
Not just the leftist organizations that are known to be expanding outside of major cities are Protect Democracy and CTCL. U.S. Digital Response is a member of the left-leaning group U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence and has suggested streamlining the grant application process to help small communities. It previously received funding from Zuckerberg and partnered with CTCL. Additionally, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Harris-Walz campaign “looks for votes in November beyond the friendly confines of Atlanta,” which supports a growing trend.
Overall, there have been improvements to election procedures nationwide. Many states have embraced Zuckbucks bans, limited drop boxes, increased the ability to observe the election process, and more. However, there are still vulnerabilities, like mass mail-in voting and unenforced ballot reconciliation, and there are still active nonprofit organizations whose work undermines procedural safeguards.
Practically speaking, this means that campaigners in small towns should consider volunteering as a poll watcher or poll worker in order to remain vigilant about the local election process. Democrats and non-profits seek to alter demographics and gain more influence wherever possible, whether it’s a Zuckbucks ban or not.
Anelise Powers is a policy analyst for the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s national Election Protection Project, which is led by Josh Findlay.
